|
There
were many good reasons for the successful "coalition"
formed in 1990-91 to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. None of
these reasons are present in today's argument presented by the
United States to attack Iraq. The US administration seems unable
or unwilling to understand how different the Middle East has become
in the last ten years.
Some
of those who joined the US-spearheaded coalition back then might
have believed in that military action was the only available tool
to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, and therefore liberate
the oil fields (subsequently Kuwait) from the hands of the Iraqi
government.
Others
were concerned that not joining the coalition would exclude them
from the New World Order, proposed by George Bush senior, and
now only used by pro-American wrestlers as a theme for their orchestrated
matches between good and evil.
Few,
including Arab countries, were little concerned by world orders
and were more interested in debt relief, which they got, only
to sink deeper.
"Liberating
Kuwait" was not as rewarding as those who took part in the
world vs. Iraq war hoped. The economic prosperity which they were
promised never actualized. Egypt, Turkey and various Gulf countries
are suffocating under economic pressure, of which neither Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein nor his alleged "Weapons of Mass
Destruction" are factors.
The
paradise which Middle Eastern governments were promised was nothing
but a fantasy, only aimed at tightening the war coalition to include
as many countries as possible, therefore to legitimize the war
of the "international community".
Israel
didn't reap the benefits of the war either, even though we were
told that the Jewish state which kept to itself, benefited greatly
from the war. The Israeli government is ever convinced that a
war that would engulf as many Arab states as possible would always
be in its favor, a fact that was never proven. True, Iraq's military
capabilities were disabled during the two Gulf Wars, but it was
not Iraq who defeated Israel in South Lebanon, but a small group
of resistance fighters that hardly exceeded a few thousand.
Even
the "peace talks" that kicked in almost immediately
after the end of the Gulf War in Madrid to initiate the New World
Order promoted through the US went nowhere. Ten years later, the
US and Israeli governments are being confronted with a fact they
insist to ignore, it's justice that precedes a lasting peace,
not secret negotiations in some forsaken orchards near Oslo.
The
so-called war coalition against Iraq is dismantling. The Arabs
diverted from the US leadership and began moving closer toward
Baghdad, thanks to the Arab streets that grew agitated from the
human catastrophe developing in Iraq and the apathy towards it.
The famous embrace in the last Arab summit in Beirut between top
Iraqi and Saudi officials was a signal that the coalition, at
least on the Arab front is no longer there.
The
Europeans, at least most of them are leading more moderate views
toward Iraq, growing more interested in joint economic ventures
than war. There was also the pressure of those activists throughout
the West who oppose the economic sanctions which left incomprehensive
devastations on Iraqi children. According to a study by respected
UN organization, UNICEF, that was published a few years ago, over
half million Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions alone.
Many more must have died since then.
Yet
in a time when many are beginning to see positive signs of change,
as the sanctions regime was expected to dismantle eventually without
a UN resolution, and when Iraq is breaking its isolation by striking
economic deals with various Arab and world states, war is resurfacing.
Of
course it was the dreadful terrorist attacks of September 11th
that breathed life into the extremist branch in the US government,
who concluded that war is the best method of resolving America's
security problems.
It
is certainly not naivety alone that makes many perceive war with
such enthusiasm; there are the strong Israeli lobbies that also
perceive war as a way out of Israel's problems.
Needless
to say, the war on Afghanistan was not enough to convince the
American people that New York is more secure because Afghanistan
has a coalition government led by a Pashtun. Therefore, a new
menace must be presented as the new target after all Osama Bin
Laden is nowhere to be found.
Such
psychological perceptions of war and security are not convincing
enough to form a strong coalition like the one formed in the early
1990's. In fact, there are more reasons that convinced Middle
Eastern countries, including the "moderate ones" that
a war on Iraq, was not only unnecessary, but would bring devastation
to their economies, and would destabilize their own governments
as well.
It
seems that only US officials and war generals believe that "taking
Saddam out" is a good idea. The world however, has matured
enough in the last 10 years to realize that Saddam is only an
"evil figure" used by the US government to recalculate
bad policies that no one approves of.
It's
just not a good idea to topple the Iraqi government, which would
perhaps lead to the fragmentation of the already devastated Arab
country, and most likely to further radicalization of its various
sects, just because the American people are not feeling that the
war on Afghanistan was rewarding enough, and the US administration
is seeking a new venue to continue its "war on terror."
More
unsupported claims are dealt with as a matter of fact in the US
media about fleeing Al Qaeda fighters who are now stationed in
Iraq. Those who understand the ideological differences between
the Iraqi regime and Islamic parties must realize the fallacy
of such claims, especially as such claims have no reference but
the ever ambiguous: "intelligence sources indicated so and
so..."
No
one said that the US is not capable of fighting a war against
Iraq, and maybe topple the government and impose a "democratic
one." But no one can claim that even if such a scenario succeeded,
that the American people would feel any more secured. It's just
policies that bring security to unsecured nations, not the Napalm
and the starvation of children. Israel is the best example.
Ramzy
Baroud is editor-in-chief of the Palestine
Chronicle.
|
