|
|
|
Thoughts on
Iraq
March
23, 2003
There has been a remarkable shift in tone the
past few days -- in parliament, on the news and also the streets. Now that
war has started, the mood suggests, we should focus our energy on supporting
the troops. We're in this thing, there will be time for debate later, and
the focus of this moment should be making sure things end as quickly and
effectively as possible. At the risk of seeming manipulated by the media,
I have to agree.
I was not for this war. I have moaned and ranted
about it, posted messages of distress all over the internet, and when a million
people turned up for the London march on February 15, I made sure to be one
of them. I was warning about this conflict, like so many others tarred as
radical, long before it was so much as a topic in the mainstream. There was
warmongering from the American administration even before September 11, and
on that day, when so many people were looking in horror at the destruction
of the World Trade Centre, my concerns were on more. Sympathy and shock were
my logical reactions. My instinct was fear; not of terrorists, but of George
W. Bush.
You probably know my opinion of the president.
I think that he is a narcissistic opportunist, his smirk inspired by getting
off on power and playing to the crowd. That he stole that power in one of
the most shocking subversions of democracy in the history of the United States.
That his ego is inflated by his embracing of fundamentalist Christianity,
and that he possesses a dangerous belief that God selected him for his current
job.
He is not a man who should be leading a nation
to war, and he is lying when he claims that the war was not planned. While
United Nations resolutions are his current excuse for action, we know that
the body did not even occur to him until Blair and Powell had whispers in
his ear. And yet there is a case for war, eloquently expressed in the House
of Commons this week. September 11 changed the urgency of American foreign
policy, Bush feels an understandable need to eradicate threats, and since
the world community agrees that Iraq is dangerous and must disarm, its regime
is the most politically viable one to topple at the moment. There's nothing
dishonest about exploiting political viability, say the supporters of military
action -- if we're all agreed that Saddam Hussein has the potential to be
a threat, and we have the international agreements to get him in line, what's
wrong with dealing with him once and for all?
Fair points. But I think the anti-war voices outweigh
them. War is not the same thing as eradicating threats, we say -- that's
the kind of easy myopic thinking that never works, and shows a lack of learning
from history. The further we drift from WWII, the less we remember the political
dialogue of its aftermath. Rebuilding countries makes them peaceful, and
that involves long-term, detailed plans, rather than bombing campaigns followed
by a few large cheques for the record. The U.S. refuses to learn that it
needs to put the effort in -- ask the people of Nicaragua, or look at the
way warlords are being paid off in Afghanistan, which is the kind of policy
that created Al-Q'aeda in the first place.
Bush says he's fighting a war on terrorism. But
while he sees Arab terrorists simply as evil men, and the solution to them
being the killing of evil men, a more sober view would recognise that their
violence is inspired by a problem with Western aggression, and more of it
is simply going to fuel them. When he suggests that sorting Iraq out is the
same thing as waging war, he doesn't seem to recognise that it's gonna make
other countries nervous, that war is impractical and never creates peace,
tempting though it may be to think so. When people talk about "destabilisation
of the region", it might sound like a lame catchphrase from a university
politics lecture, but they're talking about something very real. Aren't Iran
and North Korea gonna think they're next? And even worse: What if they
are?
The pro-war lobby asks the peaceniks what we want
to do about Iraq and world terror if we're not for war. We respond by saying
that war is going to cause more problems than it solves. They say that's
not offering a specific solution, and they think this means their own plan
is justified, simply because it is clear. This is not what I call logic.
You wanna solution? How about calling Saddam Hussein to the International
Criminal Court? That would be legal, and it would give legitimate reason
for military intervention when Saddam goes on the run. It would also require
the US to be part of the court, which under Bush it 'unsigned'. You wanna
take away ammunition for terrorists? Put more effort into sorting out Israel,
and quit making things worse by playing up to the image that causes strife
in the first place. All this takes is courage -- the courage to stop placating
that terrible government with billions of dollars in aid, and to stop vetoing
UN resolutions that attempt to protest its actions. The US is right when
it says Chirac is acting cowardly and protecting his own interests, but he's
not the only one.
But here's the point. All of the above is academic
right now, because we are in the process of fighting. We know that the crimes
of Saddam Hussein's regime are not our reason for invasion, and that the
worst of them happened in the 1980s, when Hussein was on our payroll. What
is tempting to forget is that the regime is nonetheless barbaric: The potential
of its end is something we should relish.
The way it will end is shameful. We have no right
to be in there. But you know what? We are in there. The negatives of war
are in play. We need to shift the debate, and when we speak out, our pressure
should be an attempt to bring about the positives. We need to not undermine
our soldiers, so they can finish their job with as much efficiency as possible.
We need to keep stressing the importance of reconstruction, and make known
that we will take back to the streets if abandonment and puppet government
becomes policy.
Right now, the debate does not seem to be shifting.
The number of protestors has shrunk, but that means their diversity has
disappeared, and the majority of people vocal are socialist loudmouths repeating
the same old slogans of unhelpful hostility. What these people should know
is that they give bad name to a worthy cause. War is going to end quickly,
with a coalition victory. This does not prove the anti-war lobby wrong, but
that's what people will say -- unless we make clear a vision for the future,
built on constructiveness rather than complaint.
The word "protest" is used too much, and "activism"
not enough. Those of us who did not want this war should remember the impetus
for our position: it's not that we are weak, but we loathe the arrogance
and fear the aftermath, be it immediate or at some point down the line. Now
that the pro-wars are discussing what will happen afterward, the rest of
us should catch up. If all you're doing is bitching, I would submit that
you are doing so to make yourself feel better rather than trying to have
an effect. The purpose of making a stand is to grab a piece of heaven and
bring it down to earth, not just to be seen standing.
COPYRIGHT©
2002 Ian Waldron-Mantgani
Commentary
Index
UK
Critic main page
|
|
![[Image]](http://www.ukcritic.com/posbanr2.gif)