So, after all the hype and hoopla, the war has been started. The first thing that I read in the morning was a headline screaming “US Attacks Iraq” But why? Who has given the US the right to attack Iraq?—I fail to understand!
Below, I have tried to answer the 5 most important questions for the past one month, which almost everyone has on mind today about this war:
Q1.: The Bush administration says that a war against Iraq is needed due to the threat of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's support of terrorism, and human rights. Are those valid concerns?
The government of Iraq has long been brutally repressive towards its own people, and has twice attacked other countries(Iran and Kuwait) over longstanding political, economic and security disputes. Iraq's apex as a military power came during the 1980s, as a result of its decade-long alliance with the United States, which(along with European and other U.S. allies) provided political, military, technological and financial support. In fact, it was during this period of the U.S.-Iraqi alliance that Baghdad committed its worst human rights violations.
But the 1991 Gulf War bombing and 12 years of debilitating sanctions severely diminished Iraq's military capacity. By the time the United Nations weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 in anticipation of the U.S.'Desert Fox' bombing campaign, they had found and destroyed or rendered harmless 90 - 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including its chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles. They had also completely destroyed its unfinished nuclear efforts.
The Bush administration linked Iraq with North Korea and Iran as a so-called'axis of evil.' Yet only Iraq is singled out for possible military attack. Unlike North Korea, which may already have nuclear weapons, has repudiated the Non-Proliferation Treaty, expelled UN nuclear inspectors and directly threatened the United States, Iraq does not have nuclear weapons and is giving UN arms inspectors open access. Unlike a number of other countries, Iraq has not made international terrorism its pattern. Iraq simply does not pose a threat to the United States.
Q2. What are the real reasons behind the administration's rush towards war?
U.S. threats to go to war against Iraq are largely driven by oil and empire - expanding U.S. military and economic power. As these goals primarily benefit oil companies and the already rich and powerful, the Bush administration relies on fear to mobilize public support for war among ordinary Americans by linking Iraq falsely with the very real threat of terrorism and through rhetoric like'axis of evil.' Bush also plays on Americans' genuine concern about human rights to gain support.
Many top officials of the Bush administration come directly out of the oil industry. President Bush himself, as well as Vice-President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans and others all have strong ties to oil companies - Chevron once named a tanker after Rice as a gesture of thanks.
But the U.S. isn't threatening an invasion simply to ensure its continued access to Iraqi oil. Rather, it is a much broader U.S. play for control of the oil industry and the ability to set the price of oil on the world market.
Iraq's oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. And with U.S.-backed Saudi Arabia increasingly unstable, the question of which oil companies - French, Russian, or American - would control Iraq's rich but unexplored oil fields once sanctions are lifted has moved to the top of Washington's agenda. Many in the Bush administration believe that in the long term, a post-war, U.S.-dependent Iraq would supplant Saudi control of oil prices and marginalize the influence of the Saudi-led OPEC oil cartel. Iraq could replace Saudi Arabia, at least partially, at the center of U.S. oil and military strategy in the region, and the U.S. would remain able to act as guarantor of oil for Japan, Germany, and other allies in Europe and around the world.
Expanding U.S. power, central to the Bush administration's war strategy, includes redrawing the political map of the Middle East. That scenario includes U.S. control of Iraq and the rest of the Gulf states as well as Jordan and Egypt. Some in the administration want even more -'regime change' in Syria, Iran, and Palestine, and Israel as a permanently unchallengeable U.S.-backed regional power. The ring of U.S. military bases built or expanded recently in Qatar, Djibouti, Oman and elsewhere as preparation for a U.S. war against Iraq will advance that goal.
But the super-hawks of the Bush administration have a broader, global empire-building plan that goes way beyond the Middle East. Much of it was envisioned long before September 11th, but now it is waged under the flag of the'war against terrorism.' The war in Afghanistan, the creation of a string of U.S. military bases in the(also oil- and gas-rich) countries of the Caspian region and south-west Asia, the new strategic doctrine of'pre-emptive' wars, and the ascension of unilateralism as a principle are all part of their crusade. Attacking Iraq is only the next step
Q.3: Does the U.S. have the right to invade Iraq?
No. The UN resolution passed in November 2002 sent arms inspectors back into Iraq to verify Iraq's disarmament, the final requirement before lifting sanctions. The resolution says there will be'serious consequences' if there is a'material breach' of the resolution, but it specifically does not identify what those consequences should or might be. The resolution states that a finding of'material breach' requires both omissions or lies in Iraq's arms declaration and non-compliance with inspectors. It reserves for the Council as a whole, not any individual country, authority to make those determinations.
When the resolution was passed, every Council ambassador other than Washington's made clear the resolution provides no authorization for war. According to Mexico's Ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, force could only be valid, 'with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council.' The U.S. may decide to go to war without the Security Council's OK, and regardless of what the UN inspectors find or don't find. But the terms of the UN resolutions are very important considerations for Security Council countries such as France, Mexico, Germany and others, whose governments must balance their desire to join Bush's war with widespread public anti-war sentiment.
Q.4: Who will suffer from a war in Iraq?
The first to suffer will be the people of Iraq. However smart the Pentagon's so-called'smart bombs, ' there is no doubt that a U.S. war against Iraq will lead to massive human suffering. Even the newest weapons, such as the carbon fibers designed to cripple Iraq's electrical grid without hurting the buildings, will lead to wide-spread civilian deaths when vital institutions such as hospitals and water treatment plants are suddenly without electricity. The Pentagon's use of depleted uranium weapons will continue to threaten civilian life and health. After twenty years of war, and twelve years of deadly economic sanctions, Iraq's already-devastated social fabric will be further shredded by another war.
For questions 5 and 6 and conclusion, please see comments
