Chinjanista
15th June 2003, 18:20
SHOULD BRITAIN GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ?
The political debate that is on everyone’s lips in March 2003 is whether war on Iraq is justified to ensure that the country does not have weapons of mass destruction. Or put differently, is a war finally the way we stop a war?
Iraq is an Arab country under the rule of President Saddam Hussein. This rule is reported to be an authoritarian one. The neighbouring countries to Iraq are Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Iraq is divided into many ethnic groups, including the Sunni Muslim Arabs, Shiite Muslim Arab and the Kurds.
Why is war being proposed?
There has in the past been conflict reported between these groups. Further Saddam Hussein has been known to use biological weapons against these people. Stopping the use of biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s minorities and neighbours is one of the reasons given for a war on Iraq.
Other reasons are given for the war: Tony Blair refers to the UN Resolution passed on Iraq that called for disarmament and for compliance with UN weapons inspectors to make sure that all weapons of mass destruction were destroyed. He and George Bush now state that this UN resolution has been breached and that if they do not force Iraq to disarm then the UN will not be taken seriously again. They say that war is the way to make people respect the UN.
There are some who say that the US proposes war simply because it can. George Bush is planning to go to war with Iraq because he can do it and get away with it as the leading military power in the world. He is simply following the Republican rule book which states that the United States of America must be feared as the Military Super power of the world. No single person, sect or country can stand in its way and it will go to all measures to crush those that attempt this. Confronted with September 11th and the attack on the Twin Towers, the US response is to ‘fight back’.
But is the war justified?
To answer this we have to look at the two contending parties and what the options are.
Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
Saddam Hussein is the shady figure behind all the publicity and politics in the west. Who really is this character and how did a ‘peasant’ from a poor rural town outside Baghdad, Iraq, become one of the main tyrants of the world today?
WOULD THE REAL SADDAM HUSSEIN PLEASE STAND UP?
There is sufficient evidence from history to show that Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction in the past.
When Saddam was a young boy his father died and he went to live with his stepfather. His stepfather beat him and he ran away to live with his uncle. His uncle during World War Two was a nazi – sympathiser and hoped that the German’s would win. Saddam was even jailed for pro – nazi activities. The uncle taught the nephew that there are three entities on earth that should never have been allowed to emerge: Iranians, Jews, and flies. Of the three, the uncle taught the young Saddam, the noblest is flies.
Having moved to Baghdad as a teen, Saddam joined the Arab Baath Socialist Party, founded in Syria dedicated to secularism (worldy, not religious or spiritual, matters), socialism and pan-Arab unionism. Saddam and several others attempted to assassinate Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, who came to power in a military coup. Saddam was shot in the leg but he escaped and fled Iraq. He was sentenced to death for his role in the assassination plot.
Saddam climbed the Baath party ranks while in prison. A year later, he’d escaped from prison and played a leading role in a coup that led to the rise of Iraq’s new leader; Saddam's cousin.
As vice chairman Saddam promoted many progressive ideas in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He improved hospitals, allowed women more freedoms and administered a national literacy program. He did this by threatening jail time to those who didn't learn to read. (effective!) He also focused on Iraq's infrastructure, bringing electricity and pure water to remote areas, and building and improving roads.
In 1980, he entered a war with Iran that would last eight years and cost 500,000 Iraqi lives and a million Iranian lives before ending in a stalemate. During this time, Saddam Hussein received quiet support from the United States. From the US he received those exact weapons of mass destruction that the United States accuse him of having. It was at this time that the United Nations allege that Saddam ordered Iraqi forces to use mustard gas and nerve agents on Iranian soldiers, and that he unleashed chemical weapons on rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq.
But the US was implicated in this!
This raises doubts about the role of the US in dealing with this issue. If the US was implicated in arming Saddam Hussein, it has no moral authority to disarm him. It has military power, it is true, but by arming Saddam Hussein in the first place it has already shown that it cannot be trusted to take unilateral action. Its actions must be brought under the control of a wider body of nations, the United Nations.
This is not to argue that Saddam is a just leader. It is however to argue that the issue here is about removing weapons from a leader who could use them. This cannot be done by a power who have themselves used them. This role should be played by the United Nations in a diplomatic, firm, transparent and just manner.
War with Saddam will lead to violence against ordinary people
Saddam has lasted longer, nearly a quarter century, than previous Iraq dictators, most of whom died violently, because he has been the most ruthless. He has not even hesitated to have family members executed if he considered them traitors. He nevertheless relies on relatives and close associates to maintain his power. Saddam Hussein himself is both president and Prime Minister. He was re-elected in 2002 as Iraqi president with nearly 100 percent of the popular vote. There was no opponent on the ballot.
Despite and because of Saddam Hussein's long reign of brutality speculation is widespread about what a post-Saddam Iraq might resemble. The country would have a long way to travel to regain internal support and respectability.The only commonality among the several dozen opposition groups is the desire to replace Saddam Hussein.
As his powers have increased, so have Saddam's quirks and fixations. The dictator wrote a copy of the Quran in his own blood, according to the Iraqi media, which report that Saddam is descended from Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.
Saddam's fear of assassination has prompted him to take several extreme measures. He sleeps just four or five hours a night at secret locations. Not only is all of his food carefully prepared and inspected, but the chefs in each of his more than 20 palaces also cook three elaborate meals a day - whether Saddam eats there or not.
If U.S. and British forces do confront Iraq, Saddam says, they will suffer immensely and ultimately loose -- statements echoing those he made shortly before the Gulf War more than a decade ago.
"The path of blood can only lead to more blood," Saddam said in an October 17th speech.
Saddam will sacrifice his own people as human shields, and a war with him will cause untold human suffering. He may bank on the fact that the US and British troops are not willing to carry out such slaughter of innocent people. If they do, they will suffer with those they kill. Experience indicates that this is likely to be a gruesome war, where both sides will suffer badly, not matter what promises are made of a quick resolution.
Does the USA make a convincing case for war?
BUSH AND HIS WAR PLAN – WHY?
I would argue that they don’t- they project a demand for war, rather than a case for war. To understand the war fetish, perhaps we have to look beyond 9/11, beyond the Middle East, even beyond the precious black oil, to behaviour that seems to be branded into the Republican administrations since Reagan. Reagan invaded Grenada on rather vague grounds sending a message to all foreigners who tried to stand in the way of US opinions.
George P Bush, the father of the current George W Bush continued the tradition, invading Panama and sending a message to Central America that there was a powerful neighbour watching them.
Bush II has chosen Saddam Hussein as the target of attack. He has given the world a new military doctrine- the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military assaults.
It's now abundantly clear that war with Iraq was on the agenda from the moment Bush took office. The war fit in tactically with the new administration backlash against the Clinton support of diplomacy and treaties, working in a multilateral framework and with the United Nations. Bush uses war to prove his superpower status, while Clinton used diplomacy and peace. The difference is in the Republican militarist approach, and the huge space it was given after September 11 by the American public.
None of this justifies war- it simply explains it.
If not for the sake of it – why else?
There is a hidden reason – control over the oil fields of Iraq. This would give the USA secure sources of oil and economic power. The question is, military means were used to acquire wealth in the middle ages, but is it appropriate in the 21st century? The answer must be no, otherwise we would degenerate into warring factions over resources, instead of producing and trading.
The threat of September 11th is also posed as a reason. This gave the Americans unlimited license to bomb, arrest, and commit acts of violence in the name of protection. Bush’s administration used this license in Afghanistan and even used it against Americans, to detain and deport people suspected of being illegal immigrants. There are however arguments that war as a response to September 11th type attacks is exactly what will lead to more September 11th type attacks. Blair does not convince the public when he says war is the protection against such attacks. Surely a more secure global world for everyone, including all people in the middle east, is the way to stop such attacks or at least to find the people who plan these things before they can strike.
Given that most of the reasons given by Bush seem to be bad ones, it would appear that the White House is in fact really showing that facts, logic, figures, domestic and world opinion, and international organisations are less powerful than US military power and offer no protection from American force.
Bush is showing the world that war on Iraq may be cruel, stupid, dangerous, fatal it may even put our safety and interests at risk, but even so, he wants to say, with an angry Texan drawl, I’m doing it BECAUSE I CAN! He is doing it ONLY because the USA is a military superpower.
Should the UK go along with this?
The UK is not a military superpower. UK citizens do not want to go back to the middle ages, or even the empire. The UK is part of the global world of political diplomacy and negotiation, of trade, of information flow and of using law and politics to solve problems.
UK foreign policy cannot endorse or be part of the dictatorship of Iraq, but neither can it be part of a singular military strategy that does not recognise a world in which diplomacy has force, and that is not willing to subject military power to diplomacy.
Most importantly the citizens of the UK do not want war.
People in the UK have joined other citizens of the world to resist war as a means of dealing with unjust regimes. This does not take attention away from the fact that strong measures are needed to deal with weapons of mass destruction, to stop biological and chemical warfare and to stop unjust politics. However the threat of military power now has such devastating consequences that it cannot be used by one country without a framework of wider international and political control.
Unless we successfully make this happen, we will also not achieve the goals of justice, equity, security and prosperity that are after all the major target of this issue.
Britain should not be drawn along with the US. Britain should use its power to intensify the pressure that will grow from a community of nations and from legal, diplomatic and political routes to deal with military crime. British leaders should respect and not manipulate the will of their electorates. War is not the way to peace and security.
The political debate that is on everyone’s lips in March 2003 is whether war on Iraq is justified to ensure that the country does not have weapons of mass destruction. Or put differently, is a war finally the way we stop a war?
Iraq is an Arab country under the rule of President Saddam Hussein. This rule is reported to be an authoritarian one. The neighbouring countries to Iraq are Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Iraq is divided into many ethnic groups, including the Sunni Muslim Arabs, Shiite Muslim Arab and the Kurds.
Why is war being proposed?
There has in the past been conflict reported between these groups. Further Saddam Hussein has been known to use biological weapons against these people. Stopping the use of biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s minorities and neighbours is one of the reasons given for a war on Iraq.
Other reasons are given for the war: Tony Blair refers to the UN Resolution passed on Iraq that called for disarmament and for compliance with UN weapons inspectors to make sure that all weapons of mass destruction were destroyed. He and George Bush now state that this UN resolution has been breached and that if they do not force Iraq to disarm then the UN will not be taken seriously again. They say that war is the way to make people respect the UN.
There are some who say that the US proposes war simply because it can. George Bush is planning to go to war with Iraq because he can do it and get away with it as the leading military power in the world. He is simply following the Republican rule book which states that the United States of America must be feared as the Military Super power of the world. No single person, sect or country can stand in its way and it will go to all measures to crush those that attempt this. Confronted with September 11th and the attack on the Twin Towers, the US response is to ‘fight back’.
But is the war justified?
To answer this we have to look at the two contending parties and what the options are.
Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
Saddam Hussein is the shady figure behind all the publicity and politics in the west. Who really is this character and how did a ‘peasant’ from a poor rural town outside Baghdad, Iraq, become one of the main tyrants of the world today?
WOULD THE REAL SADDAM HUSSEIN PLEASE STAND UP?
There is sufficient evidence from history to show that Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction in the past.
When Saddam was a young boy his father died and he went to live with his stepfather. His stepfather beat him and he ran away to live with his uncle. His uncle during World War Two was a nazi – sympathiser and hoped that the German’s would win. Saddam was even jailed for pro – nazi activities. The uncle taught the nephew that there are three entities on earth that should never have been allowed to emerge: Iranians, Jews, and flies. Of the three, the uncle taught the young Saddam, the noblest is flies.
Having moved to Baghdad as a teen, Saddam joined the Arab Baath Socialist Party, founded in Syria dedicated to secularism (worldy, not religious or spiritual, matters), socialism and pan-Arab unionism. Saddam and several others attempted to assassinate Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, who came to power in a military coup. Saddam was shot in the leg but he escaped and fled Iraq. He was sentenced to death for his role in the assassination plot.
Saddam climbed the Baath party ranks while in prison. A year later, he’d escaped from prison and played a leading role in a coup that led to the rise of Iraq’s new leader; Saddam's cousin.
As vice chairman Saddam promoted many progressive ideas in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He improved hospitals, allowed women more freedoms and administered a national literacy program. He did this by threatening jail time to those who didn't learn to read. (effective!) He also focused on Iraq's infrastructure, bringing electricity and pure water to remote areas, and building and improving roads.
In 1980, he entered a war with Iran that would last eight years and cost 500,000 Iraqi lives and a million Iranian lives before ending in a stalemate. During this time, Saddam Hussein received quiet support from the United States. From the US he received those exact weapons of mass destruction that the United States accuse him of having. It was at this time that the United Nations allege that Saddam ordered Iraqi forces to use mustard gas and nerve agents on Iranian soldiers, and that he unleashed chemical weapons on rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq.
But the US was implicated in this!
This raises doubts about the role of the US in dealing with this issue. If the US was implicated in arming Saddam Hussein, it has no moral authority to disarm him. It has military power, it is true, but by arming Saddam Hussein in the first place it has already shown that it cannot be trusted to take unilateral action. Its actions must be brought under the control of a wider body of nations, the United Nations.
This is not to argue that Saddam is a just leader. It is however to argue that the issue here is about removing weapons from a leader who could use them. This cannot be done by a power who have themselves used them. This role should be played by the United Nations in a diplomatic, firm, transparent and just manner.
War with Saddam will lead to violence against ordinary people
Saddam has lasted longer, nearly a quarter century, than previous Iraq dictators, most of whom died violently, because he has been the most ruthless. He has not even hesitated to have family members executed if he considered them traitors. He nevertheless relies on relatives and close associates to maintain his power. Saddam Hussein himself is both president and Prime Minister. He was re-elected in 2002 as Iraqi president with nearly 100 percent of the popular vote. There was no opponent on the ballot.
Despite and because of Saddam Hussein's long reign of brutality speculation is widespread about what a post-Saddam Iraq might resemble. The country would have a long way to travel to regain internal support and respectability.The only commonality among the several dozen opposition groups is the desire to replace Saddam Hussein.
As his powers have increased, so have Saddam's quirks and fixations. The dictator wrote a copy of the Quran in his own blood, according to the Iraqi media, which report that Saddam is descended from Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.
Saddam's fear of assassination has prompted him to take several extreme measures. He sleeps just four or five hours a night at secret locations. Not only is all of his food carefully prepared and inspected, but the chefs in each of his more than 20 palaces also cook three elaborate meals a day - whether Saddam eats there or not.
If U.S. and British forces do confront Iraq, Saddam says, they will suffer immensely and ultimately loose -- statements echoing those he made shortly before the Gulf War more than a decade ago.
"The path of blood can only lead to more blood," Saddam said in an October 17th speech.
Saddam will sacrifice his own people as human shields, and a war with him will cause untold human suffering. He may bank on the fact that the US and British troops are not willing to carry out such slaughter of innocent people. If they do, they will suffer with those they kill. Experience indicates that this is likely to be a gruesome war, where both sides will suffer badly, not matter what promises are made of a quick resolution.
Does the USA make a convincing case for war?
BUSH AND HIS WAR PLAN – WHY?
I would argue that they don’t- they project a demand for war, rather than a case for war. To understand the war fetish, perhaps we have to look beyond 9/11, beyond the Middle East, even beyond the precious black oil, to behaviour that seems to be branded into the Republican administrations since Reagan. Reagan invaded Grenada on rather vague grounds sending a message to all foreigners who tried to stand in the way of US opinions.
George P Bush, the father of the current George W Bush continued the tradition, invading Panama and sending a message to Central America that there was a powerful neighbour watching them.
Bush II has chosen Saddam Hussein as the target of attack. He has given the world a new military doctrine- the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military assaults.
It's now abundantly clear that war with Iraq was on the agenda from the moment Bush took office. The war fit in tactically with the new administration backlash against the Clinton support of diplomacy and treaties, working in a multilateral framework and with the United Nations. Bush uses war to prove his superpower status, while Clinton used diplomacy and peace. The difference is in the Republican militarist approach, and the huge space it was given after September 11 by the American public.
None of this justifies war- it simply explains it.
If not for the sake of it – why else?
There is a hidden reason – control over the oil fields of Iraq. This would give the USA secure sources of oil and economic power. The question is, military means were used to acquire wealth in the middle ages, but is it appropriate in the 21st century? The answer must be no, otherwise we would degenerate into warring factions over resources, instead of producing and trading.
The threat of September 11th is also posed as a reason. This gave the Americans unlimited license to bomb, arrest, and commit acts of violence in the name of protection. Bush’s administration used this license in Afghanistan and even used it against Americans, to detain and deport people suspected of being illegal immigrants. There are however arguments that war as a response to September 11th type attacks is exactly what will lead to more September 11th type attacks. Blair does not convince the public when he says war is the protection against such attacks. Surely a more secure global world for everyone, including all people in the middle east, is the way to stop such attacks or at least to find the people who plan these things before they can strike.
Given that most of the reasons given by Bush seem to be bad ones, it would appear that the White House is in fact really showing that facts, logic, figures, domestic and world opinion, and international organisations are less powerful than US military power and offer no protection from American force.
Bush is showing the world that war on Iraq may be cruel, stupid, dangerous, fatal it may even put our safety and interests at risk, but even so, he wants to say, with an angry Texan drawl, I’m doing it BECAUSE I CAN! He is doing it ONLY because the USA is a military superpower.
Should the UK go along with this?
The UK is not a military superpower. UK citizens do not want to go back to the middle ages, or even the empire. The UK is part of the global world of political diplomacy and negotiation, of trade, of information flow and of using law and politics to solve problems.
UK foreign policy cannot endorse or be part of the dictatorship of Iraq, but neither can it be part of a singular military strategy that does not recognise a world in which diplomacy has force, and that is not willing to subject military power to diplomacy.
Most importantly the citizens of the UK do not want war.
People in the UK have joined other citizens of the world to resist war as a means of dealing with unjust regimes. This does not take attention away from the fact that strong measures are needed to deal with weapons of mass destruction, to stop biological and chemical warfare and to stop unjust politics. However the threat of military power now has such devastating consequences that it cannot be used by one country without a framework of wider international and political control.
Unless we successfully make this happen, we will also not achieve the goals of justice, equity, security and prosperity that are after all the major target of this issue.
Britain should not be drawn along with the US. Britain should use its power to intensify the pressure that will grow from a community of nations and from legal, diplomatic and political routes to deal with military crime. British leaders should respect and not manipulate the will of their electorates. War is not the way to peace and security.