This is an article I wrote when the US invasion of Iraq began.
The war against Iraq
27th March 2003
A week ago the USA and the UK launched their war against Iraq, and since then I've been following this war almost permanently. I have many strong views about this conflict and its larger context and felt like writing those views down. This text got very long, but I structured it nicely I think so just pick a topic if you're at all interested!
Contents:
This war is illegal
Most experts of international law (like Mary Robinson, to name one I particularly like) agree that this war is illegal. The UN Charter forbids countries to use force against other countries except in self-defence or with permission from the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not give the US or the UK permission for this war. Therefore this war breaks the UN charter and is illegal. It is really that simple.
Naturally, those who started the war or support it do not want to admit it is illegal, because that might sway some of the support for it. Their first and foremost argument was this:
- Resolution 1441 already authorised the use of force against Iraq if it did not disarm immediately and completely.
- Iraq did not disarm immediately and completely .
- Therefore the use of force against Iraq is authorised, without a second resolution being needed.
In law there is no True or False, there is only the judgement of the people who are appointed to judge. In international law, there are no judges however, so we are left to judge by ourselves.
It being clear that most experts rejected the above argument to be false, the Bush and Blair administrations set to finding technicalities to make their point, much like companies hire lawyers to find loopholes in the law. They ended up claiming that they were authorised to use force against Iraq all along because they were going to act in "self-defense" or because the resolutions of the previous Gulf War could be applied to this situation.
We all know that the USA and the UK would not have lobbied so strongly for resolution 1441 if they had really believed that they were already authorised to use force, so I'm not even going to argue those technicalities - suffice it to say that they were equally rejected by the majority of experts. So let's go back to their original argument:
- Firstly, 1441 does not authorise the use of force at all, it warns Iraq that it will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply. "Serious consequences" does not mean "war". In fact we don't know what it means, since it is delibarately vague. It could mean war, but it could also mean economic sanctions, enforced inspections, hanging all Iraqi diplomats or cutting off Saddam's dick.
No court in the world would interpret "serious consequences" to mean anything specific if those words were used in a law. There is also no precedent to fall back on. The only authority that can determine what exactly these words were intended to mean is the one that used those words in the first place, i.e. the Security Council. Since the Security Council clearly refused to confirm (in a second resolution) that they meant "war", they didn't, period. Telling the Security Council that it didn't know what it meant to say with its own words is just grotesque.
It must also be noted that the precise text of the resolution (§14) is that the Security Council "recalls [that it] has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations". It only refers to past warnings, and therefore does not provide any new authorisation for any sanction itself.
- Secondly, even if resolution 1441 had authorised the use of force against Iraq if it did not meet the resolution's demands, which it didn't, that would still not have authorised the US and the UK or any other country to unilaterally judge whether or not Iraq complied with the resolution. No matter how strong they felt that Iraq didn't do so, that would simply not be their call to make but would once again be up to the Security Council to determine, since the Security Council declared itself to "remain seized of the matter" in the resolution. Clearly many countries in the Security Council felt that Iraq was complying with the resolution.
The fact that the Security Council did not mean to authorise the use of force was obvious anyway, without all the philosophical and judicial reflections on the precise meaning of "serious consequences". If the Security Council had wanted to authorise the use of force in resolution 1441, why on earth would it not have said so clearly? Why hold back when you're trying to pressure someone into obedience? The Security Council settled for the vague term "serious consequences" precisely because it did not want to authorise a war. The vague words "serious consequences" were added to throw a bone to the US and the UK, but after the truly scandalous way in which they tried to turn this small concession against the countries that made it, you can rest assured that no more such favours will be made in future resolutions.
- Top -
This war has no international support
This is obvious, but Bush insists that he's leading a "coalition" and that it is in fact bigger than the coalition that fought Gulf War I.
Firstly, only a handful of countries in this coalition are actually participating in the war; most are just allowing the use of their air space, airports or harbours. The only countries that are really participating are the USA, the UK and Australia (and Poland?). In Gulf War I over 30 countries participated with troops or ships.
Secondly, in almost all the countries that are part of the current "coalition" a clear majority of the people are opposed to the war. These countries aren't supporting the war, their governments are, against the will of their own people. Most of these governments do so because they don't want to or can't afford to get on the wrong side of the USA, either for economic reasons (e.g. Jordan), for military reasons (e.g. South Korea and Japan which are faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea next door) or for reasons of self-interest (the Arab dictatorships that are supported by the USA).
The only countries in which the people support the war are, to my knowledge, the USA, Israel and Kuwait. The latter two have been directly attacked by Saddam Hussein and can hardly be expected not to agree with any action against him. The UK and Australia joined the war against the will of their own people. Support may have gone up after the war started but that reflects a national concern with the safety of the troops; naturally people want to win the war once they're involved in it.
- Top -
This war is unjustified and unnecessary
Everyone knows the war is illegal, but since few countries really care
about international law - certainly
not
the
USA
- that was hardly gonna stop it. What is far more important to most involved
in the discussion is whether the war is justified or necessary. The legality
of it is merely an extra argument.
War means innocent people will die. While a military policy aimed at
minimising civilian casualties may result in 'only' a few hundred innocent
civilians dieing, anyone who starts a massive war like this must consider
the possibility that it will be thousands rather than hundreds, and must
be prepared to take the responsibility for that. What justifies killing
thousands of innocent people? Let's review the justifications for this
war in the public statements of the Bush and Blair administrations.
At first, while still pushing for a second resolution, they stressed
how much we should fear Iraq:
- "Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons"
Let's forget for a minute that it was Europe and America who sold these
weapons (or the means to produce them) to Saddam Hussein in the first
place and can in no circumstances have the moral authority to kill thousands
of people to get them back. The reason why this argument is not a justification
is that we don't know that he still has them. In all the months
during which the Bush administration pushed for this war, it hasn't
managed to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence that he does.
They sent poor Colin Powell into the Security Council with nothing more
than satellite pictures that showed absolutely nothing and a tape that
demonstrated that some Iraqi unit had a "modified vehicle".
Not only was there no smoking gun, there wasn't even any smoke.
Iraq may still possess stocks of chemical and biological weapons.
In fact I think they do; they are probably buried in the desert somewhere
and won't be found for years unless Saddam Hussein decides to use them
in this war or unless an Iraqi official reveals their location after
the war.
But thinking that they still have them can not be a justification
for war as long as their is no proof. Anyone who cherishes the
basic principles of justice will consider a suspect innocent until proven
guilty. In this case there isn't any evidence at all, we are merely
speculating that someone like Saddam Hussein would rather hide his weapons
than destroy them. It goes against all moral standards to rush into
a war and kill thousands of innocent people when the main justification
is entirely based on speculation.
There is also no reason to rush; even if Saddam Hussein does still have
these weapons, they don't pose an immediate threat. He's never used such
weapons against the West, not even during the Gulf War when he had every
occasion. In fact he hasn't used them at all for 15 years now. After all
these years it is not credible to say that the threat of Saddam Hussein
using these weapons was so urgent that war couldn't wait a few months.
7 days into the war it is clear that if he'll use these weapons at all
it'll only be as a last resort.
Given a few more months, we could have verified whether Iraq indeed still
has these weapons. Iraq was in the process of demonstrating that it had
destroyed its stocks, and if the war hadn't started the UN inspectors
would have been able to verify this within months if not weeks. If Iraq
had been unable to demonstrate that these weapons were destroyed, we could
still have gone to war, with a much clearer conscience.
- "Iraq is still trying to produce a nuclear bomb"
Bush and several of his officials repeatedly stated they had a document
that proved Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. When
they turned over this document to the International Atomic Energy Agency,
responsible for nuclear inspections in Iraq, it turned out to be a forgery.
The CIA later said they had suspected that much all along (story).
- "Saddam Hussein has links to terrorist organisations"
The main strategy to get popular support for this war has been to relate
it to the tragedy of 9/11 by feeding the fear that Saddam Hussein would
deliver chemical, biological or nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists
who would use them in American or European cities. To feed this fear
it needed to be established that Saddam Hussein had links with such
terrorists, preferably Al Qaeda. Despite all efforts that went into
this, no such link has been found. Colin Powell's attempt to prove this
link anyway in the Security Council was generally considered to be desparate
and far-fetched.
Terrorists like Al Qaeda who target the west are muslim fundamentalists.
These fundamentalists and Saddam Hussein hate each other. The
very reason that the west supported Saddam Hussein throughout all his
atrocities in the 80s was that he fought the muslim fundamentalists
in Iran, in fact he slaughtered them by the thousands, with chemical
weapons and other means provided to him by the West.
Ever since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and got the West against him,
he and the muslim fundamentalist terrorists have had a common enemy.
That is all that binds them. While it is not inconceivable that Saddam
Hussein would supply weapons to these terrorists, there is not a single
shred of evidence that suggests he has done or plans to do so. It is
not something that is at all likely either. Saddam Hussein has no ideological
problem with the West, in fact he has no ideology at all. The only reason
he'd support terrorism is if he'd gain from it. During the Gulf War
he has been careful not to use chemical weapons against the Americans
although he had every opportunity, so he's probably not eager to get
caught delivering such weapons to terrorist organisations either.
- "The inspections weren't working"
The UN inspectors themselves are in the best position to judge that,
and they thought the inspections were working. They had reasonable hopes
that the inspections might be succesfully concluded "not within
weeks, not within years, but within months" (dixit Hans Blix).
It's not certain that they would have, that would have depended on continued
Iraqi cooperation, but if the UN inspectors said they could have then
that cannot just be dismissed.
- "Iraq did not cooperate immediately and therefore did
not comply with 1441"
While this isn't anyone but the Security Council's call to make, it
is no doubt true. I just want to stress the immorality of using this
as an argument for war. The question should only be whether Iraq
disarmed, not whether they could have done it a few months sooner, because
that by itself can never, ever justify killing thousands of innocent
people.
- "Iraq is a threat to its neighbours"
Iraq was a threat to its neighbours until a big part of its army
was slaughtered and its entire air force wiped out during the Gulf War.
Since then Iraq has not even been able to control its own northern territories,
where Kurds have established an independant Kurdistan and Turkish troops
have made regular incursions to contain those Kurds. It is absurd to
claim that a country that can't even control its own territory would
pose an immediate threat to its neighbours. In the distant future Iraq
might have posed a threat again, but the same goes for many other countries;
it is no justification for going to war now. The current outrage
in the Arab world about this war demonstrates how threatened they felt
by Iraq.
When it became clear the UN Security Council would not authorise a war,
the rhetoric of the American and British governments shifted to emotional
arguments aimed at convincing their own populations:
- "Saddam Hussein has used chemical and biological weapons against
his neighbours and against his own people"
They conveniently forget to add that it were in fact Europe and America
who sold these and other weapons (or the means to produce them) to Iraq
precisely for the purpose of using them against its neighbour
Iran during the 1980-1988 war, and that when Saddam Hussein used them
against his own Kurdish population in 1987 no action was taken against
him. Although more covert, support for his regime continued well after
that atrocity, up to the point when he invaded Kuwait and thus threatened
western oil interests. George Bush Sr. provided financial aid to Iraq
as late as 1990, the year in which Iraq would invade Kuwait.
How can something that the USA and Europe actively supported and something
that wasn't even enough reason to end the funding of Saddam Hussein's
regime when it happened be a justification for killing thousands
of innocent people in order to punish it 15 years later?
- "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who tyrannises his own
people"
Saddam Hussein was at his most brutal when he was the friend of Europe
and the USA in the 80s, and when he fought the uprising of his people
right after the Gulf War while American troops were standing idly by.
So again we are left to wonder how after all this time this suddenly
justifies invading his country.
But let's forget our past support for Saddam Hussein. Should brutal
dictators be removed from power by force, even at the cost of civilian
casualties? This is an interesting idea and one I don't immediately
reject. However, such a doctrine would have to apply to all brutal dictators,
not just to the ones of oil-rich or geostrategically important countries
who stop serving western interests.
At this moment such a doctrine is not realistic, there are just too
many brutal dictatorships left. It is also not credible that the USA
would enforce such a doctrine, having actively supported many of the
most brutal dictators over the past 50 years - Suharto, Marcos, Pinochet,
Mobutu, and indeed Saddam Hussein himself, to name a few - and having
been involved in toppling (leftist) democratic regimes to replace them
by (rightist) dictators (e.g. Pinochet).
- "We will liberate the oppressed people of Iraq"
There can be little doubt that a majority of the Iraqi people want to
get rid of Saddam Hussein. There was however no indication that they
were prepared to suffer this war in order to achieve that. One can only
marvel at the startling arrogance of the USA to first support Saddam
Hussein's regime throughout his worst atrocities and then suddenly decide
on behalf of the people of Iraq that it is justified to kill thousands
of them in order to liberate them.
After only one week into this war it is already clear that the people
of Iraq did not want to be liberated this way; this war has already
made Saddam Hussein more popular with his people than he has ever been.
If even the shiite Iraqis in the south aren't welcoming the Americans
and the Brits, then the sunni Iraqis nearer Baghdad certainly won't
either. But no worries, once Saddam is gone the Iraqis will do the sensible
thing and bow to the new masters who they will be completely dependent
on for the next few years.
- Top -
This war is a disaster
- Thousands of people, if not ten thousands, will die in this war; many
of them civilians, many others soldiers who joined their country's army
without any evil purpose.
- Anti-western feelings in the Arab and muslim world are being fueled
once again, ...
- Because hundreds, possibly thousands of Arab civilians are being
killed by Americans and Brits in a war that is unnecessary and unjustified.
- Because the reasons for attacking Iraq do not apply to Israel,
which has been ignoring several UN resolutions for over 30 years
now. There would be dozens more Security Council resolutions against
Israel if the USA hadn't used
its veto against them almost systematically, most of the time
in a 14 to 1 vote. From an Arab perspective, the USA going after
Iraq because it refuses to comply with UN resolutions is a very
cynical joke.
- Because Arab dictatorships are being pressured by the USA to assist
in the war. It is often forgotten that, besides the Palestinian
problem, the prime reasons for Arab resentment against the USA is
that the USA is supporting dictatorships in various Arab countries.
These dictatorships serve American interests in return for this
support, often against the will and sometimes against the interest
of their own population. This war is just rubbing it in as these
dictatorships are once again supporting the USA against the will
of the overwhelming majority of their own population.
The Bush administration claims that the war on Iraq is a means of
spreading democracy in the region, but this war and American policy
in the Middle East in general has been so instrumental in radicalising
popular opinion in these countries that democratising them is all
the more difficult.
There is already a massive outrage in the Arab world, not just on the
streets but among all layers of the populations. This will only get
worse as the war drags on. From their perspective this war is an American
atrocity against their own people, and this hurts them as deeply as
9/11 hurt America.
- A new generation of terrorists will be recruited from the angry, frustrated
masses in the muslim world. Osama Bin Laden started his personal war
against the USA out of anger over the first Gulf War, and this war is
much, much worse than the first one, since there was no immediate cause
for it and no international support.
- There is a significant risk that this war will cause other wars.
If Iraq is unstable after the war, Turkey may invade the Kurdish region
in northern Iraq to prevent Kurdish autonomy. The fundamentalist fraction
of the Shiites in the south may try to establish an islamist dictatorship,
or they may all join up and start a civil war against the Sunni minority
that has been advantaged by Saddam Hussein for decades. Iran could easily
be drawn in such a conflict. Iraq has everything to become a new Lebanon.
- This war sets a very dangerous precedent for unilateral, preemptive
strikes. India and Pakistan threaten each other with weapons of mass
destruction; what if one of them launches a preemptive strike on the
other? You'd have to hope it was succesful because a nuclear holocaust
would be the result if it wasn't.
- Starting inspections to avoid a war and then launching the war anyway,
although many perceived the inspections to be working, is another very
dangerous precedent. The whole principle of peaceful disarmament has
most likely been thrown overboard now. And if not, the next dictator
who gets UN inspectors sent over may simply refuse to let them in because
experience now teaches that he's going to be attacked anyway and will
need his weapons then.
- Breaking the most fundamental rule of the UN charter - not to start
a war against another country without a UN mandate - against the will
of the majority of the Security Council undermines what little authority
and credibility the UN had, and the UN, however handicapped by the principle
of vetos, is the only institution we have to maintain some peace in
the world.
- There is now a race on to get nuclear weapons. This war will disarm
Iraq, but it will encourage every other dictatorship that is not supported
by the USA to do everything it can to get its hands on nuclear weapons,
because only nukes now provide safety against invasion. The contrast
between how the USA treats Iraq, which was weak and no immediate threat
to anyone, and North-Korea, which may already have (untested) nuclear
weapons and openly provokes the USA, has made this painfully clear.
Be assured that Iran for a start will accelerate its efforts in that
direction to maximum speed; I would too if I was them. There will be
a lot of rhetoric, sanctions, inspections and possibly invasions in
the years ahead as the dictators of the world scramble for nukes.
In short this war introduces principles and mechanisms that make this
world a much more dangerous place for all of us. People will die as the
indirect result of this war long after it is over.
- Top -
How could this war have been avoided?
It couldn't, because the Bush administration had already decided to go
to war by last autumn, and nothing Saddam Hussein or the Security Council
could do would have stopped them (cfr. next chapter).
But let's assume for a moment that the Bush administration was sincere
about wanting Saddam Hussein to disarm and not starting this war if he
did. Then I think a solution that satisfies most of the world would have
been possible, in the form of a second UN resolution with the following
characteristics:
- UN inspections inside Iraq would continue on the same terms: anywhere,
anytime.
- Iraq would either have to:
- Give up its known stocks of chemical and biological weapons.
There would be no sanction for having lied about their destruction
all this time.
- Provide credible evidence that they have already been destroyed.
It may be very hard to prove that something does not exist
anymore, but there must be traces and a way to measure them. Iraq
and the UN inspectors were working on this before the war was started.
- The deadline would be 1 September 2003. This would have given Blix
the "months, not years" he asked for, and Iraq would have
been given a reasonable amount of time to account for its chemical and
biological weapons if indeed it destroyed them. This deadline is in
fact longer than needed, but since due to the heat you can't start a
war against Iraq during the summer there would be no advantage to setting
the deadline earlier.
- When the deadline is reached, it would be the Security Council that
would judge whether Iraq was fully disarmed or not, to avoid unilateral
action.
- The current resolution would authorise, in crystal clear words, the
use of force against Iraq if it is not judged to be disarmed by the
deadline date. This way the Security Council would already commit itself
to allow the use of force to disarm Iraq if necessary.
- The USA and the UK would be financially compensated for keeping their
troops in the Gulf for an extra six months, so the wait would have no
financial cost for them.
The above is not necessarily what I want, it is what I would suggest
as a compromise. This resolution would have given inspections extra time
- which is what the French, the Russians and most of the world wanted
- while the USA and the UK governments would have a guarantee that inspections
would not drag on forever and that Iraq would be disarmed by force
if necessary.
But again, any resolution that might have averted the war was unacceptable
to the Bush administration; and keeping all those troops in the Gulf for
another half year in return for a chance to get a UN mandate would
be a bad deal, since they were going to have the war anyway. That is why
the Bush administration opposed any resolution that would have postponed
the war until after the summer.
- Top -
Why the USA wanted this war
The official reason for this war is that Iraq had to be disarmed by force
since Saddam Hussein refused to disarm peacefully. Removing Saddam Hussein's
regime is also an official objective of the war, but only under the pretext
that it turned out to be the only way to disarm Iraq. Removing Saddam
was never officially stated to be the reason for this war, in fact
it was repeatedly stated that Saddam Hussein could avoid this war and
stay in power if he would just disarm.
The truth is that removing Saddam Hussein's regime was always the reason
for this conflict, that this war was already decided on by the Bush administration
by last summer, and that this war would have happened regardless of whether
the UN inspectors could disarm Iraq or not, regardless of whether Saddam
Hussein cooperated with them or not, regardless of whether the Security
Council approved it or not, and regardless of world opinion.
To understand this, we have to look at the build-up to this war, which
started long ago. With all the diplomatic fuss about inspections during
the last few months, most of us in Europe have forgotten that the USA
was already looking for a UN mandate to invade Iraq last autumn when it
pushed for resolution 1441, and that it never wanted these inspections.
But we have to go farther back still.
The road to war
Five years ago, in February 1998, a number of prominent conservative
hawks wrote an open
letter to president Clinton in which they publically called for the
removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, including a plan that came down to
arming the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north, inciting them
to start a civil war against Baghdad, and supporting them with air power.
Among those who signed the letter were Donald Rumsfeld, now the Defense
Secretary in the Bush administration, Paul
Wolfowitz, now the Deputy Defense Secretary ( i.e. the number two
in the Pentagon after Rumsfeld), and eight other officials of the current
Bush administration. Wolfowitz may seem less important than Rumsfeld but
is in fact a very influential figure, being a long-time ideological leader
of the branch of American conservatives who want the USA to agressively
defend its strategic and economic interests with military power. In the
past he has voiced approval of American support for various dictatorships
that serve American interests, most notably that of Suharto in Indonesia
(one of the bloodiest dictatorships since WW2) where he served as US ambassador
in the 80s, but also that of Pinochet (Chile), Chun (South-Korea) and
Marcos (Philippines). Wolfowitz was also part of the administration of
Bush Sr. during the Gulf War and ever since has been the most prominent
lobbyist for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in various articles
and speeches. In one speech
before the National Security Committee of the US Congress in September
1998, he said that the plan described in the open letter "would be
a formidable undertaking, and certainly not one which will work if we
insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council".
When Wolfowitz and fellow hawks Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice
were appointed in the new Bush administration, all in defense and security
functions, it was already speculated that Bush Jr. would sooner or later
set about completing the "unfinished business" of his father,
i.e. use force against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. There
was also strong opposition against this within the Bush administration
however, most notable from Colin Powell who favoured a policy of containment.
It wasn't clear which course the president would pursue.
Then came 11th September 2001, and the hawks got in the driver's seat.
Six days later, on 17th September 2001, Bush "directed the Pentagon
to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq" (Washington
Post article,
citing "senior administration officials") in the same top secret
document that outlined the plan for the war against Afghanistan.
According to the same Washington Post article, General Tommy Franks,
currently the commander in charge of the war against Iraq, was already
holding regular private meetings with Bush about the war planning for
Iraq in the spring of 2002. The article also quotes Bush as informally
telling a journalist in April 2002 that "I made up my mind that Saddam
needs to go", and cites Condoleezza Rice as confirming to a lower
official in July 2002 that Bush had made the decision already.
On 25th August 2002, the Washington Post leaked
a story obtained from "two senior administration officials, speaking
on condition of anonymity" that the White House had instructed its
lawyers to investigate whether Bush could launch a war against Iraq without
needing special authority from the US Congress, and that those lawyers
had concluded that he could. Naturally the Bush administration denied
that the decision had already been made.
The leaked story sparked a national debate
about attacking Iraq. Many former government officials, like James Baker,
Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft, questioned the wisdom of a preemptive
strike. The latter, a former National Security Adviser, warned that it
"could unleash an Armageddon in the Middle East".
A mandate for invading Iraq was sought in the UN Security Council, but
not obtained. All the US and the UK got out of the negotiations was a
resolution
that reinforced previous resolutions, reminded Iraq of the "serious
consequences" if it would not disarm completely and immediately,
and that restarted inspections.
Meanwhile the Bush administration started building up an invasion force
in the Gulf. All their actions indicate that they were already determined
to go to war against Iraq by then:
- They built up troops at a pace that showed a clear intention of going
to war before the summer, even when it became clear UN inspections could
not be completed by then.
- They critisized the UN inspections as useless from the very start.
- They always claimed to know Iraq still had its weapons of mass
destruction, but failed to provide any evidence. Blix repeatedly stated
that if the USA had any evidence, they should give that information
to his inspection team so it could be verified.
- They frantically sought for links between Iraq and Al Qaeda although
there was never any indication of those. No credible link was found.
- They always said they would go to war even without a real UN mandate,
preparing world opinion for their unilateral action.
- They refused to consider any second resolution that would postpone
the war until after the summer, even though that would have given them
much broader support.
Near the end of the diplomatic process, the UK government was equally
committed to the war. This is clearly demonstrated by its proposal for
a second resolution, which would have forced Iraq to bring out its known
stocks of chemical weapons and to give up its mobile production factories,
completely ignoring the possibilities that these weapons had already been
destroyed and that these mobile factories do not exist (there isn't any
evidence that they do). Noone who would genuinely want to avoid a war
would set conditions that may very well be impossible to meet. As an American
stand-up comedian joked, this resolution might well have forced Iraq to
first produce these weapons and factories and then destroy them
again - all within a matter of days.
The real reasons
Why this stubborn determination to remove Saddam Hussein from power,
even at the expense of killing thousands of innocent people, breaking
the UN charter, infuriating the muslim world and causing even more instability
in the region, and even though a peaceful solution to the threat that
Saddam Hussein posed was still possible?
There were many reasons for Bush to remove Saddam Hussein's regime. I'll
list them in their order of importance as I perceive it, although that
order has little importance. It's the totality of these motivations that
makes you understand that this war was an obvious, almost necessary course
for Bush; one that he would push ahead with no matter what.
- Revenge for 9/11. Understandably, after the terrorist attacks
of 9/11 the American people wanted revenge on those responsible for
it, and they wanted it fast. Although there is absolutely no indication
that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with those attacks, this war
is still fulfilling that need for revenge among a large part of the
American public.
It was absolutely vital for Bush to fulfill that need if he wanted to
get reelected. The campaign in Afghanistan did not suffice, especially
with Osama Bin Laden still being on the loose, and genuine solutions
for the real causes of terrorism (the Palestinian problem, Arab dictatorships
that radicalise their populations by serving western interests, poverty,
...) would be much harder, would take much longer and would be much
less understood by the American public than a quick war against Saddam
Hussein. It would also be against the corporate American interests that
the Bush administration stands for, as the rest of this list explains.
- Short-term oil interests. Iraq is the country with the second
biggest oil reserves in the world. Half the Bush administration has
ties with major American oil companies, which donated record contributions
to Bush's election camaign. Who will get the fattest contracts after
the war? Who will sponsor Bush's reelection campaign with record contributions
once again? You can bet that before this war is over, Exxon & co
will be unselfishly volunteering to help the Iraqi people exploit its
abundant resources for its own national well-being.
- a) Popularity. Bush Sr. was made immensely popular by the
Gulf War. Leaders who win wars generally gain immediate popularity.
This makes going to war very tempting to any leader of any powerful
country. It is my conviction that people drive their leaders into war
as much as they are driven into it by them, and that the soaring popularity
of leaders that start and win wars shows that deep down a lot of people
like war because of the sensation and the powerful feelings of
pride and bonding within the nation.
b) History. Winning a war gets a leader a place in the history
books. Who would remember the first Bush presidency 50 years from now
if he hadn't fought the Gulf War? Another thing that makes war tempting
for leaders.
- Long-term oil interests. Control of the world's strategic
resources in general, and of oil reserves in particular, has always
been the cornerstone of America's international policy and that of the
colonial powers before it. With colonialism a thing of the past, installing
friendly regimes in oil-rich countries is the best way to secure the
flow of oil.
To realise the importance of this, just imagine if the USA did not
have befriended regimes (mostly dictatorships of course) in the Middle
East at this very moment. The Arab League might actually unite and decide
to stop supplying oil to the USA, which could become a crushing blow
to the US economy if it lasted several weeks.
- Geo-strategic interests. Saudi-Arabia is the most powerful
Arab country and the USA's principal partner in the Arab world, but
that may not last much longer; the Saudi dictatorship is weakening considerably.
The USA used to have another powerful friend in the region: the Shah
of Iran, whose dictatorship they supported until he was removed from
power by an islamist revolution in 1979. If a similar thing would happen
in Saudi-Arabia, that would be a huge blow to American influence in
the region (and to the safety of Israel). A friendly Iraq would always
be a welcome partner, but a crucial one if Saudi-Arabia could no longer
be relied upon.
- Neutralising Iraq. The official reason for the war is not unsincere.
Even if UN inspections had been concluded succesfully, Saddam Hussein's
regime would still have had to be contained; given half a chance he
would no doubt arm himself again, and he could spread such weapons to
fundamentallist terrorists. Although it is highly unlikely (these fundamentalists
hate him as much as they hate the west, and Saddam Hussein knows it
would be suicide), it is not unconceivable, and after 9/11 the USA is
far more prepared to use force first in order to eliminate a risk.
- Relations with Saudi Arabia. Saudi-Arabia with all its corruption,
decadence and western influence is a breeding ground for terrorist organisations,
and since 9/11 the USA has been made painfully aware of that; most of
the terrorists in the attacks of 9/11 were Saudi citizens as are many
others that are still active (for example the one US security agencies
specifically warned for on the day the war started). The weakening Saudi
dictatorship is reluctant to act tough against its religious leaders
however, and since good relations with Saudi-Arabia are so vital to
its interests (see above) the USA can't put as much pressure as it would
like. With another powerful partner in the region, the USA would have
much more freedom to act.
- Completing the "unfinished business" of Bush Sr.
Several members of the first Bush administration (and Bush Sr. himself,
according to Wolfowitz) have said that they expected Saddam Hussein's
regime to collapse after his crushing defeat in the Gulf War, and that
they would probably have gone after him if they had known that wouldn't
happen. This administration reunites many members of that first Bush
administration around his son, and that remarkable reunion does make
this administration more willing to remove Saddam Hussein's regime than
it would be without that history.
- Using the army. Any powerful army has to be used regularly;
to test its equipment in actual combat circumstances, to maintain combat
experience among a significant part of its troops, and to justify its
huge cost. This is always a consideration when a powerful nation hasn't
fought a war for many years: its propensity to start one will grow as
the years go by. One need only look at history books. In this case,
with the Gulf War only 12 years in the past and many smaller conflicts
looming, it probably didn't play a very significant role in the decision.
- Personal resentment against Saddam Hussein, who is suspected
to be responsible for an assassination attempt on Bush's father and
who in any case represents a gigantic policy failure of Bush Sr. in
the eyes of many conservatives. This is certainly not the main reason
for wanting Saddam Hussein removed, but it does add motivation.
- The brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. There can be no doubt
that a majority of the Iraqi people want to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Although they may not want to suffer this war for it, it's still a factor
in the moral considerations about this war.
- Top -
"Anti-Americanism" and the French
scapegoat
While in all but a few countries in the world a clear majority of the
people oppose this war, the Bush and Blair administrations singled out
France as the one country responsible for their government's failure to
get a second resolution. These accusations were blatant scapegoat tactics.
When France and Russia announced they would use their vetos, Bush clearly
stated he would demand a vote on Blair's proposal for a second resolution
anyway, to force every country to throw its cards on the table. Later
when it became clear that the USA and the UK would not get 9 votes, they
backed off. France and Russia would not have had to use their veto, because
despite the USA's open attempts to pressure and bribe the undecided countries
just like they did with Turkey (what an incredible contempt for democracy
that shows), not enough of them swayed. Even if they had been bribed and
pressured succesfully, we know that they were really opposed to the war
and would only have voted in favour of it to not get on the wrong side
of the USA, as the Mexican government for example made clear.
The UK and the USA then used France as a scapegoat, saying France would
veto any resolution that authorised the use of force. The truth is that
France's view was no different from that of Russia, Germany and many other
countries, and that the USA and the UK rejected any resolution that would
not have allowed them to attack Iraq before the summer.
Ironically, there have been many accusations of "anti-Americanism"
against Europe and against France in particular, while at the very same
time many Americans are calling for economic sanctions against France
and while American government staff have childishly (and stupidly) renamed
french fries to "freedom fries" (stupid because the "french"
in "french fries" does not even stand for France, it's a verb
that stands for shaping potatoes in the form of fries). "Anti-Francism"
in America seems to be much more tangible than anti-Americanism in Europe.
Many people in Europe do resent American foreign policy, but most of
them like the USA in other ways (movies, music, ...). I do, and while
I'm sure there are some fanatics who hate all things American, they are
very few. The rest of us are no more anti-American than the millions of
anti-war protesters on the streets of America itself.
- Top -
Anti-war slogans
Speaking of anti-war protesters. While I strongly disagree with this
particular war (and indeed with most wars that get fought) I do so based
on a review of the specific circumstances of this conflict and on my personal
assessment of the dangers of starting this war and of the potential dangers
of not starting it. I am certainly not a pacifist and feel a lot of distaste
for naive, irresponsible and potentially dangerous anti-war slogans like
"war is never an answer", "you can't fight terrorism with
terror", and so on. But since people holding such views aren't currently
in power and aren't currently causing an unnecessary disaster, I don't
feel a need to fulminate against them like I do against those that are.
That being said, you can't put an argument as long as the one I just
wrote on a plaque or explain it in a 30 second interview, so I guess it
is just the nature of anti-war protest that it has to resort to simplistic,
stupid slogans.
FC
- Top -
