| The Unspoken Case for
War with Iraq
(First Published 10. 27. 02 at 17:18 Sierra Times)
In
my article "I have a letter:
Kofi Annan or Neville Chamberlain?", I predicted that President
Bush had got himself into a difficult dilemma by taking his Iraq case to the UN.
I predicted that he
would have to stand by as the UN prevaricates, and hope that Iraq does not
acquire nuclear weapons, let alone use them. Alternatively, he would have to
ignore the UN and attack Iraq.
The latter, unless the President can bring the action within some tenet of
presently accepted International Law, could well amount to an aggressive war; a
war crime.
The two weeks which
have passed since Kofi Annan's announcement of Iraq's acceptance of weapons
inspectors have only complicated the President's dilemma.
His room for maneuver
is being restricted by the day, and his choices are becoming more stark.
But it is in precisely
such circumstances that true statesmanship can shape the destiny of mankind.
Conversely, the lack of it can, and usually does, portend to international
anarchy.
In spite of the
President's attempts to make a case for his Iraq policy, his difficulty is that
there isn't one, at least not on the quick sand he has sought to build it. But
the unspoken case is water tight and imperative. And it needs to be made. But
let me first demonstrate why the current case is doomed, especially in the
forum of the United Nations.
If Iraq was seriously in a position to develop and
use nuclear weapons, leaving aside other WMD's for the time being, the country
undoubtedly most at risk is Israel.
When Israel
perceived such a danger some twenty years ago, it acted. And it acted in the
face of severe international censure. Israel
will undoubtedly support any action against Iraq
on the simple premise that Iraq
is a declared enemy of Israel.
And the weakening of a potential foe is not something rational people oppose
without very good reason.
But Israel, as far as I can ascertain, is not actively
calling for immediate action to avert imminent danger from Iraq. On the
contrary, the US is
constantly admonishing Israel
for diverting attention away from the Iraq question by focusing on Yasser
Arafat. Israel, the
President complains, is complicating the intended action against Iraq, not
facilitating it.
Could the simple reason
be that Israel knows Iraq is not really much of a threat at present,
and if it does become a threat, Israel
knows she has the capacity to deal with it?
Events
seem to support that premise. Israel
is far more concerned about Yasser Arafat.
So why the focus on
Arafat by Israel, to the
clear displeasure of the US?
The answer is simple. Israel is on
the "front line" and can make assessments only on the basis of real
and tangible facts. Israel
does not have the luxury of "picking her fights." Fights are thrust
upon her. She must evaluate where the greatest dangers lie and respond
accordingly. One miscalculation could spell extinction. For Israel the
stakes are high.
More important, Israel makes
policy in her own national interest, not on a strategic global level.
So why the apparent
'disregard' for the supposed dangers posed by Iraq? Because Israel knows that Iraq is governed by a tyrant whose
primary objective is securing his power, hopefully in perpetuity through his
family. Such people are brutal, but they are also rational, albeit with a
psychopathic rationality. Saddam Hussein is no suicide bomber. I suspect Israel is aware, however, that a time may well
come when Iraq
will have to be dealt with. I see no evidence that Israel thinks that time is now.
Israel rightly sees the most
imminent danger in Yasser Arafat. Not in his person, nor his leadership (more
properly, lack of it), nor in a crippled Palestinian neighbor state headed by
him. If the question was purely a terrorist with his band of followers living
alongside Israel, Israel has the
means and the will to eradicate them.
That is not the
problem. The problem is far more dangerous. Arafat is only a symbol of the
problem, perhaps the symbol of the problem.
Arafat can not make
peace with Israel.
Peace has been easily within his grasp on many occasions. He could have
embraced it. But like a spoilt child, displeased with a gift, he has always
thrown it away.
He does so because he knows
that the Islamic world, especially the Arab Islamic world, will not tolerate
it. Arafat is not the tail that wags the dog. He is but a tick on the dog.
Without the dog, he dies. And the dog is Islam.
Not Islam in the
abstract, but Islam as now accepted by the Muslim man, woman and child. Those
in the bazaars; those in the offices; those attending the Mosques; even those
who do not attend the Mosques. From the so-called radical, fundamentalist
Muslims to the so-called moderate Muslims.
The Islamic Arab rulers
have dug themselves a hole from which they can not climb out.
When oil was discovered
in the Arabian Gulf in the early twentieth
century, a great deal of money came into play. Those in the region who got
their hands on it first had to devise a way to keep it. They resorted to a
ready made formula for authoritarian rule; Islam.
Islam as the literal
word of Allah. To secure their elevated positions and newfound wealth, the Arab
rulers imposed Islam in its most brutal and authoritarian form. They 'legitimized'
their approach by reference to Islamic law. Attention was diverted from their
indulgences by focusing, to the point of indoctrination, on Islam. Pure Islam.
So although many
benefits were introduced to previously penniless people, nomads, Islamic law
was imposed ruthlessly. More importantly, it was hammered into children.
When Israel was
created in the midst of this new Islamic world, the "dangers" were
obvious. Also, the people had been primed, more accurately indoctrinated, in
Islam. A new threat to Islam had materialized. No longer would it be necessary
to justify distortions in the Islamic world by contortions of Islam.
Even better, the Koran
already identified the Jews as having the greatest enmity to the Muslims, along
with the pagans. The Koran also exhorts Muslims to fight the Jews, even with
their lives.
Israel was a godsend. A real
life "enemy" which the Koran had a good deal to say about.
Every verse in the
Koran vilifying the Jews was identified and hammered home, constantly,
especially in schools.
And so the "great
evil" of the "Israeli terrorist state" became a living reality
to every Muslim, not only in the Middle East,
but across the Muslim world. And the rulers could breath easy.
Ironically, even their
spectacularly farcical attempts to overrun the new Israeli State
played to the advantage of these rulers. The wars created a "victimized
people"; the Palestinians. And persecutors, the Jews. Everything the Koran
said about these "vile" people proved 'true'.
So it was fundamental
that the Palestinians remain victims, so that the Jews remained villains. To
achieve this, the rulers even had to abandon Islamic teaching of
"compassion" for their brothers; the Palestinians had to be
sacrificed. The villain had to be constantly on the minds of the Muslim people.
And for decades that
has been the form. The villain Israel,
condemned in the Koran, suppressing Palestinian brothers.
But such a thorough job
has been done in "educating" Muslims in literal Islamic teaching,
that not only is the prospect of peace with Israel now impossible without
betrayal of what the Muslim masses have been taught for decades, but any
apparent deviation from Islamic "teaching" will threaten the rulers
themselves. A classic case of being hoisted on your own petard.
So when the Arab League
proposes peace with Israel,
on the basis of Israel
withdrawing to pre-1968 borders, and demanding the return of Palestinian
"refugees", it is common knowledge in Muslim circles that it is
simply a clever ruse to gain advantage against Israel in preparation for a final
lethal strike.
In short, Muslim Arab
rulers enter a true "peace with security" deal at their peril. Arafat
can not do anything which may undermine long standing vested interests. He is a
pawn.
Israel knows the rulers of
the Arab world, indeed the rulers of most of the Islamic world, are doomed. Europe believes it can maintain the cozy status quo. And
the US wants to attack Iraq.
Israel believes it is best to
confront the problem now; get rid of Arafat so the process can begin. Without
Arafat the Arab rulers have to do one of two things: go to war for what they
have been saying to their people for decades, or face the consequences. The
chaos which may follow is manageable at the moment. It may not be in five years
time.
Muslim rulers,
particularly the Arab ones, know perfectly well that they have created a
monster that is set to devour them. While the Super Powers faced off during the
Cold War, these rulers exploited the courting of the West and the East to their
advantage. They were important players, and they could focus the attention of
their people on the villain Israel.
Now everything is
different. The only Super Power is the friend of their foe.
So the Arab rulers have
had to turn to the West for help to subdue the monster they created. And what
do they seek from the West? Nothing less than the sacrifice of Israel.
Although their leverage
is much reduced, the Arab rulers still have some trump cards, or at least what
they perceive to be trump cards.
The first is the threat
of collective suicide of the rulers; unleashing the monster. Unlike Israel, which
believes the monster can be tamed, the West panics at the prospect. The thought
of "moderate Arab rulers", mostly 'sympathetic' to the West, being
replaced by Islamic fundamentalist governments controlling the vast oil
resources of the Middle East terrifies the
West. They also fear a conflagration in the Middle East
into which the West will be inevitably drawn.
The Arab line is
simple: if you think we are bad, just imagine the alternative. An Afghanistan type Talaban rule in the entire
Middle and Near East, possessing nuclear
weapons, churning out Usama bin Laden's in the millions to be unleashed on the
West.
Setting that scene, the Arab rulers resort to their second trump card; anti-Semitism
in Europe. They identify, rightly, differences
between Europe and the US,
which they consider ripe for exploitation. Apart from Europe's historical
anti-Semitism, Europe is also more vulnerable than the US to Muslim
oil and trade. So the Arab rulers have exploited this to ensure Europe puts
pressure on the US to deal
with the "Palestinian issue"; that is, to sacrifice Israel to save
them from the monster they created.
Finally, the Arab
rulers resort to what they consider to be their final trump card. In fact, it
is no more than kicking up dust. The Arab League threatens that an attack on
one of its members would be an attack on them all. It would open the
"gates of hell." Considering their inability to collectively drive Israel into the sea, the threat, when directed
towards the US
and the West in general, seems a little ambitious. It smacks more of the first
"suicide option".
This all brings us back
to the President of the United States
and Iraq.
In summary, these are the issues that confront him as he considers his next
move.
First, Israel's
apparent policy based on the reality of the situation. It can be summed up
thus. Where a people, a nation, or in this case the whole Arab nation, even the
whole Islamic nation, have been so indoctrinated in hate and vengeance, only
utter defeat in conflict will regain the senses of the people. They have
history on their side. The Germans and Japanese were indoctrinated with just
such fanaticism before the Second World War. Negotiating, compromising,
appeasing and capitulating did not vanquish the threat. Cold, brutal, reality
did.
Second is Europe's position. With its inbred anti-Semitism, and
Liberal Fundamentalist leaning towards the radical activist's admiration of the
likes of Arafat, Europe wants to appease the
Arab rulers. Europe refuses to believe that
these people can have ulterior motives. And in any event, sacrifice of Israel would not be considered too high a price
to pay in many establishment circles in Europe.
Europe refuses to acknowledge that the
fanaticism of every day Muslims is akin to that of the prewar Germans and
Japanese. They chant their mantra of "tolerance" in the blind hope
that it will cure all evil. They are the three monkeys, not seeing, not
hearing, not speaking.
Third is the Arab world
itself. And most of the Muslim world. Their position is clear. Exploit where
you can, then bluster and stamp your feet. These rulers have one concern;
saving their pompous behinds from their own monster.
Finally, there is that
'mighty' international institution, the United Nations, the den of despots and
dictators. A forum where the likes of Zimbabwe's
dictator Mugabe has "equal" voice with the President of the United States.
Where despots seek sanctuary under the blanket of "international law"
when it suits them, otherwise scoff when they are scolded for brutality against
human beings that would do discredit to the most savage of beasts. Where
"State Sovereignty" and "noninterference" are the 'dishes
of the day'.
And it is in this
theatre of farce that President Bush chose to cast his fortunes. Where all the
various interests I have identified are jostled over in back rooms. Where egos
are large, and principles small.
Out of these competing
interests and deceit, the President wants a "clear" policy on Iraq to emerge.
A policy that lets the US
attack Iraq.
And we should be clear on this; it will be the US. The UK, and any other coalition
"partners", will be bit players who will hopefully not get in the
way.
Now I can see nothing
in what has been said to date that convinces me that Iraq is such a threat that it is
imperative that it be attacked now. Like the Israeli's, I don't perceive it as
much of a threat at all. But for the reasons I outline below, I am fully
supportive of the President and would urge him to deal with Iraq
irrespective of the UN, allies and weapons inspectors. And I would urge him to
do it now!
Whether my reasoning is
the true motive behind the President's determination to attack Iraq, or
whether it may just prove to be the beneficial outcome, I think is irrelevant.
I hope it is the former, for that would demonstrate statesmanship by President
Bush of the magnitude of Churchill.
My reasoning is this. Pakistan
already has nuclear weapons and has a history of supporting terror. It also has
a history of dictatorial government. Its' people are predominantly Muslim with
a venomous hatred of the West. Pakistan
also has ballistic missiles.
Iran is developing nuclear
weapons and delivery systems. It is effectively an Islamic dictatorship. It
makes no secret of its hatred of the West, especially the US.
Between these two
dangerous countries lies Afghanistan,
now with a US
friendly government and US troops to "keep stability".
Iraq sits plumb in the
middle of the Arab world, West of Iran. To the North is Syria, hedged in by Turkey,
one of the few US
friendly, predominantly Islamic countries. To the South lie the Gulf States, the oil and
the hub of the Islamic world. To the West, through Jordan
and Syria, lies Israel.
Consider two scenarios.
First, the overthrow of the Pakistan
government which is replaced by an Islamic dictator who will have nuclear
weapons. Iran
acquiring nuclear weapons. And the ousting of Saddam (not by the US)
and the installation of another Islamic dictator, who shortly after also
acquires nuclear weapons. The Islamic monster created by the Arab rulers will
have become a dragon, a fire breathing dragon, that could devastate much of the
earth, and certainly civilization as we know it.
Then consider the other
scenario. A swift and hopefully low casualty war to dispose of Saddam. The
establishment of a US
friendly democratic government, permitting religion, but being secular. And Iraq, a more
traditionally secular state, is the ideal choice for such a transformation. The
Islamic fervor of the Gulf States is unlikely
to be an obstacle to secular democratic government in a new Iraq.
In this scenario,
suddenly a whole swathe of territory in the midst of the Islamic world will
breathe the fresh air of democracy. With free neighbors, the taste of freedom
may become infectious across borders. Islamic fanaticism may be tempered. But
if it is not, the US
will not be pandering to despots in the region for bases from which to slay the
monster created by the Arab rulers. If events require that fanaticism be
crushed, as happened with Germany
and Japan,
it will be swift and relatively painless, unlike the Second World War.
It would also explain
the President's apparent irritation of Israeli actions that divert from the Iraq issue: there are a coincidence of interests
between Israel and the US, and the
whole civilized world. Perhaps Israel
has not been told of the strategy, if indeed the strategy is conscious.
So the game is already
on, whether by design or by default, but it is certainly on. If the next move
is decisive and bold, checkmate will be but a few short moves away. The Arab
rulers know this. They want to remove from the board the Saddam pawn, hemming
in their King, before it is taken by the President. That way, they hope, the game
can go on, or at least, end in stalemate.
So I implore the
President, do not heed the advice that counsels "Bush Craft" in the
United Nations.
If you must seek
advice, heed rather the advice of Brutus to Julius Caesar: " There is a
tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to
fortune."
It
is not too late, yet!
Copyright Š Joseph
B.H. McMillan 2005 All
Rights Reserved
|
