Okay. I, and the majority of the people that I know and associate with, think that Bush is rapidly heading towards the point of no return, chomping at the bit to start lobbing bombs into Iraq. He tells us that Saddam has been working on creating “weapons of mass destruction” (rapidly becoming one of the most over-used phrases in existance), but he’s hiding them. Proof through a lack of proof — a technique historically used primarily by conspiracy kooks, and one that is subject to a lot of skepticism (rightly) and derision (maybe less rightly).
But what if he’s right?
I’m not about to start defending Bush, or joining the camp stating that war is inevitable, or even necessary. But this is something that’s been bouncing around in my head for a bit now. Like it or not, we may not know if Saddam currently has the ability to start nuking or gassing people, but we do know that the guy’s something of a nutcase, with a demonstratable history of doing some horrible things to the people of his country. Whether or not we have the “smoking gun” we’d all prefer to see before sending troops in (and, at this point, we don’t), it really isn’t inconceivable to admit that the possibility does exist that Bush really isn’t entirely off the wall with his accusations. All we have is circumstantial evidence, and while much of it isn’t as strong as Bush et al would like us to believe it is, it still doesn’t paint a pretty picture.
Much of my frustration at the chain of events we’ve seen so far stems from two things. One, that the US propaganda machine has parlayed the Al-Quaida attack into justification for the Iraqi invasion (as discussed in this Salon article that Kirsten pointed out), and two, that Bush seems determined to have his war whether or not the UN feels that his case is strong enough.
The first frustration I’ll probably just have to live with. The second, though…. What if the UN actually does decide to back the invasion of Iraq? I’ve gotten the impression (though, admittedly, I’ve still yet to actually go through it all myself) that Powell’s presentation was something of a dog-and-pony show, given more for the benefit of the American public than for the UN, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there was a lot more behind-the-scenes negotiation, maneuvering, and conferencing going on than we’re privy to.
As nice as it would be for this to be an entirely black-and-white issue, it’s really not, and I’m trying to see more of the shades of grey than I’ve wanted to. Part of what got me on this (admittedly somewhat rambling) diatribe was a couple links posted today.
Firstly, Meg pointed to an article in the UK Times by Matthew Paris — A dove’s guide: how to be an honest critic of the war.
…to our doves hearts content, we may make sport with the arguments of Bush and Blair. But when the mockery dies away do we not have to ask ourselves one awkward little remaining question? What if the undeclared major premise is true? What if the weaponry is there, just as Washington and London believed all along? … To that one awkward little question we doves should add another. What if the United Nations Security Council does in the end authorise an invasion?
The answer to the first question, we may not know until this is all over (if we’re lucky — if we’re unlucky, we could very well find out much earlier when a warhead of one type or another is detonated). To the second, though, well, I don’t like the fact that we may very well be going to war, nor am I entirely convinced at this point that we’re justified in pushing this war — however — should the UN support the invasion, then at least the US wouldn’t be acting on its own (much like Bush accuses Saddam as having aspirations of doing). I’d still dislike the fact that the conflict is there, but I’d feel somewhat better if it were approached with the ‘go ahead’ of the UN.
The second article, pointed out by Jonathan Delacour, looks at some of the issues surrounding Saddam beyond just the current situation.
Like most Australians, I’m against the Bush Administration’s war, but that doesn’t mean that we in the majority can congratulate ourselves about our moral superiority. All those offering a variety of peaceful, patient, reasonable and bloodless options should at least have the honesty to acknowledge that if Saddam Hussein retains power in this stand-off with George Bush, the anti-war movement will have delivered a de facto victory for a psychotic, genocidal tyranny. And not for the first time.
…The moral virgins in this debate who pronounce themselves “against war”, and who rail against American arrogance, need to at least acknowledge the impact that inertia and appeasement have had on the continuing murders and torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, the genocide against the Kurds and the Madans, the invasions of Kuwait and Iran, the missile attacks on Israeli civilians, the use of chemical weapons, the degradation of the environment and the general malevolence of a kleptocracy run by Saddam and his Caligula-like son, Uday, and their vast apparatus of suppression.
Had this regime not been decisively and violently checked by US power 12 years ago, it would now control the vast oil resources of Kuwait as well as its own, would have used this economic power to build an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, would have sought nuclear weapons, and would probably be untouchable. All thanks to prudent, peace-loving people who are against military interventions and American imperialism.
As easy as it might be to boil all this down to cute little soundbites — it’s “all about oil,” or it’s “finishing what Daddy Bush started” — it’s not. They play a part, I’m sure, but with just about everything, it’s never just that simple.
I don’t like the situation we’re in. I’ll be very happy if, however unlikely it may seem, we manage to get out of this without sacrificing lives (American, allied, or Iraqi). I don’t in the least support Bush’s handling of the situation, or his subtle as a bulldozer, “damn the torpedos” approach, and I look forward to the day when I can cast a vote against Bush.
I’m just not sure if I can unequivocally condemn the drive to oust Saddam. There should be a better way than what we’re facing — the concept of the end justifying the means has never sat well with me — but should we enter into this, I just hope it’s over quickly, with as little bloodshed as possible, and that this time, it’s successful. We didn’t get Saddamn out before. We still haven’t found bin Laden. I can’t even remember if we ever actually ousted Kaddaffi (going back a few years to the Reagan days). If we must go into this conflict, as the powers that be seem to be convinced, can we at least just get it right this time?
Sorry if this is a bit rambling, it’s getting late, and I don’t edit these posts before putting them up. Things were just bouncing around in my brain (frustration, concerns, and confusion), and I wanted to get a few of them out. Hopefully some of it will be coherent when I re-read it in the morning.
