Iraq - Gulf War II

©Prakash John Mascarenhas. Bombay. 2^nd August 2003.
This page is Copyright.
Yesterday, when I got home, I found a package for me. It was the Apropos of Lent 2003.

I do not know who put my name down for this zine, but I think it would most probably have been the late Fr. William Astbury, S.J., whom I knew at St. Peter's, Bandra.

However, it has been some years since the zine was last published.

Opening the book, I found that it was full of references to "Pope John-Paul II" and quotes from him, so that I found it extremely distasteful and cannot read it.

However, I did read at least the few initial pages, and I found there an article, or Editorial, on Iraq. That article set me thinking.

There are many errors in that article, and I have already articulated my own relative position to that of the two (or more) belligerent groups involved in Gulf War II.

A Catholic is one who is obliged to pursue the truth, and not make compromises. Of course, invincible blindness exculpates. However, I doubt that the author of this article could claim "invincible blindness."

I will concentrate on two particular points of the article.

1. On page 13, para 2, we are told that ...the CIA secret intelligence assessment on Iraq of October last indicated that the probability of Saddam initiating an attack without provocation on the United States in the foreseeable future was low. 2. On page 15, we are told: Steve Bradshaw claims that the policy of removing Saddam from power derives from A Clean Break, a study made by an American conservative group chaired by Richard Perle, and published by a think tank in Israel. It was devised to remove Iraq as the main strategic threat to Israel. Sir Andrew Green warns that, "If we are going to war on an Israeli drum, then that would be a very foolish thing to do." In opposition to these, I will make some statements as to background facts, and counterpose questions to them.

For convenience sake, I will use the short form "SHT" to refer to Mr. Saddam Hussain al'Tikriti, the dictator of the Arab Colony in Assyria-Chaldea.

We grant that it is a fact that in his early years, SHT was cultivated by those who are today opposed to him. And what conclusions do we draw from that fact?

History is evidence that men err, and that they learn from mistakes.

The number of people who stood for and praised Adolf Hitler prior to the commencement of World War II includes those who were latter forced to be his most assiduous foes.

And so on and on. So, why is this point being raised again and again? Who is not learning from history, or actually refusing to learn, if I may ask a pointed question?

Again, it is stated that the Alliance is discriminatory, that it discriminates between SHT/Iraq and North Korea, when the latter has been doing all it could in order to force a confrontation.

However, that is not really true, and that this is so should be evident to all who are right-thinkers.

North Korea is a puppet state of Communist China. Its government and head-of-state is propped up by and patronized by Communist China. Therefore, when we "see" North Korea posturing and making a spectacle of itself, we all know that it is conveying a message from Communist China.

And we know that taking on North Korea is to take on Communist China, that Communist China will necessarily intervene in any attack aimed at North Korea and thus the war will spread.

And we also know that Communist China is both a formidable military power and also a Nuclear Power, so that the Alliance would think long and hard where it came to an involvement with it.

Some may call this Hypocrisy. It is not. It is purely realist politics.

At the end of World War II, the West knew that it was not in the position to take on the Soviet Empire and liberate those whom it had enslaved. And so it made a Devil's Bargain, dividing Europe into Soviet and Free halves - the Yalta Pact. It took something like nearly fourty years of diffused warfare - the Cold War, in order to undermine and overthrow the Soviet Union.

Ditto for Communist China and its puppet North Korea.

And a third point. It has been claimed that the USA acted to liberate Kuwait purely out of self-interest, due to its need to safeguard its oil supplies.

But what is the basis of that claim?

The USA has not always acted honestly and altruistically, that is certain. However, it also remains true that it has, in fact, so acted, honestly and altruistically, and that frequently.

There was no oil, I believe, that brought the USA into the War against Hitler. I do not believe that the huge number of US troops that died to liberate France, Belgium and many European states from Hitler did so because there is oil beneath French, etc. soil.

Again, the USA spent a lot of its time and money - and even lives - over the years of the Cold War to prevent the expansion of the Soviet Union, and to contain it, not because of oil but largely because of a sincere belief in freedom.

We know the poisonous propaganda of the Left, that the sole and real motive of the USA was always selfish, while the USSR had always acted "altruistically". We, as Catholics, can have no part in that nonsense.

Many people, and our author too, has made the wisecrack comparing the US's own stockpile of various types of weapons, and that of SHT.

But such talk is merely ignorant. It is an admitted fact that the US stockpile is not illegal. And that SHT had covenanted, in the Capitulation Treaties, that he would NOT seek and possess such weapons. And that, yet he did.

Therefore, there is a huge and immense moral and ethical difference between the US, French, English, Russian, Chinese, Israelite, Indian, Pakistani, etc., stockpiles of various types of weapons, and that of SHT.

It takes a blockhead — or a malefactor — to confuse the two.

But let us come back to SHT/Iraq.

We have here a man demonstrated to be a psychotic mass murderer, a megalomaniac who looked upto and dreamt of emulating the ancient Assyrian and Chaldean emperors, Sennacharib and Nabuchodnossor, etc.

First, he attempted to capitalize on Iran's trouble in order to expand his turf, and when that failed, he turned to fellow-Arab Kuwait.

When faced with the Alliance determined to liberate Kuwait, he attempted to complicate the situation by striking without PROVOCATION at a third party, and a non-belligerent, Israel, in order to pull it into the war, and convert the War to liberate Kuwait into an Islam vs. Rest-of-the-World War.

He would have succeeded too, in putting the whole world at risk, only that the USA persuaded Israel NOT to retaliate, not to be provoked and to join the war, thus transforming it.

And, necessarily, that involves some sort of guarantees for the security of Israel against "LOOSE CANNON" SHT!

Finally, when defeated, he covenanted to certain conditions imposed upon him by the victorious powers.

However, from day one, he has been insincere.

He has been found to have infracted those conditions as and when he could.

He sought to create and obtain biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and when caught, he has admitted to it, claiming, however, that he had also unilaterally rescinded these programs and destroyed his stockpile of biological and chemical weapons.

That claim is unbelievable and such an action on his part would be uncharacteristic of him.

Again, SHT also built more than a hundred missiles, the al'Samouds, which had a range greater than that permitted him by the Capitulation Treaties.

Those missiles were obviously meant to strike at Israel.

Whatever our difficulties as Catholics with Israel are, no sane and believing Catholic can countenance or justify such actions — or remain unmoved to counter-action in the face of such possibilities.

For another thing, SHT worked to break up the unity of the Allied Powers, and did gain over many states, principally France due to its cupidity, so that the Regime of Containment imposed upon him subject to his complete compliance with the Capitulation Treaties was progressively weakened.

He played games with the world, kicking out the UN Inspectors when world unity had been breached, and thus becoming free to pursue his old and unchanged agenda unchecked.

In the face of all this, I ask two questions in counterposition to the two points I have picked up:

What is the basis of any belief that SHT would not attack the USA unless provoked. And what would constitute 'provocation' to a man who conceives his own 'reality'?

In my mind, SHT harboured resentment towards the USA for its part in his defeat during the Kuwait War, that he was insincere towards his commitment to disarm, and sought to obtain and use (naturally!) chemical and biological weapons.

Even granted that SHT would "kindly" refrain to attack the USA, out of some sudden birth of philanthropy or humanity in his heart, is it not certain that he was aiming to attack Israel?

I ask, Even granted our severe problems with the Zionists, can we be idle bystanders in the face of such a threat from SHT to invade and "liberate" the Holy Land for his beloved "Palestinian" terrorists?

I ask, Which sane man or woman will argue that we should be idle bystanders and that we should not pre-empt any effort to attack Israel?
I ask, Which sane man wanted to wait and see SHT grow powerful enough to resume his dream projects? To see SHT invade Syria, the Jordan, and into Israel? To see him murdering and butchering Israelites, to see Arab soldiers raping Jewish women and girls in the streets of Jerusalem?

Who in his sane mind wants the World Powers to stand by and watch while SHT went out and created yet another humanitarian disaster, a huge and expensive refugee problem?

Therefore, in my mind, keeping aside the relative question of Israelite evil, I believe that the Campaign to Pre-Empt SHT was and is lawful and just.

America's Mistakes
The USA has certainly made some mistakes. The most obvious is that it did not finish its job properly during the Kuwait War, by going in and finishing off SHT as it should have. It permitted him an opportunity to escape, and it permitted him more time to perpetuate his mischief.

A job worth doing is a job worth doing well.

Again, it has made the mistake of trying to justify its actions against him in Round 2 by apparently lying to people of some link between SHT and Osama bin Laden. That is still, however, an open question, for I believe that while making the claim, the Bush regime tends to keep evidence to itself until it has achieved closure. That at least is my impression.

Lastly, it has rushed in to finish off SHT without a serious preparation for the task. I do not know why, but I have an intuition that that was because of some intelligence that SHT was planning to do something dramatic, and dramatically stupid and catastrophic, and had to be pre-empted.
©Prakash John Mascarenhas. Bombay. 2^nd August 2003.
This page is Copyright.