Iraq – You Break It, You Buy It
From the very beginning, I have been against the invasion of Iraq.
A little over 1 year later, we are left with a sad story about oil, greed, freedom fries and weapons of mass destruction. It was never about democracy.
Something went wrong last year, something important, that shouldn’t be forgotten. Namely that the second Gulf War was started on false premises. It is important to remember, because this fact alone signifies not only a major democratic problem, but a significant change in the way nations wage war. It is a dangerous precedent, that an invasion can be justified by bad “military intelligence”.
Denial and Deception
In February, 2003, Colin Powell visited the UN in an attempt to rally support for an invasion of Iraq. In a colorful presentation set in big bold, beveled letters entitled “Iraq – Failing to disarm”, he presented the U.S. case.
He mentioned several reasons why invading Iraq was absolutely critical at that time; Saddam Hussein had attempted to obtain nuclear weapons materials from Africa. Saddam Hussein had connections with Al Quaeda. Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and the iraqi neighbors. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
- The evidence that Saddam had tried to obtain nuclear weapons materials from Africa was forged.
- The claim that Saddam Hussein had connections with Al Quaeda, was later contradicted and withdrawn.
- The “imminent threat” that Iraq supposedly pose, is invariably tied together with the fact that no weapons of mass destruction was ever found in Iraq. The U.S. has virtually given up on the search. David Kay, former top U.S. weapons inspector plainly said, “we were all wrong”. Rumsfeld even lied about his statements about the urgency of the war.
All this seems to have been forgotten. But it is a vitally important fact, that the war was started on false premises. It is a point that cannot be argued.
Instead, the purpose has changed. Now the war is no longer about disarming a threat, it’s about liberating a country.
“America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people” – From State of the Union address, January 2004
Indeed the capture of Saddam Hussein was a positive step, but the master-plan for removing him from his throne was flawed all along. The amount of troops needed to fight the war was miscalculated, not to mention the consequences…
“Things have gotten so bad inside Iraq … we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” – Cheney, prior to the war
– Instead the troops were met with a guerilla war.
I cannot claim to have all the answers to what should have been done instead of this war. But initiating a preemptive war based on false premises, with a flawed plan, without UN support definately wasn’t the way to go.
In fact, it all comes down to cause and effect. The cause for the war, was forged. The effects are yet to unfold. I hope for the best, but fear the worst.
Why not North Korea?
There are many wrongs, in our messy little world. As a planet, we should strive to right these wrongs, and make it a better place. Iraq, did indeed have a brutal dictator, and the cruelties commited in the former regime were unforgivable. No-one can argue this. Something had to be done.
But is this different from what happens in China, North Korea, Cambodia and most parts of Africa? No. Cruelties and atrocities happen every day, all over the world. This doesn’t mean we should stand by idly and do nothing, quite the contrary. But when pondering specifically the Iraq war, one has to think, why Iraq, when there are so many other places just like it? Well for one, North Korea probably has nukes, so we can’t “liberate them” right at the moment. The same goes for China. Africa is quite a mouthful. And Iraq has oil. That’s right, the precious black commodity that flows in tonnes, every day. In a world where oil fuels our entire society, I refuse to believe that the second largest proven oil reserve had nothing to do with the choice… of “liberating Iraq”.
Democracy?
In latin, democracy means “people’s choice”. The word alone, is contrary to the idea that it can be forced upon a country with shock and awe. It is no longer about choice.
Democracy must be learned. We know that from the USSR—they are still learning to this day—but the seeds of free elections have been sown, and it has been born from within. I believe that Russia will remain democratic, and learn to appreciate its values.
Perhaps Iraq can too. But with guerilla wars, an inflamed middle east, terror attacks and casualties daily, it is a country that has been broken. We cannot force western ideologies and values upon such a country. The only thing the war has brought Iraq is destruction. How can we expect the iraqi people to trust that “we know better”? We broke Iraq, and so say the values we preach: “If you break it, you buy it”.
It looks like we just bought Iraq for many years to come, and if we want to force democracy, it’ll be expensive.
Was there really, no other way?
- Riemann Hypothesis
- Iraq – You Break It, You Buy It
- Nigritude Ultramarine
- Address-bar Searches in Firefox and Internet Explorer
A short word about oil prices, you said:
No that is nonsense that either you have read in a slanted article, or you constructed in your mind to justify an anti-war stance.
This data is using California California prices. Adjusted for inflation the price has gone up during Bush’s time in office with the exception of 2001, and 2002 as a result of a world wide drop in demand directly related to the 9/11 attacks. This year 2004 it is at the highest US price level ever. So where is the Bush “keeping prices down” evidence?
Sorry that should have been Oil for Food Program. It is detailed in length at Friends of Saddam. And note the the three largest benefactors are France, Germany, and Russia. The same triumvirate that blocked any US attempts to avert the war via the UN Security Council.
Lets start with Pres. Carter, you may believe he was an effective President but I stand by my assessment, he was the worst US Pres. in the 20th Century. Rather than dwell on Carter here are some of his “accomplishments.” But I will add this.
Considering the fact that Palestinian PM Arafat (the world’s oldest terrorist) also won a Peace Prize in 1994 it just may call into question how they award the medal. After seventeen years of on-and-off intifadah, the Palestinians, led by Arafat, have done nothing but bomb civilians in pizzarias and night clubs. Of course Jimmy Carter called him a “Statesman.” Arafat lets not forget he walked away from a Clinton brokered deal that gave him over 90% of what he demanded to continue his reign of corruption and terror.
You can believe Saddam was no threat but one of his own nuclear scientists gives every indication that was not the case. Here is a sample from the link.
And from the NYT is the second installment of his article.
So far, Obeidi makes a strong case for weapons inspectors, save for one subtle piece that becomes apparent later on: the Iraqis already had the expertise and had managed to hide enough of their research, the most critical of it in Obeidi’s own garden.
Of course Saddam didn’t want to openly rock the boat while stuffing his bank accounts with Western cash, primarily from the same nations that opposed the eventual effort that deposed him. On the other hand, there wasn’t much boat-rocking with which to be concerned, when many of the same people—including the UN bureaucracy entrusted to enforcing and and maintaining the economic sanctions—directly benefitted from Saddam’s kickbacks. The monetary motivation to keep things running smoothly existed in spades on all sides except the Iraqi people, whose money went everywhere except onto their plates.
The sanctions regime would not have lasted forever, and even after 9/11 UN members pressed for an end to it and a restoration of Saddam as a major trading partner. With billions in cash reserves from Oil For Food corruption and billions more coming in from legitimate trade, Saddam could have used the core of his dormant nuclear research to quickly reconstitute an enormous threat—and by hiding his chief researcher and all of the necessary data, it would have been, as Obeidi says, a snap.
And let’s not forget the revelation that a number of Iraqi nuclear scientists and their materials were smuggled into Syria just before the invasion. Obeidi warns the world of the danger presented by his former colleagues:
And what of the recent Syria Revelation of two days ago?
There is one large distinction in your definition of a terrorist. (BTW I would agree it matches what would be called a freedom fighter) A freedom fighter is sowing his terror in a localized area, i.e. one country or area of that country. Islamofacists stated desire is to conquer the whole of western society. You, me, democracies, dicators, it matters little to them. Anyone not under Sha’ria law is their target. Read bin- Laden’s Fatwa of 1996, and the second issued in 1998. Then tell me you believe he is the run of the mill every day freedom fighter. For the sake of everyone I would hope you are right, but it is very doubtful. It is World War 4. A loss means my daughters and any you may have may live without an education, be subjected to “honor killings,” and female circumcision.
Did you stop and think that oil might run out some day? Say, in 40 years? I honestly do not believe oil prices can stay low all the time, no matter what measures are taken. Per definition, they will rise directly related to the decline in global reserves. I’m surprised the oil prices haven’t risen further already.
There are other reasons why this war was about oil, and I will quote what I wrote to another commenter in this thread:
As for France, Russia and Germany—did I even once voice my support for those nations or their personal interests in the war? No. The UN consists of more countries than those (thank god). My anti-war stance doesn’t mean it’s Europe vs. the USA. It means it’s my opinions against the war. Just because I live in Europe, doesn’t mean I agree with what happens here!
You mention a lot of interesting quotes and sources for Iraqs dormant nuclear programme from prior to the first Gulf War (which I supported). Is any of it relevant to this war? Is there any proof that there was an imminent threat to the US and Iraqs neighbouring countries? Is there any proof that Iraq planned to reinstitute their weapons programme? You quoted it yourself: “threat is always a matter of perception”, but was their anything imminent about it?
Are you forgetting, by the way, that the UN weapons inspectors did enter Iraq prior to the war, not finding any evidence of any weapons programme or the interest to start one? Did you forget, that these very same weapons inspectors recommended against the war?
I will ask again: Why not North Korea? When we are acting world police, anyway, why not rid of the rest of the bad guys?
As for terrorists vs. freedom fighters. I must iterate that I do not condone any extremist forms of religion, be it the mis-interpreted islamism, or even extremist christianity. Religion has nothing to do with politics, no matter what religion you cling to. As such, I’m not particularly a fan of Sharia law, which at the very core is religion and politics combined.
Do not get me wrong when I say this: whether one is a freedom fighters or a terrorist, it is entirely defined in the eye of the beholder. The very reason for suicide bombers, is that they believe in their cause. While I can certainly see why you (and I) would label that a terrorist, do you not agree that if you turn the perspective 180 degrees, the suicide bomber would be considered the freedom fighter? As such, whether the freedom fighting or terrorism is local or global, it doesn’t matter. I am convinced that many suicide bombers see the US soldiers in Iraq as terrorists.
Once again, this just shows you that the very word “terorist”, which is emotionally loaded, has no purpose at all. We all know that blowing yourself up is wrong, we know that killing is wrong, and we know that freedom is good. Is this not enough? Do we really need a vague label such as “terrorist”? Isn’t that to overly complicate things?
With this response, I would just like to mention that I really appreciate your taking the time to reply here. While we may not agree, this very discussion is an expression that there is intelligence on both sides of the issues.
Let’s not forget Saudi Arabia, a country with appaling human rights violations.
Or, for that matter, the USA. Detention without trial, a leader who, for 4 years, was not elected by the people. It all adds up…
I agree completely. The things that are happening right now at GITMO belong in the last century. It’s mindboggling! But hey, GITMO is part of Cuba, so they can do what they want to there. Duh.
Fuck bush.
he is very very very stupid man.