petermarcus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
petermarcus) wrote2003-02-09 09:17 pm
petermarcus) wrote2003-02-09 09:17 pm
Iraq
I loathe issues that appear to be black and white, because they are rarely so. Anyone who is black and white on a truly controversial issue is perhaps the definition of a fanatic, no matter which side on which they fall.
In light of recent revelations by the US through Powell and the end of the first round of Iraqi inspections, I was re-reading one of my earlier Iraq rants. I'm no longer leaning toward the theory of Iraq being the gateway to WWIII, but my stance on the violation of Iraqi sovereignty hasn't changed much.
I still believe that Iraq and al Qaeda are about oil, power, and money, on all sides. The US side is fairly obvious. A rich oilman as President of the country of the world's most powerful military cannot be trusted to be immune to the temptations of oil, power, and money.
bin Laden and aQ are almost equally obvious -- Arafat himself says that he would welcome aQ's help in destroying Israel, but bin Laden doesn't give a dinar about Palestine. All that bin Laden (the multi-multi-millionaire oil heir) cares about is leading a bunch of surly arab kids into world power. His ultimate goal is the world, but his short-term goal is an oil nation, probably Saudi Arabia.
France, is perhaps not so obvious on the surface. At least, not in the mainstream press. French oil companies control a huge chunk of Iraqi and Iranian oil exports, much as the US and Britain control chunks of oil exports in other mideast nations. French big-business stands to tremendously increase their riches (and political power) by maintaining the status quo and licking the sandals of Saddam. If every SUV tank of gas in the US funds Islamic terrorism through Saudi Arabia, every Renault tank of gas in France is one more Iraqi or Iranian civilian shot or gassed to keep the oil flowing.
It was Bush I's responsibility to enforce the Iraqi surrender agreement, as binding initially as the partitioning of Berlin. However, if the letter of international agreement truly meant anything on mere strength of words, then Iraq would be disarmed, Israel would be out of Gaza and the West Bank, and Taiwan would be run by China. Laws and resolutions may be laws and resolutions, but in the reality of international relations, precedent is also precedent, and possession is indeed 9/10ths of reality. Bush I should have enforced the surrender, but he dropped the ball. Then Clinton picked up the ball, dug a deep hole, and buried the ball under concrete. Since the Gulf War, the US has had four governments: Bush I, Clinton run by liberals, Clinton run by conservatives, and Bush W. The time has passed to make an airtight argument that a twelve year old agreement must suddenly be enforced because a document says it must.
Still, the war looks inevitable, and even though I don't think we should be there on principle...I'm not going to cry too hard, either. Saddam doesn't deserve to be the leader of a squad of septic tank frogmen. Vastly more civilian lives will be saved by removing him, than by leaving him be. The difference will be that the civilian deaths that will result by the war to remove him will be on our souls, not Saddam's. Maybe I'm a wimp in this as I'd rather not have that responsibility. But maybe avoiding that responsibility is, in the long run, more damaging than just getting it over with.
In light of recent revelations by the US through Powell and the end of the first round of Iraqi inspections, I was re-reading one of my earlier Iraq rants. I'm no longer leaning toward the theory of Iraq being the gateway to WWIII, but my stance on the violation of Iraqi sovereignty hasn't changed much.
I still believe that Iraq and al Qaeda are about oil, power, and money, on all sides. The US side is fairly obvious. A rich oilman as President of the country of the world's most powerful military cannot be trusted to be immune to the temptations of oil, power, and money.
bin Laden and aQ are almost equally obvious -- Arafat himself says that he would welcome aQ's help in destroying Israel, but bin Laden doesn't give a dinar about Palestine. All that bin Laden (the multi-multi-millionaire oil heir) cares about is leading a bunch of surly arab kids into world power. His ultimate goal is the world, but his short-term goal is an oil nation, probably Saudi Arabia.
France, is perhaps not so obvious on the surface. At least, not in the mainstream press. French oil companies control a huge chunk of Iraqi and Iranian oil exports, much as the US and Britain control chunks of oil exports in other mideast nations. French big-business stands to tremendously increase their riches (and political power) by maintaining the status quo and licking the sandals of Saddam. If every SUV tank of gas in the US funds Islamic terrorism through Saudi Arabia, every Renault tank of gas in France is one more Iraqi or Iranian civilian shot or gassed to keep the oil flowing.
It was Bush I's responsibility to enforce the Iraqi surrender agreement, as binding initially as the partitioning of Berlin. However, if the letter of international agreement truly meant anything on mere strength of words, then Iraq would be disarmed, Israel would be out of Gaza and the West Bank, and Taiwan would be run by China. Laws and resolutions may be laws and resolutions, but in the reality of international relations, precedent is also precedent, and possession is indeed 9/10ths of reality. Bush I should have enforced the surrender, but he dropped the ball. Then Clinton picked up the ball, dug a deep hole, and buried the ball under concrete. Since the Gulf War, the US has had four governments: Bush I, Clinton run by liberals, Clinton run by conservatives, and Bush W. The time has passed to make an airtight argument that a twelve year old agreement must suddenly be enforced because a document says it must.
Still, the war looks inevitable, and even though I don't think we should be there on principle...I'm not going to cry too hard, either. Saddam doesn't deserve to be the leader of a squad of septic tank frogmen. Vastly more civilian lives will be saved by removing him, than by leaving him be. The difference will be that the civilian deaths that will result by the war to remove him will be on our souls, not Saddam's. Maybe I'm a wimp in this as I'd rather not have that responsibility. But maybe avoiding that responsibility is, in the long run, more damaging than just getting it over with.
no subject
the US administration do the smart thing and force/coerce/convince the UN to sanction the whole thing and take Saddam out. If he does not (guffaw) abdicate.
no subject
Re:
no subject
Really?? How would he get into power??
Re:
Saudi Arabia is having real problems with their fundamentalists and youth. There's a lot of poverty, plus the real view that the current King is there only because the US put him there. If the King gets overthrown, the youth and fundamentalists will look for someone who is anti-US, and bin Laden has a fairly good name with the youth, plus a proven track record for getting things done. Like the Nazis, bin Laden is good at telling the poor just what they'd like to hear -- that they're chosen and their problems are not their fault.
Overall, I think it's a long shot. But, I don't think bin Laden thinks it's a long shot.
no subject
I mean, victims of poverty....
no subject
no subject
If I were cynical (call it Black), I would say that oil boy Bush W. is using 9/11 as a cover for his family's revenge. If I were altruistic (call it White), I'd say that 9/11 was a wake-up call that maybe we shouldn't let oil boy Saddam maybe nuke Tel Aviv or Mecca. The truth is probably a mixture of both, plus a lot of subplots like oil reserves, creating another potential ally in the region, freeing some cronically oppressed people, etc. It's a big, big gray area and everyone in every nation probably has their own pros and cons.