‘IRAQ,
ENDS AND MEANS’ v19.0, 1300 words Black, serious, humour used to study
‘the ends’, with Christian, political and sporting images. Written by an
ordinary citizen concerned about the justification for war and the
public loss of trust in the political process.
Interested? Give a prompt response please?
Brian Corbett
62 Radyr Avenue, Swansea, SA3 5DT
01792 424702
So now we have it ‘the ends’ (plural) justify the ‘means’. But worryingly it’s the ‘means’, deposing Saddam Hussein by force, which stays constant, and ‘the end’ which drifts and drifts.
In the beginning ‘the end’ was simply to disarm Iraq. ‘Funny, I didn’t expect the wrong’un, out of the back of your hand, first ball’. Having noted that no evidence exists of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida at September 11, people asked themselves, ‘Would America have sought the UN resolution against Iraq but for September 11’?
None of the terrorists were Iraqi, many countries have weapons of mass destruction and many have bad human rights records. ‘So why did Iraq pose such a threat that it had to be singled out?’ Oil? Unfinished business? Empire? Confronting Saddam Hussein by forcing through UN Resolution 1441, threatening war if he did not disarm, was never a rational response to the diffuse threat from al-Qaida.
Of course there was the argument that their weapons of mass destruction could get into the hands of terrorists with terrible consequences for the west. That remains a real concern, but, given the extent to which the west and Russia have proliferated weapons, that risk of leakage is worldwide. Yet al-Qaida had demonstrated on September 11 that they had no need of weapons of war. They could destroy by turning our own power on ourselves, on that occasion by using our newly refuelled aircraft as bombs. Linking destruction and symbolism made a powerful statement, which shook the western world. ‘But that message didn’t come from Saddam.’
Saddam Hussein’s greatest crime was to make a pre-emptive strike in 1980 against Ayatollah Khomeini and his new Islamic Republic of Iran. (That popular Islamic revolution in 1979 had overthrown, from within, a Shah who had held power for decades through a secret police force.) Saddam expected to win the war easily but it lasted eight years and left over a million dead. Britain, France, America and Russia all sold arms into that conflict, some to both sides. Was America the source of his biological and chemical weapons? (Check out the entry for 30 Dec 2002 on www.jonathanpollard.org). At that time Saddam was viewed as the acceptable secular face of Arab leadership, not yet an ogre - more one of us, even though he regularly used gas when faced with defeat by Iran. His big political mistake was to go on to attack Kuwait and expect the west to turn a blind eye. ‘Saddam is a very nasty tyrant, but not so far a terrorist.’
‘Why do we never seek to understand terrorist motives?’ If we did the explication of suicide bombing might be found to depend more on the anger of the dispossessed and their sympathisers, than the vehicle of fundamental Islam. If fundamentalist Islam is the key then al-Qaida is certainly opposed to Saddam’s secular Iraq. Either way there is no common cause, just a common enemy. Let’s out-think the terrorists for once. The evils of war will simply play into their hands.
Next ball the straight honest flipper, as ‘the end’ became simply to depose Saddam Hussein. Iraq would never be safe whilst it remained in his hands. We, the public, had always felt that this was the intention of President Bush. It was all too clear to us that, in his eyes, 1441 was but a device to provide for invasion. Even Colin Powell, one of the few restrained American political voices in the immediate aftermath of September 11, was prepared to draw unsafe conclusions in order to further his case. He was reigned-in by the level head of Hans Blix. Nevertheless it came as a shock to hear presidential Blair admit that, ‘ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity’. The means of delivering this humanity - is war.
Now I detect the next level of spin designed to recapture the moral high ground for New Labour. ‘Mike Gatting knows there’s little defence to that awesome leg break’. ‘The third end’ will be to liberate Iraq, to turn it into a liberal democracy. (But who really believes that America, having deposed Saddam, will be prepared to allow a free choice of government?) Surely we can all agree to that noble end. The ‘means’, unfortunately, is still war.
‘Strap on your helmet and be prepared for the storm troops after the tea interval, watch out for the beamer straight at the head’, even the yanks should appreciate that sort of pitching. Play up, and play the game. The authority of the United Nations is at stake if you don’t fall in with the world’s only superpower. ‘You know there is no alternative’ – to war.’
Confused, by this bodyline bowling? You should be, the real war starts tomorrow, this session is just for the hearts and minds of you and me. ‘War isn’t very good at that.’
After the battle for Iraq has been won, look out for ‘the end’ to move again. Iran is the second arm of the axis of evil, and more obviously aligned with the perceived motivation of al-Qaida, so it too will have to be controlled. We can’t afford to risk their Islamic democracy infecting free Iraq. That would even threaten our ally Saudi Arabia. ‘Is that why we went to the defence of Saddam in the ‘80’s?’
President Khatami of the Islamic Republic of Iran got 69% of the vote in a turnout of 80% when first elected in 1997 by men and women. He was perceived as a moderate cleric and reformer who would gradually increase power of parliament vis a vis the church. ‘You know, move away from faith schools and that sort of thing!’
‘One final shift in ‘the end’?’ Using this secure base to set up a protectorate of whatever remains of Lesser Palestine. Now at last we have it, ‘the end’ was to control a Middle East reformed in our image. Game, set and match – revenge, the world’s oil supply controlled, the Wholly American Empire established. But in these days of weapons of mass destruction ask - ‘Is war is a solution?’ Isn’t it far more likely to result in another generation of terrifying terrorism and instability? Is there no way to facilitate reform of an oil rich country from within?
Unfortunately truth is the loser in this drift defence of war on Iraq. Few take political statements at face value any longer. Our elected representatives are playing the power game and we all know the dangers of absolute power. Curious, we are suddenly becoming the defender of the rights of Kurds and Marsh Arabs. The higher the stakes the greater our suspicions, and they don’t get much higher than war.
It’s taken me a lifetime to drift down from the initial euphoria of John Kennedy’s election, viewed from Toronto, to these cynical views. Too many of the young, one of my own children included, feel instinctively that the choices offered by democracy are illusory and don’t bother to vote. Western democracy is in danger in its own heartland. ‘Vive la France.’ Don’t (you) let me d.ow.n
BRIAN CORBETT 19 February 2003 v19.1
Last attempt with Observer, had longish talk to Mike Holland who said the writing was good enough, keep trying but this was the end of the road for me.
Interested? Give a prompt response please?
Personal Notes
Pioneer in the development of computer systems for process control in the steel industry. Electronic engineering graduate of Imperial College and Fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, I was author of several international conference papers. Now I am a young OAP who writes. My other current interests include independent travel in Europe and Asia (with my wife and a rucksack), languages (both European and Asian), politics (as an observer), tech stocks, ball sports, ‘modern’ jazz, and photography.Brian Corbett
62 Radyr Avenue, Swansea, SA3 5DT
01792 424702
IRAQ, ENDS AND MEANS
So now we have it ‘the ends’ (plural) justify the ‘means’. But worryingly it’s the ‘means’, deposing Saddam Hussein by force, which stays constant, and ‘the end’ which drifts and drifts.
In the beginning ‘the end’ was simply to disarm Iraq. ‘Funny, I didn’t expect the wrong’un, out of the back of your hand, first ball’. Having noted that no evidence exists of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida at September 11, people asked themselves, ‘Would America have sought the UN resolution against Iraq but for September 11’?
None of the terrorists were Iraqi, many countries have weapons of mass destruction and many have bad human rights records. ‘So why did Iraq pose such a threat that it had to be singled out?’ Oil? Unfinished business? Empire? Confronting Saddam Hussein by forcing through UN Resolution 1441, threatening war if he did not disarm, was never a rational response to the diffuse threat from al-Qaida.
Of course there was the argument that their weapons of mass destruction could get into the hands of terrorists with terrible consequences for the west. That remains a real concern, but, given the extent to which the west and Russia have proliferated weapons, that risk of leakage is worldwide. Yet al-Qaida had demonstrated on September 11 that they had no need of weapons of war. They could destroy by turning our own power on ourselves, on that occasion by using our newly refuelled aircraft as bombs. Linking destruction and symbolism made a powerful statement, which shook the western world. ‘But that message didn’t come from Saddam.’
Saddam Hussein’s greatest crime was to make a pre-emptive strike in 1980 against Ayatollah Khomeini and his new Islamic Republic of Iran. (That popular Islamic revolution in 1979 had overthrown, from within, a Shah who had held power for decades through a secret police force.) Saddam expected to win the war easily but it lasted eight years and left over a million dead. Britain, France, America and Russia all sold arms into that conflict, some to both sides. Was America the source of his biological and chemical weapons? (Check out the entry for 30 Dec 2002 on www.jonathanpollard.org). At that time Saddam was viewed as the acceptable secular face of Arab leadership, not yet an ogre - more one of us, even though he regularly used gas when faced with defeat by Iran. His big political mistake was to go on to attack Kuwait and expect the west to turn a blind eye. ‘Saddam is a very nasty tyrant, but not so far a terrorist.’
‘Why do we never seek to understand terrorist motives?’ If we did the explication of suicide bombing might be found to depend more on the anger of the dispossessed and their sympathisers, than the vehicle of fundamental Islam. If fundamentalist Islam is the key then al-Qaida is certainly opposed to Saddam’s secular Iraq. Either way there is no common cause, just a common enemy. Let’s out-think the terrorists for once. The evils of war will simply play into their hands.
Next ball the straight honest flipper, as ‘the end’ became simply to depose Saddam Hussein. Iraq would never be safe whilst it remained in his hands. We, the public, had always felt that this was the intention of President Bush. It was all too clear to us that, in his eyes, 1441 was but a device to provide for invasion. Even Colin Powell, one of the few restrained American political voices in the immediate aftermath of September 11, was prepared to draw unsafe conclusions in order to further his case. He was reigned-in by the level head of Hans Blix. Nevertheless it came as a shock to hear presidential Blair admit that, ‘ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity’. The means of delivering this humanity - is war.
Now I detect the next level of spin designed to recapture the moral high ground for New Labour. ‘Mike Gatting knows there’s little defence to that awesome leg break’. ‘The third end’ will be to liberate Iraq, to turn it into a liberal democracy. (But who really believes that America, having deposed Saddam, will be prepared to allow a free choice of government?) Surely we can all agree to that noble end. The ‘means’, unfortunately, is still war.
‘Strap on your helmet and be prepared for the storm troops after the tea interval, watch out for the beamer straight at the head’, even the yanks should appreciate that sort of pitching. Play up, and play the game. The authority of the United Nations is at stake if you don’t fall in with the world’s only superpower. ‘You know there is no alternative’ – to war.’
Confused, by this bodyline bowling? You should be, the real war starts tomorrow, this session is just for the hearts and minds of you and me. ‘War isn’t very good at that.’
After the battle for Iraq has been won, look out for ‘the end’ to move again. Iran is the second arm of the axis of evil, and more obviously aligned with the perceived motivation of al-Qaida, so it too will have to be controlled. We can’t afford to risk their Islamic democracy infecting free Iraq. That would even threaten our ally Saudi Arabia. ‘Is that why we went to the defence of Saddam in the ‘80’s?’
President Khatami of the Islamic Republic of Iran got 69% of the vote in a turnout of 80% when first elected in 1997 by men and women. He was perceived as a moderate cleric and reformer who would gradually increase power of parliament vis a vis the church. ‘You know, move away from faith schools and that sort of thing!’
‘One final shift in ‘the end’?’ Using this secure base to set up a protectorate of whatever remains of Lesser Palestine. Now at last we have it, ‘the end’ was to control a Middle East reformed in our image. Game, set and match – revenge, the world’s oil supply controlled, the Wholly American Empire established. But in these days of weapons of mass destruction ask - ‘Is war is a solution?’ Isn’t it far more likely to result in another generation of terrifying terrorism and instability? Is there no way to facilitate reform of an oil rich country from within?
Unfortunately truth is the loser in this drift defence of war on Iraq. Few take political statements at face value any longer. Our elected representatives are playing the power game and we all know the dangers of absolute power. Curious, we are suddenly becoming the defender of the rights of Kurds and Marsh Arabs. The higher the stakes the greater our suspicions, and they don’t get much higher than war.
It’s taken me a lifetime to drift down from the initial euphoria of John Kennedy’s election, viewed from Toronto, to these cynical views. Too many of the young, one of my own children included, feel instinctively that the choices offered by democracy are illusory and don’t bother to vote. Western democracy is in danger in its own heartland. ‘Vive la France.’ Don’t (you) let me d.ow.n
BRIAN CORBETT 19 February 2003 v19.1
Last attempt with Observer, had longish talk to Mike Holland who said the writing was good enough, keep trying but this was the end of the road for me.
