| Ruminations on Iraq (22 March 2003) Dane Coefer It's not about "weapons of mass destruction." It is about personalities and business. The US did not care when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in the early '80s. In fact, current Sec. of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld met with his buddy Saddam Hussein in Baghdad 198-, one day after a chemical attack against Iran. Two weeks later, Reagan removed Iraq from our list of States that sponsor terrorism. The US did not care when Iraq murdered tens of thousands of Kurds in the late '80s with chemical weapons. Tens of thousands of CIVILIAN Kurds. The US did care, however, when Iraq invaded and occupied (using conventional weaponry) oil-rich Kuwait in 1991. All of a sudden, International Law and morality mattered. The US did not liberate Kuwait for International Law and morality. It liberated Kuwait to save face, to maintain hegemony, to expand economic control in the region. International Law and morality merely gave the US a coalition in 1991. Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction is a violation of International Law and immoral, but other nations also possess such weapons in violation of International Law. One might say, in addition to a general violation of International Law, Iraq's possession of such weapons is also a violation of UN Security Council Resolutions ending the Gulf War. True, but those resolutions do not establish a fixed timeline for their destruction and leave to the Security Council the determination of their progress and what sanctions to implement. Flawed resolutions, perhaps, but flawed resolutions originally sponsored by the US. The US chose to reject International Law when it became clear that the member States of the Security Council were unwilling to appease the US by meeting its unilateral timetable. I believe one of the most ludicrous verbal attacks by an American official came when a (Belgian) Representative to the UN stated that the purpose of the UN was to save the world from the "scourge of war." He was merely quoting the preamble of the UN Charter, but was made subject of a torrent of scathing abuse from the arrogant (ignorant?) US. Don't misunderstand me. Iraq should have been bombed into the dark ages after what it did to the Kurds in the '80s. International forces should be used to destroy its weapons of mass destruction capabilities. But such are actions in the name of Humanity and must be be carried out with the cooperation of Humanity. It is not the role of the UN to appease powerful nations. It was the appeasement of powerful Germany by the League of Nations that led to its demise and the start of the World War it had been created to prevent. France and other nations that refuse to be steamrolled by the US are to be commended for their stands. The UN was established not just to "save future generations" from the "scourge of war," but to balance the individual and divergent "national interests" of the world community. The 1991 Gulf War was a resounding success for the International Community. International Law was for once vigorously and effectively enforced. Iraq was expelled from Kuwait and made to pay compensation for its illegal attempt to annex by force. The 1991 Gulf War was a resounding failure, politically, for the US. The military was gloriously successful, but the cease-fire was a flop. The US leadership grossly miscalculated the power of Saddam and thought that his loss and sanctions would led to his overthrow. (Although he survived a nearly decade long war with Iran that killed a million Iraqis). The mechanisms for the dismantling of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were weak as they had been predicated on the unstated overthrow of Saddam and the willingness of the successor regime to cooperate. The 1991 Gulf War was also a failure in that it strengthened and emboldened Al-Queda. "Evil" America had joined with the rich, elite, "false Muslims" of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to attack a fellow Muslim nation. Anti-American recruitment began to draw from a religious base rather than the secular "Arab" base that had been prevalent with the America's support of the genocidal State of Israel. Militarily the US will win this war. Politically, however, it is likely to be another failure. In Iraq, no one the US puts in power will have legitimacy. No one who takes power in a political vacuum left by the US will have legitimacy. The Kurds will not be content to remain part of Iraq. But no "free" Kurdistan can legitimately exist without a voluntary ceding of territory by a legitimate and uncoerced Iraqi government. No "free" Kurdistan can pragmatically exist w/o the oil of Mogul and (___). No "free" Kurdistan can be tolerated by Turkey which has for decades suppressed its own Kurdish population. Outside of Iraq, US errors in occupation will alienate more Arabs and Muslims throughout the region. The recruitment base for terrorism will increase. Already Iran and North Korea are becoming more belligerent against the US after being labelled part of the "Axis of Evil" with Iraq by Bush. Moderate political movements in Iran have been hurt after years of growth. Hardliners have strengthened their stances and powerbases. Palestine will not be freed. Israel will continue to murder civilians and children. Settlements will continue to grow. Palestinians will begin to target Americans before the decade is out. At home, Fascism will continue to grow in the US. Bush will be re-elected. (250 million people and our "democracy" elects the son of a former President to be President. 50 States and two of the most powerful were 'governed' by brothers?) Constitutional rights will continue to erode. The economic elite will remain undisturbed. The real folks will suffer. Read my ongoing Palestine Blog |