Not in my name!

Infrequently asked questions: Why Iraq?

The Third Gulf War (the first being Iran/Iraq, in which the USA funded first one side then the other) is the inevitable result of a President who doesn't "get" either democracy or consensus. His Presidency, like everything else in his life, was handed him by Poppy and his brothers. He has become rich and powerful despite having no discernible talent, so it's hardly surprising that he sees unquestioning faith in his vision as nothing more than his due. Osama is a Bad Man, Saddam is a Bad Man, therefore Saddam and Osama are one and the same. Can't find Osama? Bomb Saddam! Can't see the connection? Then you are giving succour to terrorists and are a traitor to democracy! Overall it's hard not to suspect that the USA, stung by reverses in Vietnam, Korea and the Balkans, is basically looking for a nation small and weak enough that they can kick their ass and prove to the world how powerful America is, because history certainly indicates that every time the USA gets involved in the middle east things get worse rather than better. Ask any Lebanese.

It is abundantly clear that those who spoke of a "quick, clean" war were talking out of their arses. This is not a surprise: to suggest that the invasion of a country like Iraq where there are fanatical elements and logistical nightmares would ever be anything other than a long drawn-out affair with a substantial body count is, to put it charitably, the triumph of hope over experience. That's why Dubya's dad said it was a bad idea.

Others have said it all, and much more authoritatively. According to Michael Moore the bin Laden family actually gave money to President-Appointee Bush's campaign. According to just about everyone at Smirking Chimp, Bush has lied time and again about the reasons for war, and as each lie is exposed another lie replaces it. Bush reputedly wears a "what would Jesus do?" bracelet, but his Bible is different from ours. The Jesus of my bible wouldn't sign death warrants, particularly for the mentally incompetent and those convicted of crimes committed while they were children - and he wouldn't wage war because a foreign dictator tweaked Daddy's nose using weapons Donald Rumsfeld sold him.

If you read nothing else regarding this war, read Robin Cook's exceptional resignation speech - a speech which marked the end of twenty years of front-bench service:

A million people marched in England, the biggest peacetime demonstration ever. Millions more have marched around the world. Yet it is the French who are "intransigent" for insisting on letting diplomacy take its course. Diplomacy is fine for Korea, Israel, Pakistan - nations with nuclear weapons - but Saddam's to be invaded because he has "weapons of mass destruction," a nebulous term carefully chosen to obscure the obvious fact that he has no nuclear weapons and nothing capable of threatening a city, let alone a city halfway round the world. Iraq's military is so weak that the war will be quick, but so strong thay present a clear and present danger. Terrorists may have dirty bombs! And well they might, but the only depleted Uranium in Iraq was shot at them by the yanks last time out and is currently causing massive and probably long-term health effects for the people of Iraq. But all this is justice because Saddam gassed the Kurds. We know where he got that idea: Churchill did the same. Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" means the Anthrax the US sold them and which the US is now not convinced was destroyed. After all, you can't use that stuff unless Uncle Sam says it's OK.

And note the careful use of words: it's Saddam's butt we're kicking. The reality, of course, is somewhat different: Saddam was be in his bunker, his troops placed in populated areas, and the majority of the "collateral damage" is dead Iraqi citizens. We are the Almighty West and we kill you to make you free. There is absolutely no doubt that tens of thousands of martyrs to the anti-Western cause will be created by any war - and as Bush's poodles the UK will take some of the heat.

Bush has effectively declared war, just as he unilaterally opted out of the international war crimes tribunal - but it's the UN which is, according to him, undermining its own existence. Only by knuckling under to pressure and bribery from the world's most powerful nation can the UN be credible, it seems. Too bad if your nation is weak, or your people powerless. You want to know how much help the US will give you then? Ask a Palestinian, whose country has been invaded using US-funded weapons, whose invaders have ignored repeated UN resolutions over a period of threee decades, and yet the US insists that it will not help until the Palestinians choose a leader with "real authority." Presumably that's the "real authority" you gain by having a Daddy and a brother powerful enough to get you the top job even though you lost the election. Maybe these Arabs should just save themselves a lot of trouble and have Bush veto their leaders before they take office?

Why the rush to war, anyway? Well, after the end of March it becomes difficult to wage war in Iraq. A campaign might have to delay for six months, and after two years of tax cuts for the rich and accelerated defence spending Bush desperately needs war to boost the US economy (well, the arms manufacturers' bit, anyway) and to take people's minds off the mess he's making of running the country. But why is Tony Blair so keen to go to war? Maybe we are getting a kickback from George. Everybody else seems to be. One thing is certain: right from the outset the war was designed to start in late March, 2003. Saddam nearly spoiled it by cooperating, but luckily Dubya added a couple of conditions to which he cannot possibly be expected to agree, and the battlewagon rolls on.

To this I have but one thing to say: not in my name.

Anyway, if you are against the war, or if you aren't, contact your MP and let them know what you think.