‘IRAQ,
ENDS AND MEANS’ v17.2, 1200 words A wide ranging study of the ends by a
citizen concerned about the 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’ first ball’. Having noted that no evidence existed of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda 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-Qaeda.
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-Qaeda 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 in this way 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 easily but the war lasted eight years and left over a million dead. At that time he was viewed as the acceptable secular face of Arab leadership. 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). Saddam Hussein wasn’t such an ogre in the 1980’s, 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.
‘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-Qaeda 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 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 unwarranted 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 the British Left can join the Right of Europe and America and 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, and watch out for the beamer straight at the head’, even the yanks should appreciate that sort of pitching. Confused, by another bowling change? You should be, this opening session is just for the hearts and minds of you and me, war isn’t very good at that.
After the battle for Iraq 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-Qaeda, so it too has to be controlled. We can’t afford to risk their Islamic democracy infecting free Iraq. That would even threaten our ally Saudi Arabia.
President Khatami 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, who would gradually increase the separation between parliament and 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’ is to control a Middle East reformed in our image. A full house – business completed, oil secured, and empire established. But as for stability in the region, ask if war is a solution. Isn’t it far more likely to result in decades of terrorism and unrest?
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. The higher the stakes the greater our suspicions, and they don’t get much higher than this.
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.’
BRIAN CORBETT 17 February 2003 v17.2
Brian,
Again it is a comment piece I'm afraid. We have one established columnist everyday, and that's sort of the only comment we take here on G2. So yes, I'm afraid you're going to have to do battle with the comment guys. Sorry to disappoint
Sam Wollaston sam.wollaston@guardian.co.uk
I thought the cricket imagery might appeal to Stephen Moss, comment section
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’ first ball’. Having noted that no evidence existed of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda 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-Qaeda.
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-Qaeda 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 in this way 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 easily but the war lasted eight years and left over a million dead. At that time he was viewed as the acceptable secular face of Arab leadership. 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). Saddam Hussein wasn’t such an ogre in the 1980’s, 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.
‘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-Qaeda 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 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 unwarranted 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 the British Left can join the Right of Europe and America and 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, and watch out for the beamer straight at the head’, even the yanks should appreciate that sort of pitching. Confused, by another bowling change? You should be, this opening session is just for the hearts and minds of you and me, war isn’t very good at that.
After the battle for Iraq 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-Qaeda, so it too has to be controlled. We can’t afford to risk their Islamic democracy infecting free Iraq. That would even threaten our ally Saudi Arabia.
President Khatami 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, who would gradually increase the separation between parliament and 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’ is to control a Middle East reformed in our image. A full house – business completed, oil secured, and empire established. But as for stability in the region, ask if war is a solution. Isn’t it far more likely to result in decades of terrorism and unrest?
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. The higher the stakes the greater our suspicions, and they don’t get much higher than this.
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.’
BRIAN CORBETT 17 February 2003 v17.2
Brian,
Again it is a comment piece I'm afraid. We have one established columnist everyday, and that's sort of the only comment we take here on G2. So yes, I'm afraid you're going to have to do battle with the comment guys. Sorry to disappoint
Sam Wollaston sam.wollaston@guardian.co.uk
I thought the cricket imagery might appeal to Stephen Moss, comment section
No comments:
Post a Comment