Some rambling and generally confused thoughts about the last week:
We've been at war for a week now, and already I've seen more information about the conflict on the news than I've ever read or watched about the 1st and 2nd world wars. I don't know how the troops can get on with fighting out there with all those journalists in the way. And is anybody else wondering when Sky News will be asking the military if they can mount cameras on troops' helmets? After all, they've already done their level best to turn this war into a large scale game of "Command and Conquer", so they may as well go the whole hog and try to get some sort of "Medal of Honour" thing going on as well. After all, since the last Gulf War there have been huge advances in game technology, and the news channels have to compete with the Playstation 2 to get the attention of their audience.
In the space of that week, the Dubya-Blair position has gone from "This will be over in a few weeks" to "Don't be surprised if we are fighting for months". Is anyone else getting the impression that the UK and US governments are entirely clueless about what to do now that their war is not running on schedule? Incidentally, does it annoy anyone else to hear pampered politicians, who's idea of a war zone is their wife finding out about them nobbing some fat-titted parliamentary researcher, refer to the troops doing the fighting as "we"? Unless you want to follow Winston Churchill's lead and go out there to fight this war yourself, enough with the 'we' already.
Bearing in mind that Saddam is loathed by millions of his own people, how much of a pigs ear must the coalition have made of this conflict to inspire not the Iraqi conscripts to fight ferociously. We were being told (and, in the face of all the evidence, are still being told by the likes of Rumsfield) that the biggest problems we would face would be how to look after the expected thousands of deserters. Also, if the US led invasion is so 'welcomed' by the people of Iraq, how come thousands of Iraqi's who left their homeland because they feared being killed by Saddam's troops, are returning home to join that same army and fight off the allied forces?
The parading of allied troops on Al-Jazeera was a chilling thing to watch; especially now that it appears Iraqi soldiers publicly executed some of them. However, the words of Dubya et al concerning "the humane treatment of POW's" rang rather hollow to me. If Saddam declared that the captured troops were not POW but 'illegal non-combatants' (because the UN hasn't sanctioned this war and so it could be said to be illegal under international law), and if he held them somewhere that was not Iraqi territory, does that then mean that he can do with them as he pleases? After all, that is exactly what America has done with the Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan, and 2 of them have been beaten to death in Guantanamo Bay since they were taken there. If American troops are torturing foreign soldiers, can anyone give any good reason why Iraqi soldiers would be compassionate enough not to mistreat their prisoners?
If this war has nothing to do with oil, then why was securing the main Iraqi oilfields one of the first things US troops did? And why did Dubya make a point of stating that Saddam would be charged with war crimes if the oil fields were set ablaze as they were in Kuwait?
Whenever we hear of a friendly fire incident involving US troops firing on UK or other US troops, we roll our eyes skyward and tut at the gung ho inability of their army to keep their trigger fingers under control, and mentally file the information away as confirmation that the Americans could not find their backsides with both hands and a map. Yet when British troops kill other British troops in a friendly fire incident, it is a tragic accident that couldn't be avoided, and that sort of thing must be expected in a modern war.
Jack Straw actually did something worthwhile and raised the point that the Moslem world are quite remarkably annoyed that we're going to war with Iraq for not complying with UN resolutions, yet we leave Israel alone when they are just as guilty of this. If anything good were to come out of this war, it would be the US and UK actually following through on their commitment for Palestinian statehood. That would stop terrorism to a far greater degree than this war, as it would rob the Islamic extremists of one of their main causes for recruiting.
If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, then he's going to use them against allied forces. After all, he has nothing to lose at this stage. If we take that logic a step further, does that mean if no WOMD are used then this war could have been avoided had the weapons inspectors been allowed to finish their work? Or will there be another series of barefaced lies from the American and British governments concerning how Saddam was 'definitely a threat to world peace'?
I know I'm anti war and everything, but was I the only one who felt weirdly proud of our troops when the war started? I mean, this isn't exactly the most popular war in the history of the world, but they're there and they're doing their job to the best of their ability. What's more, they're doing it with equipment so substandard that many soldiers have had to buy their own boots, and use their own mobile phones to communicate with other troops. I wish we weren't using well-trained and brave soldiers to give a veneer of legitimacy to the machinations of an unelected oil spiv.
Friday 28 March 2003
Monday 17 March 2003
Who are the Bad Guys?
If we're talking about international diplomacy, the answer is "Everyone who isn't you".
You can hardly fail to have noticed that very soon (perhaps even by this time tomorrow) the second Gulf War will be kicking off. It's an eagerly awaited rematch that will pit the nation ruled by an unelected man who shows flagrant disregard for the rule of law and acts in the interests of whatever will line his and his backers' pockets instead of the people he supposedly serves, against Iraq.
Okay, so I'm anti war. That in itself should not be a surprise. It seems that everybody and their mother is queuing up to give reasons why the war shouldn't happen. Not least among the anti-war voices is that of France. They and the US/UK pro-war camp have indulged themselves in all manner of name calling and bitchslapping since it has become clear that the one will oppose the other, come what may. And I don't know about you, but it instills me with confidence to know that the most powerful single nation in the world is ruled by people who react to somebody disagreeing with them by calling them "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" and declaring them as the biggest threat to world peace other than Iraq itself. Good to know that calm, rational heads are doing the thinking in American government.
Actually, since I've mentioned that "Threat to world peace" point, I may as well clear something else up. Iraq is not, has never been, and shows no sign of becoming a threat to world peace. It doesn't have any missiles capable of launching nuclear or biological agents (the only ones we definitely know that Iraq has are Anthrax and perhaps Smallpox. We know about them because the US and UK sold it to them in the first place...) more than 150 miles. Unlike North Korea, which admits to trying to develop Nuclear Weapons, can launch the missiles as far as Japan, and has actually threatened a nuclear attack against America if any sanctions are imposed on it. Iraq is a threat to its neighbours, certainly. However, if we agree that any threat to stability is in the Middle East is a threat to world peace then we are forced to accept that the US and UK are in fact the biggest threat to world peace that we currently face. Iraq is also a threat to it's own people, but seeing as how Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, the UK in Northern Ireland, and Burma to name but a few are also a threat to their own people, it seems strange how only Iraq are being picked on now.
If, as has been suggested but not proved, Iraq were harbouring Al-Quaida terrorist cells, and that is the reason for the coming war, then I wouldn't want to be in the CIA right now. After all, they trained Osama bin Laden and many of the Mujahdein who became Al-Quaida to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Of course, as the head of the CIA used to be George Bush Senior then I doubt we'll see any blame being attached to them. Besides, if Dubya threw his Dad into prison for aiding public enemy number 1 then who would tell him what to do?
And if support for terrorism is a prerequisite to being invaded by the US, does that mean we can declare war on them for all the money that was donated to the IRA? Maybe Nicaragua will invade America for supporting its Contra rebels? Or will we find that China will start hostilities with the rest of the world for buying goods from Taiwan, an area that they consider a rogue state?
And seeing as the more simplistic supporters of the coming war usually fall back on their emergency argument of "You must be Saddam's best friend if you don't support the war" at this point (they're very predictable in that respect; it's like their brains have some sort of glass case with "In case argument is rebutted, break down and bleat the following refrain..."), then let me make something else clear. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime in Iraq should be viewed with the same distaste as one would reserve for being vomited on by a tramp that has drunk more than his usual share of meths. Getting rid of him would be a wonderful thing. Doing it without bombing and murdering thousands of innocent people would be better still. We're always boasting about our special forces. Why not use them? An assassin's bullet right now would save a lot of unnecessary carnage later. And it would give the Iraqi people a chance to have a say in their own destiny rather than having one dictator replaced with another who is more to America's liking.
So, realistically, and taking all the various factors into consideration, has anyone come up with a reason for this war, and a one that stands up to scrutiny, that doesn't involve oil? I mean lets be honest here, the US economy is in thrall to oil. To the extent that they basically have to kowtow to Saudi Arabia and prop up an increasingly unpopular regime in order to guarantee their supply. To the extent that the government are prepared to force wildly unpopular measures such as drilling in the Alaskan National Park for oil on their people? A successful war would guarantee cheap oil supplies for the next 20 or so years.
Okay, so it's about the oil. Lets forget for a moment the standard pro-war rebuttal ("It's not about oil!!" 'So, what is it about?' "Ummm...dunno, but it's not oil!") of that argument and accept it as the most plausible of the reasons for this war (I can't bring myself to believe that Dubya is about to send men and women to their deaths in order to get revenge for an Iraqi assassination attempt on his Dad about 10 years ago...). The thing is, if we apply that rule to the US (and by 'that rule' I mean "Where is the money"; if you can find where the money is involved in any given situation then you have invariably found the motivation for the coming event) then we should also apply it across the board. After all, the US and UK are not the only nations who's leaders are motivated more by profit than peace.
And so the first place to look when we're being evenhanded is at the opposition to the war. Obviously I can't pretend to know the motivations of everyone opposed to what is going to happen. So we have to look at the countries predominantly opposed. They are Russia, Germany, and France. Are they opposing the US out of a sense of duty to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Were they aghast at the news that American soldiers have beaten 2 Al-Quaida suspects to death in Guantanamo Bay since their capture in Afghanistan? Will these 3 nations demand that Dubya and Blair face war crimes trials if they start a war without UN backing? Does anyone think I would have written this many questions if the answer to any of them had been yes?
Both Russia and France currently have very favourable oil deals with Iraq. These deals will quite probably get torn up once Hussein is toppled, and the two nations don't want to lose their oil. Hence, they oppose the coming war. Germany's opposition stems more from domestic reasons. The chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder, was facing the prospect of defeat in his country’s elections. One "I oppose war at all costs, me. Go on; vote for me again!" speech later, and Schroeder had the backing of Germany's Green party, and so was able to form a coalition to stay in government.
I think what I'm trying to say here is that, when it comes to world diplomacy and shabby situations like this one, there is no "good" and "bad" guy. Diplomacy is just one country fucking another one. Sometimes it's all done rather nicely, with romantic meals and flowers and sweet nothings. Other times it's thrust up the arse with no Vaseline and little warning. But it's always the same theme; one side wants what the other side has. France and Russia getting upset about international law? They must have been rolling in the aisles in Rwanda and Chechnya when they heard that one!
Iraq is now facing the choice between being gently screwed by France and Russia, or roughly screwed by the UK and the US. Either way, both sides are destabilising and destroying the UN for reasons of pure self-interest. When the League of Nations went down in the 30's, world war followed. Some will tell you that it doesn't matter, that the UN is already as good as dead, that the League of Nations didn't matter much in the first place. These are the same self important, blinkered, and cheerfully non-thinking mindmesses that didn't see why there was a problem with the League allowing Japan and Germany to invade whatever nations they saw fit to conquer. The only problem with my desire to say "I told you so" to them is that we will have to live through interesting times in order for me to do so.
As with the last war, can we just get this one over with please?
You can hardly fail to have noticed that very soon (perhaps even by this time tomorrow) the second Gulf War will be kicking off. It's an eagerly awaited rematch that will pit the nation ruled by an unelected man who shows flagrant disregard for the rule of law and acts in the interests of whatever will line his and his backers' pockets instead of the people he supposedly serves, against Iraq.
Okay, so I'm anti war. That in itself should not be a surprise. It seems that everybody and their mother is queuing up to give reasons why the war shouldn't happen. Not least among the anti-war voices is that of France. They and the US/UK pro-war camp have indulged themselves in all manner of name calling and bitchslapping since it has become clear that the one will oppose the other, come what may. And I don't know about you, but it instills me with confidence to know that the most powerful single nation in the world is ruled by people who react to somebody disagreeing with them by calling them "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" and declaring them as the biggest threat to world peace other than Iraq itself. Good to know that calm, rational heads are doing the thinking in American government.
Actually, since I've mentioned that "Threat to world peace" point, I may as well clear something else up. Iraq is not, has never been, and shows no sign of becoming a threat to world peace. It doesn't have any missiles capable of launching nuclear or biological agents (the only ones we definitely know that Iraq has are Anthrax and perhaps Smallpox. We know about them because the US and UK sold it to them in the first place...) more than 150 miles. Unlike North Korea, which admits to trying to develop Nuclear Weapons, can launch the missiles as far as Japan, and has actually threatened a nuclear attack against America if any sanctions are imposed on it. Iraq is a threat to its neighbours, certainly. However, if we agree that any threat to stability is in the Middle East is a threat to world peace then we are forced to accept that the US and UK are in fact the biggest threat to world peace that we currently face. Iraq is also a threat to it's own people, but seeing as how Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, the UK in Northern Ireland, and Burma to name but a few are also a threat to their own people, it seems strange how only Iraq are being picked on now.
If, as has been suggested but not proved, Iraq were harbouring Al-Quaida terrorist cells, and that is the reason for the coming war, then I wouldn't want to be in the CIA right now. After all, they trained Osama bin Laden and many of the Mujahdein who became Al-Quaida to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Of course, as the head of the CIA used to be George Bush Senior then I doubt we'll see any blame being attached to them. Besides, if Dubya threw his Dad into prison for aiding public enemy number 1 then who would tell him what to do?
And if support for terrorism is a prerequisite to being invaded by the US, does that mean we can declare war on them for all the money that was donated to the IRA? Maybe Nicaragua will invade America for supporting its Contra rebels? Or will we find that China will start hostilities with the rest of the world for buying goods from Taiwan, an area that they consider a rogue state?
And seeing as the more simplistic supporters of the coming war usually fall back on their emergency argument of "You must be Saddam's best friend if you don't support the war" at this point (they're very predictable in that respect; it's like their brains have some sort of glass case with "In case argument is rebutted, break down and bleat the following refrain..."), then let me make something else clear. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime in Iraq should be viewed with the same distaste as one would reserve for being vomited on by a tramp that has drunk more than his usual share of meths. Getting rid of him would be a wonderful thing. Doing it without bombing and murdering thousands of innocent people would be better still. We're always boasting about our special forces. Why not use them? An assassin's bullet right now would save a lot of unnecessary carnage later. And it would give the Iraqi people a chance to have a say in their own destiny rather than having one dictator replaced with another who is more to America's liking.
So, realistically, and taking all the various factors into consideration, has anyone come up with a reason for this war, and a one that stands up to scrutiny, that doesn't involve oil? I mean lets be honest here, the US economy is in thrall to oil. To the extent that they basically have to kowtow to Saudi Arabia and prop up an increasingly unpopular regime in order to guarantee their supply. To the extent that the government are prepared to force wildly unpopular measures such as drilling in the Alaskan National Park for oil on their people? A successful war would guarantee cheap oil supplies for the next 20 or so years.
Okay, so it's about the oil. Lets forget for a moment the standard pro-war rebuttal ("It's not about oil!!" 'So, what is it about?' "Ummm...dunno, but it's not oil!") of that argument and accept it as the most plausible of the reasons for this war (I can't bring myself to believe that Dubya is about to send men and women to their deaths in order to get revenge for an Iraqi assassination attempt on his Dad about 10 years ago...). The thing is, if we apply that rule to the US (and by 'that rule' I mean "Where is the money"; if you can find where the money is involved in any given situation then you have invariably found the motivation for the coming event) then we should also apply it across the board. After all, the US and UK are not the only nations who's leaders are motivated more by profit than peace.
And so the first place to look when we're being evenhanded is at the opposition to the war. Obviously I can't pretend to know the motivations of everyone opposed to what is going to happen. So we have to look at the countries predominantly opposed. They are Russia, Germany, and France. Are they opposing the US out of a sense of duty to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Were they aghast at the news that American soldiers have beaten 2 Al-Quaida suspects to death in Guantanamo Bay since their capture in Afghanistan? Will these 3 nations demand that Dubya and Blair face war crimes trials if they start a war without UN backing? Does anyone think I would have written this many questions if the answer to any of them had been yes?
Both Russia and France currently have very favourable oil deals with Iraq. These deals will quite probably get torn up once Hussein is toppled, and the two nations don't want to lose their oil. Hence, they oppose the coming war. Germany's opposition stems more from domestic reasons. The chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder, was facing the prospect of defeat in his country’s elections. One "I oppose war at all costs, me. Go on; vote for me again!" speech later, and Schroeder had the backing of Germany's Green party, and so was able to form a coalition to stay in government.
I think what I'm trying to say here is that, when it comes to world diplomacy and shabby situations like this one, there is no "good" and "bad" guy. Diplomacy is just one country fucking another one. Sometimes it's all done rather nicely, with romantic meals and flowers and sweet nothings. Other times it's thrust up the arse with no Vaseline and little warning. But it's always the same theme; one side wants what the other side has. France and Russia getting upset about international law? They must have been rolling in the aisles in Rwanda and Chechnya when they heard that one!
Iraq is now facing the choice between being gently screwed by France and Russia, or roughly screwed by the UK and the US. Either way, both sides are destabilising and destroying the UN for reasons of pure self-interest. When the League of Nations went down in the 30's, world war followed. Some will tell you that it doesn't matter, that the UN is already as good as dead, that the League of Nations didn't matter much in the first place. These are the same self important, blinkered, and cheerfully non-thinking mindmesses that didn't see why there was a problem with the League allowing Japan and Germany to invade whatever nations they saw fit to conquer. The only problem with my desire to say "I told you so" to them is that we will have to live through interesting times in order for me to do so.
As with the last war, can we just get this one over with please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)