20 January 2005
Iraqi Misadventure = Global Nightmare
Why did so many people oppose Bush, Blair and Howard going to war in Iraq?
By going to war without a UN Security Council mandate while using now discredited and fabricated evidence, Bush, Blair and Howard have actually set a very dangerous precedent. Now, any country wishing to settle scores with another can simply manufacture a pretext, bypass the UN and claim retrospective legitimacy for doing so.
If we don’t allow this logic to justify invading someone’s home and bashing their face in, why should we accept Bush, Blair and Howard doing the same thing? On a more global perspective, if and when China invades Taiwan using the same strategy, what moral grounds would the trio have to oppose China’s actions?
By opposing the Iraqi invasion, wasn’t this supporting Saddam Hussein, his NBC weapons development, the World Trade Centre suicide attacks and the atrocities committed against his own people?
Let’s be very clear from the start about what people who opposed the invasion supported or didn’t support. We opposed Hussein and were thoroughly prepared to back a war to act against him, if one was needed. But we supported going to the proper forum for determining what action to take against him. That forum is called the UN Security Council. It is not the White House, 10 Downing Street nor Kirribilli House.
That forum judged insufficient evidence existed to take the drastic step of visiting war upon a country and inevitably killing civilians along the way. Recent history has now proven that the UN Security Council was correct. In addition, no less than a US Congressional investigation concluded that the so-called evidence of Iraq developing NBC weapons, being involved in the WTC attacks and responsible for every other ill in the world, wasn’t worth a brass razoo.
Who in their right mind should now believe a single word that emanates from the White House, 10 Downing Street and Kirribilli House? Their actions and words following exposure of the fabricated evidence are telling. Notice how they changed their original reasons from NBC weapons to regime change or to even more lamely, “the Iraqi people are better off without Hussein anyway.”
If regime change and “leaving the Iraqi people better off anyway” were the true reasons, why didn’t Bush, Blair and Howard, who apparently believe their own nonsense, offer these reasons to the UN Security Council and their own people in the first place? Could it be because the trio knew nobody would countenance a war for such reasons?
Many Bush, Blair and Howard supporters claim that it was the approach of appeasement towards Hitler, which eventually led to World War II. So how can critics defend opposition to the war as anything other than appeasement?
Again, let’s be clear about pertinent historical facts. In the run up to World War II, Neville Chamberlain sought to “appease” Hitler by acquiescing first to the union of Austria with Germany (forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles), and then to the eventual complete annexure of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did so believing it would prevent war in Europe.
In the case of Iraq, the country had been shattered by its defeat in the first Gulf War of 1991. Its economy was in ruins due to UN-imposed sanctions and I should add, a little reported but extremely active 11 year campaign of air strikes by US, British and French forces in Northern and Southern Iraq. Remember the so-called “No-Fly Zones” or more properly, Air Exclusion Zones? That’s what they were about.
In the period January to August 1999 alone, US and British aircraft launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets for no losses of their own. In fact, over the life of the zones, no US or British losses occurred. That's certainly not evidence of a threatening Iraqi military force.
The point of the observations is that Iraq, shattered by the 1991 Gulf War and crippling UN sanctions was in no position to defend its own airspace, let alone threaten its neighbours with invasion or territorial annexure like Germany before the war. There was no need to defend “appeasement” of Saddam Hussein in the run up to the recent Iraqi War because there were no threatening actions to appease.
As for the other claims of threats from NBC weapons and involvement in the WTC attacks, the US Congressional investigation has already demolished these arguments and consigned them to the dustbin of history.
Many Bush supporters claim he is like Churchill, standing up to tyrants like Saddam Hussein. So why not support Bush, a man after Churchill’s heart?
We really shouldn’t insult the memory of Churchill and British honour by equating Bush with Churchill! Bush has neither the intellect nor gravitas to be equated with Churchill’s little toe. Let the historical facts speak for themselves, since Bush supporters seem not to know their history.
In the lead up to World War II, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, was tasked by Hitler to devise a pretext for Germany to invade Poland. Operation Himmler, as it was known, involved a series of staged anti-German provocations which then gave Hitler the excuse to invade Poland in September 1939. Churchill went to war because Germany invaded a sovereign country, Poland, and not because of sham claims of forbidden weapons!
With all the sordid lies over Iraq now having been exposed by the US Congress and the US NBC weapons inspector appointed by Bush himself, it’s more relevant to equate Bush’s actions with those of Hitler.
The US now occupies Iraq and wants to hand over power to a government formed after elections in January 2005. Isn’t this worth supporting?
Let’s use a simple analogy to address this question.
Your friend is unhappy with a difficult neighbour. He claims to have evidence the neighbour is a drug trafficker and so wants to enter the neighbour’s house and bash his head in. You object and advise a better and more legal way is for your friend to take his evidence to the police. He does so but the police say more evidence is required before taking action. Not satisfied, your friend replies saying that the police and courts are ineffective and outdated, and besides the court never hands down judgments in your friend’s favour anyway.
Based on this reasoning, your friend then does as he intended, enters the neighbour’s house, bashes the neighbour’s head in and kills some of the innocent occupants along the way. Later, following further investigation, the police say the evidence provided was fabricated by your friend. Now, this friend wants you to help him bury the bodies, rebuild the house, install new owners chosen by him and foot part of the bill. Would you agree to help your friend?
Switch to Iraq now. If the forthcoming elections are truly democratic, would the Bush regime really countenance a Muslim government hostile to the US, coming into power? Or would it run Florida-style elections to ensure its chosen puppet Allawi gets elected?
How much legitimacy would Allawi have in the eyes of Iraqis? After all, this is the man who laughably claimed responsibility and authority for ordering the “liberation” of Falluja. If the US Marines have been doing all the fighting, and the US has an immutable policy of not placing any of its troops under foreign flag command, who are Allawi and Bush trying to kid?
Allawi now and after the elections, if they occur, will have as much legitimacy as the worthless and corrupted American puppet of the Vietnam War, Ngo Dinh Diem. Without a continuing US military presence on the ground in Iraq, Allawi would last as long as his Vietnamese predecessor did.
Changing the subject a bit, isn’t Islamic terrorism a real danger to the world and must therefore be fought vigorously?
Let me say this unequivocally. Islamic terrorism, like any other brand of terrorism, is a real danger to all manner of civil societies. People responsible for terrorist acts must be hunted down and brought to justice. It is because the threat they pose is so real, so savage and so insidious and the psychological disruption so widespread, that our counter actions must not only have clarity of focus but most crucially, integrity of purpose.
Neither clarity of focus nor integrity of purpose can exist if they are corrupted by deceptions and diversions like the Iraq War. This is because non-Muslim countries cannot hope to defeat Islamic extremists without moderate Muslims joining in action with us. Why should they believe that our counter actions aren’t directed against their religion but at the criminal actions of Islamic terrorists; when our position is tarnished by lies of our political leaders? Who believes proven liars?
This is the fundamental reason for our anger with Bush, Blair and Howard. By their behaviour, they have gravely undermined the prosecution of a deadly serious battle against a savage and insidious enemy. Being trans-national, they exist within a moderate religious-cultural milieu spanning the globe. Without assistance from members of this Muslim milieu to point out and help hunt down these extremists, we will lose the battle.
The US military is the most powerful in the world, so why is help from moderate Muslims needed anyway?
Each mis-step by Bush, Blair and Howard, whether born out of stupidity, arrogance or ignorance, simply scandalises more and more moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If the US and the incredible shrinking Coalition of the Willing struggle to subjugate 25m Iraqis, how will they cope with subjugating 284m Indonesians, 24m Malaysians, 26m Saudis and 69m Iranians? These are just a few Muslim countries whose populations oppose US actions in Iraq, never mind non-Muslim countries like France, Germany and Spain, to name a few, who also bitterly oppose the Bush administration.
Simple arithmetic tells us that there are far more anti-Bush, anti-Blair and anti-Howard people around the world than there are supporters. Unless the neo-cons intend to declare war against the growing numbers of people who oppose them, the power of the gun cannot win in what is a battle for the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims. So how do Bush, Blair and Howard intend to intimidate moderate Muslims around the world into cooperating with the US? Threaten use of nuclear weapons if they fail to cooperate? Conduct pre-emptive strikes in their countries? Declare a crusade (to quote Bush) against them? Is this more or less likely to convert moderate Muslims into fanatics; welcoming death in defence of their faith?
Bush et al also seem to believe that if moderate Muslim governments are intimidated into submission, the ordinary people will automatically follow. If this is the neo-con strategy, they should think again. After all, if the world is being urged to close ranks against Islamic radicals who threaten our way of life, why wouldn’t embittered moderate Muslims around the world close ranks with the likes of Al Qaeda when their way of life is threatened by the US, Britain and Australia? Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Were this to happen, the battle against Islamic extremists would be lost. We would not only swell their ranks beyond their wildest fantasies but also ensure their survival for generations to come. The trans-national terrorists would find ready refuge in the global Muslim milieu and those Muslim governments cooperating with the US would fall like skittles in a bowling alley. This is because these governments would be judged by their people to have failed to defend Islam.
Do the neo-cons have a strategy to manage the resulting anarchy around a good portion of the world then? Or is their solution to nuke the newly multiplied enemy? Do Bush, Blair and Howard believe that the rest of the non-Muslim world including China, will stand idly by, believing they aren’t next? Welcome to World War III and oh please, leave your life at the door.
Has anything good come out of the war in Iraq?
In a word, no.
It has already been said many times by numerous parties; including no less than the US government’s own National Intelligence Council, that even if Iraq wasn’t a hotbed of terrorism before, it is now – thanks to Bush, Blair and Howard. In our deadly serious battle against homicidal terrorists, what is critical in the bigger picture is whether the Iraq War has galvanised moderate Muslims to join with us in defeating Islamic terrorists.
Looking at the grotesque images from the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, dead non-combatant civilians shrugged off as “collateral damage,” or a cigar chomping, ghoulishly grinning US Marine officer saying that Falluja (with a deserted street in the background, full of buildings reduced to rubble) has been “liberated,” would any moderate Muslim or fair-minded non-Muslim seriously desire to be associated with, let alone participate in our cause? If anything, the tragic events unfolding in Iraq are unwittingly creating the opposite effect within moderate Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the globe.
Let me tell you about a startling discovery I made when visiting Singapore in October 2004. Some people may know that Singapore was one of the first countries in SE Asia to raise the alarm about Jema’ah Islamiah (Al Qaeda’s SE Asian counterpart) after detaining 22 extremists planning to bomb the US, British and Australian diplomatic facilities there.
Immediately after the WTC attacks, there was much sympathy and support in Singapore for the US in taking action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. That was in late 2001. Yet, by late 2004, every friend I know has expressed disquiet or outright hostility towards Bush’s actions in Iraq.
For a country which has long been a close US ally, and also a regular recipient of boorish treatment from a Muslim neighbour, Malaysia, this was startling. It was even more sobering to me that these views came from non-Muslims. If non-Muslims in Singapore think this way, how do we think moderate Muslims in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and elsewhere around the world feel?
Do we honestly believe moderate Muslims will come forward and join the battle alongside nations led by proven liars and war-mongers - and here’s the sting - also re-elected by their people? Or would they be justified in concluding that we are hypocrites and refuse to join in action against the extremists?
What is a critical issue now?
Before and after the Iraq War, Bush, Blair and Howard disingenuously and dishonestly portrayed legitimate questions about their motives for going to war, as attempts to do a “Neville Chamberlain.” That Bush et al portrayed these questions as attempts at appeasement should have caused their citizens to demand a light be shone upon their leaders' hidden agenda.
Instead, Bush and Howard have been rewarded with re-election by voters who didn’t know, still don’t know, or don’t care about what these men did. How can this be portrayed as democracy when these men haven’t been held accountable for their deception and more seriously, complicity in an unwarranted and illegal war?
Now that both men are claiming strengthened mandates because of increased shares of votes, people daring to question Bush’s and Howard’s actions are labelled as anti-American and anti-Australian. So it now seems that citizens who voted against both men and still dare to question the men, are guilty of treason!
For those who support these men’s actions, if this is what American and Australian democracy is about, then the citizens of these countries are lost. And their most dangerous enemy is to be found in the mirror.
