The United States is intent on going to war, and the world is expected to pay for it. In its endless attempts to guard its ‘national’ interests, and to further extend its hegemony, the worldés superpower is willing to go to war from the Atlantic to the Pacific, taking a circular trip around the world; now it is heading towards Iraq.
Poverty, destruction and refugees are the by-products of war. The United States does not seem to be worried about that factor, as long as there would be somebody to pay for its aftermath. Cities and villages may be leveled in this seemingly inevitable war, but we, the rest of the international community, are going to rebuild all that again. It has always been the case, where the United States provokes a war, or starts one, and other countries are compelled to pay for its expenses. The recent surreal-war against Afghanistan proved that wars and conflicts are not bound to remain between particular states, but are now going global and thus, we are all involved, regardless of whether we want to be so or not. The Afghani infrastructure was totally destroyed, more or less, and although many countries opposed the war, they are now coerced to restructure what could have been saved from destruction, in the first place. Ironically, the newly installed president Hamid Karzai has been reduced to begging for the promised funds.
If conflicts are perceived on a global scale, then the going-global war on Iraq will affect the whole region. More chaos is going to spread as a result of war, causing economies to fluctuate and remain unstable. This war is also going to weaken the strategic importance of the Gulf nations and OPEC, as the main producer of oil, and threaten regional security.
This war must not take place. It is ethically and legally wrong. The U.S. has failed to provide any legitimate incentive for going to war. Changing regimes of other countries is not the job of any nation in the world, especially if the people of the country do not unanimously support that goal and the means of achieving it.
The U.S. government and media wants to reinforce the image of an evil Saddam in the minds of the people, to legitimize its war against Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein is evil, as strongly demonstrated by the U.S., then it should be taken into account that he was just as evil in the 80’s when successive U.S. governments openly supported him against Iran. In fact, the U.S. government even supplied much of the weapons, including chemical weapons, used in that war.
Mr. Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, has been on TV a number of times, telling the whole world that weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq. What part of his account does the U.S. find inconceivable? It, instead, tells us that Iraq has shown its willingness to use whatever weapons it has in store. In case it has been forgotten, the only country in this world to have ever used nuclear weapons is the United States. Perhaps the world should demand weapons inspections in the U.S., too.
In addition, the war on Iraq would still not guarantee the successful change of the current regime. It might wind up another Afghanistan, in which thousands of civilians died, Mr. bin Laden supposedly survived, and is occasionally sending “watch out for us messages.”
We have not yet seen the anticipated Iraqi ‘Karzaié to replace Hussein. Similar to Afghanistan, there are many squads who are hardly awaiting the fall of Husseinés regime, to race for power. These squads are at odds. They all have their future plans on how to rule Iraq. Some are planning to establish an absolute monarchy, others want a semi-democratic state and perhaps others are considering the appliance of Sharia law. Yet with all these distinctions, internal conflict and instability is unavoidable, just as Afghanistan was alarmed by the assassinations of some of the members of its U.S.-chosen administration. The U.S. is still alien to the region and does not understand the needs of the people; therefore, tragedies do not cease to happen.
It is repeatedly heard that Saddam is a threat to peace, yet none of his neighbors in the Middle East (except maybe for Israel) are enthusiastic about toppling Saddam.
Perhaps, Iraqi oil could be the main purpose of this war, after all. One may have noticed that after the Talibanés rule had ended in Afghanistan, the giant American company UNOCAL signed an agreement for the extension of an oil pipeline, with three countries – Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan. Such an agreement could realistically be reached once the Iraqi regime is overthrown and replaced with a more obliging regime that would agree on pipelining oil through Jordan and Turkey.
U.S. Senate, Carl Levin, said in an interview earlier this month that the U.S. number one goal is to have weapon inspections and disarmament. The U.S., however, has refused the recurring generous offers made by the Iraqi government, to send back inspectors, opting instead for a military resolution. This suggests that the war on Iraq is going to be far from being uncertain. It is unreasonable to go to war, when the opposing government is willing to cooperate to put on ice the sweltering U.S. determination to cause yet another turmoil in the area.
With its long tradition of violence, the U.S. has been promoting hate and animosity amongst Americans and different peoples of the world. Its policies around the world are far more surreal than any satire.
Russell Baker once said, “A group of politicians deciding to bump off the President because his morals are bad is like the mafia getting together to bump off the Godfather for not going to church on Sunday.”
Mira Al-Hussein is a student of International Studies at Zayed University, in Dubai. Sobia Ahmed lives in Saudi Arabia, and is a student of Web Page Designing at Thomson Education Direct.