''The most foolish of wars''
By Ghazal Shafiei
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)
Printed on Sunday, September 08, 2002 @ 02:32:40 EDT
yellowtimes.org
(YellowTimes.org) – These days what seems to be in every headline in the newspapers all around the world is the impending war with Iraq. It is deemed to be the next 'step' in the famous war on terrorism by the Bush administration, and it has the whole world on edge. Yet with all his so-called justifications and saber rattling, Bush has met only resistance in his quest for Saddam's head. Never before in recent U.S. history have other countries of the world, including our own close allies, been so adamantly against a U.S. policy or resisted with such resentment as now, thanks to Mr. Bush and his hawkish advisors.
It seems as if the Bush administration has come to the conclusion that the United States is the only country that matters in this, and its interests should be taken care of by the rest of the world. In its arrogant quest to attack a small, impoverished and suffering nation that has done nothing to jeopardize our security, the Bush administration has not only isolated our country from the rest of the world, it has also revealed our hypocrisy.
In the mad dash for any justification for such a war, three main reasons are given by the Bush administration for an assault against Iraq. The first one is that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. But this administration, not for lack of trying, has not been able to provide any tangible and convincing evidence for this accusation. They suspect that ever since UN inspectors came out of Iraq in 1998, Hussein may have been amassing these weapons of mass destruction. However, the UN inspectors were not kicked out by Saddam, they decided to leave on their own. Moreover, even if Saddam does possess these weapons, he is not the only leader who has them. Many other countries in the Middle East, and the rest of the world for that matter, have these weapons. Their leaders are not known for their benevolence, but we do not insist on attacking them.
Pakistan has a military dictator who possesses nuclear weapons and is itself a country with more than its fair share of terrorist groups and supporters of Osama bin Laden. In fact, many think that it is the current base of the al Qaeda network. According to the CIA world fact book, Saudi Arabia spends 18.4 billion dollars per year, or 13 percent of its GDP on sophisticated weaponry ranking it seventh in the world and has an autocratic dictatorship at the helm. Israel is controlled by an extreme right-wing leader armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons including nuclear armed submarines, and has repeatedly threatened its neighbors with war.
The truth of the matter is that every country in the world, friendly or unfriendly, has weapons to protect itself. The idea that a country's possession of weapons of mass destruction is enough to justify an attack is not only ridiculous and dangerous, but if taken seriously by the rest of the world would lead to thousands of wars.
The second reason given for war against Iraq is that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and will do so against others; thus, the policy of a pre-emptive strike is justified. There is no question that Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and the Iranians during the 1980s; however, he did so with both the knowledge and support of the United States. Donald Rumsfeld, the current hawkish Secretary of Defense, visited Hussein as the representative of then-President Reagan during the late 1980s, and applauded him for being such a wonderful ally in his war with Iran.
Now those same weapons are used as a justification for forcing a regime change by the very same country that had no qualms about their use when it served its own purpose - clearly the irony and the hypocrisy of this has not been lost on the rest of the world. In addition, although Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, he is not a stupid dictator. He wants to retain power more than anything and knows that the use of any weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies would be signing his death warrant. However, if we do attack him and he has nothing else to lose, then he will have no reservations about using those weapons.
The Bush administration makes the argument that even if Hussein does not use the weapons, he will give them to terrorist groups. The idea that Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator who has crushed Islamic resistance groups in his own country, would give weapons to those very same groups is laughable. Yet all these "trivial" facts seem to be insignificant to Bush in his search for any justification for war.
The final reason given for Hussein's removal is that he is an evil man and that the world would be a better place without him. Many argue his removal would pave the way for a more democratic Middle East. The good versus evil story lines might work well in the cowboy movies, but the real world is a little more complicated. Of course the world would be a wonderful place without Saddam Hussein, but it would also be a better place without many other leaders too. It is not the business of the United States to decide for other people who their leaders should or should not be. For a champion of democracy, it is a most undemocratic policy for Mr. Bush to decide for other countries who should lead them. Given its history of failures of imposing leaders and/or ruling systems on other countries, the U.S. should have learned its lesson, and acknowledge that change must come from within a society for it to be a lasting change.
Instead of attacking Iraq to instigate a regime change, the U.S. should support and encourage change from within Iraqi society. The idea that the violent overthrow of a leader by a country 7000 miles away, and the replacement of that leader with another pro-western puppet dictator who would bring democracy to the Middle East is an idea lost in delusion. The fact that the Bush administration does not insist on a system of democracy for its allies in the region (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf states), and indeed actually supports those dictatorial regimes reveals the hypocrisy of the administration. Again, this is an inconsistency not lost on the people of those countries. The day the United States stops its support of all dictators in the region, and in the world, is the day when America will find allies in unusual places and will turn back the tide of anti-Americanism.
So what are the real reasons for a war in Iraq, if not the flimsy justifications I outlined above? Why the insistence, against all international pressure, to go ahead with this war? Control of almost half the world's oil supplies is a good start. If the United States overthrows Saddam Hussein and installs a pro-American dictatorship like it did with Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, then oil would flow much easier. Iraq and Iran are the only two countries in the region that are not under the control of the United States and do not have pro-western friendly dictatorships. It is not a coincidence that these two countries shared the spotlight in President Bush's "axis of evil" speech. It is not a coincidence that Washington threatens these two countries daily. (Incidentally, based on President Bush's own pre-emptive strike policy, since these countries are threatened so often, don't they have the right to defend themselves by invading the United States and forcing a regime change?)
Israel's position and defense is also another main reason for the war against Iraq. It is no surprise that Israel is virtually the only country pleading with the United States to go ahead with this war. Israel's domination of the Middle East would be ensured if the threat of Iraq was eliminated, and would further isolate Iran as the only unfriendly country in the Middle East. These real reasons are obviously seldom mentioned in the mainstream news media, but must be considered if war is to come.
All of America's allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia have warned the United States against invading Iraq. All have warned against the consequences of such an action. To destabilize an already volatile region could lead to unimaginable disasters. Most Europeans and Arab countries do not share the same view with America that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat. Saddam's neighbors, the ones who should be most afraid of any attack by Iraq, seem to be the most opposed to an invasion. The rest of the world seems to understand that the costs of such a war far outweigh the supposed spoils.
Contrary to what some hawks in the Bush administration say, this will not be a "cake walk." This is an invasion of another country and the people of Iraq will defend their homeland with a lot more zeal than these arrogant hawks think. The deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in street fighting, the danger of Saddam using whatever weapons he has against American troops leading to heavy casualties, the sheer chaos that could ensue if Saddam is overthrown, and the increase in anti-American sentiment all prey on the minds of the Europeans as they plead with the United States to consider other options.
No other country wants this war right now, and what the United States must respect are the wishes of those countries that will be most affected by this war - the surrounding Arab states. To impose its own style of justice on the rest of the world and to act unilaterally would jeopardize everything the Bush administration has been bringing together since September 11.
In an area of the world where anti-American feelings are at a fever pitch due to the Israeli-Palestinian debacle, attacking an Arab and Muslim country that has done nothing to the United States could only unleash more Osama bin Ladens and would jeopardize every single American life at home and abroad.
__________________________________________
[Ghazal Shafiei is 19 years old and was born in Tehran, Iran. She and her family fled Iran during the devastating Iran-Iraq war and came to America in 1986 when she was 4 years old. They live in Chicago, and Ghazal attends Benedictine University majoring in political science with an emphasis on international relations. She has many views on the role that Israel and the United States play in perpetuating undemocratic values in the Middle East and Asia. This article was previously published in The Candor at Benedictine University.]
Ghazal Shafiei encourages your comments: seltaeb8988@hotmail.com |
