Once again America is in the mood to flex is military muscles, predictably gun-ho to embrace the politics of sword over the pen, this time calling for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Its stated goal: to oust Saddam and install a government more friendly to American interests in the region. But America has neither the moral authority nor legal precedent to interfere with the internal politics of another country, as other countries do not have license to interfere with the internal politics of America; a calculus that falls on deaf ears as America seems hell-bent on playing by its own rules, refusing to see past its hubris and hypocrisy, bent on making our already dangerous world an even more dangerous place.
It should be recalled that before Iraq became the menace that it is now, its military was developed with America’s blessing and big bucks. In more recent years, in the chess game of world power, America has not-so-quietly established military bases in Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Kazakhstan and recently in Afghanistan. Which begs the question: what are the real reasons behind America’s desire to topple Iraq?
The Achilles heel of American power is oil. Those outside CNN’s state sponsored sphere of influence understand that America’s presence in Afghanistan is fuelled secondly by Bin Laden and the Taliban, and firstly, by oil, in the form of a pipeline America wants to construct from Kazakhstan to the Persian Gulf. Americans (Dick Cheney and his slick ilk) would like nothing more than to take over the mother lode of oil that is Iraq’s greatest asset; not to speak of diverting media attention from its failed foreign policy initiatives in Israel, and in Columbia where opium crop production is up by 25% despite the war on drugs -- and now India and Pakistan. Lest we forget, Colin Powell is still embarrassed by his catastrophic 1991 Gulf War decision not to finish off Iraq. Bush’ popularity is down. Someone’s got to pay.
If Iraq is indeed developing weapons of mass destruction, or tipping its scuds with anthrax, it is its right to do so as a sovereign nation, just as it is India’s and Pakistan’s right to develop nuclear arsenal, as the Americans have done, as Israel has done. America is the most armed nation on the planet and since Hiroshima it has set most of the precedents in the deployment of new weaponry.
Seeing as how our system of justice thankfully does not allow a convicted thief who has paid for his crime to be prosecuted for a future robbery, Iraq cannot be held accountable for acts of war it has not committed. And besides, Tarik Aziz and Saddam Hussein are sufficiently versed in the nuances of world politics to think twice before sending scuds into Israel, or launching a frontal attack against either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, or firing long range missiles into Europe. Simply stated: America does not have to pre-emptively attack Iraq because the world knows as soon as Iraq launches a first strike it will cease to exist as a country. The kindergarten mathematics of deterrents will dissuade Iraq from acts of folly it cannot survive.
So will America survive its own folly if it pursues this catastrophic, illegal, pre-emptive first strike strategy?
There is an insufficiently acknowledged historical axiom that should give America cause to pause: that the moment a country considers itself to be one of the goods guys, it begins to act like one of the bad guys.
Dear Sir or Madam:
Since a decade of US antipathy to Saddam has flit past, certain things seem evident to me, though I may be mistaken:
[i] The US hasn't been able to oust Saddam, even with the greatest of difficulty, till today. Like Quaddafi and Castro, I expect Saddam to outlast Dubya as he outlasted his father. Dubya being ousted before the next elections seems more probable. After all, he didn't even win the election.
[ii] If Hussain had nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, [a] he would have used them against the US by now after the provocation of merciless bombing. He has the same moral right to nuke the USA as the latter had to atom-bomb Japan in 1945. Much has been made of the 4000 who died in the WTC incident last Sep. 11, while little is mentioned of the 4000 children only, not counting adults, perishing on a monthly basis due to sanctions on Iraq. [b] they may have been set off due to the bombing, and [c] the US would not have started bombing Iraq.
[iii] Patrick Henry once asked, 'Is life so sweet, or peace so dear . . .' long ago. Since life is so sweet and peace so dear [within their own country] for Americans today, they are not a credible force on the ground. A mere glass of local water or malarial mosquito-bite may kill them long before any fighting.
[iv] No one could be more contemptuous of US ground forces than treacherous ex-Generals who egg them on the assurance that the Iraqi Army'll fold like a house of cards the moment their heroic boots hit Iraqi soil. "Time" may've decreed the American GI Man Of The Century, but I doubt he's stupid enough to believe his own PR. Their recent torturing and killing of Al-Qaeeda prisoners who had surrendered was unimpressive, rendering it unlikely that anyone will be surrendering to them in the foreseeable future. I expect that Iraqis may fight to the death in the event of a ground war.
Even if the US gained a Pyrrhic victory, it would bode ill for the world and its economy, as that too may not prove the end of the story.
Cordially,
Ashoke [Dasgupta] 'Aquilla'
ashoke_dasgupta@hotmail.com
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada