(This article was written in March 2003 at the outset of the American led coalition was to topple Iraq and the numerous and often contradictory excuses given to legitimise the ‘war’.)
“TV addiction” may not be academic jargon after all, as I myself have been glued to the TV for the last couple of days now. This addiction has been so marked at times that my wife has decided to put me on an intravenous drip for the duration of the war.
Maybe it is just me. But whilst I was hibernating from normal social interaction, I was struck by some ironies, contradictions surrounding this present conflict. They looked like inconsistencies to me, break downs in a logical sequence. May be it is just me. But the following aspects seem to be odd and anomalous.
- The coalition of the willing, led by US, say that they need to press ahead with the war and disarm Iraq because resolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the Security Council. They assert that the credibility of United would be lost and that the Security Council could be wholly irrelevant unless they stand up to, and enforce their resolutions. (So far so good.) For this reason they are willing to by-pass the United Nations, ignore the Security Council and start a war. Go figure.
- It has been exceedingly clear to most observers that the United Stated would be starting a ground war sometime in March. For Iraq, of course it cannot be a matter of conjecture. Their country looked to be invaded and for the regime in power, it would be a matter of survival. In the meantime the Security Council, led by US, demand that Iraq disarm and get rid of its arsenal of WMD, if indeed they have any. Dr. Blix and UNMOVIC attempt to seek out and destroy any and all such weapons, including of course the Al Samoud II. In such a scenario, if Iraq is certain, and remember that it cannot afford to be wrong, that it is going to be attacked and the regime destroyed, would it attempt to show all its arsenal and allow their destruction or attempt to hide and hold onto them for the day they know is imminent and unavoidable.
- Mr. Blair has stated repeatedly that it is the credible threat of force that has brought Iraq, even to this level of disarmament. That, it is the power and military might that is gathering around Iraq and the threat of imminent force that has forced Iraq to show some level of cooperation with the disarmament process. (Clear enough.) Commentators agree that it would have been political suicide back home if they have to bring the military machine back without fighting. They agree that neither the US nor UK can afford to bring back the excess of 250,000 military personnel, half-a-dozen aircraft carriers including whole battle groups without undertaking some sort of a military adventure. But if the whole idea of the military might was to show a credible show of force to disarm Iraq voluntarily then ….
- After the council of war in the Azores the Big Chiefs give a 48 hour deadline for Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq and promised military offences would commence, effectively by passing the UN mechanism. (No uncertainty there.) At the same time they announce that they would go back to the United Nations for the purposes of seeking international support for re-building Iraq. (huh).
- In the whole history of conflict between nations or between communities, this may be the one battle waged for the “hearts and minds of the people” of a country using laser guided bombs, smart weapons and attack helicopters of a “scale and scope” that has so far never been witnessed by any body.
- For the first 36 hours or so reporters covering the war complain to the Pentagon stating that the “shock and awe” is not on display. They keep on complaining and pestering the Pentagon rather like children wishing for a fireworks display. Almost as if they are impatient, urging a swift decision by Pentagon to rain whole-sale death and destruction on the city and the people of Baghdad.
- The war seems to be going well- for the coalition that is. So far there have been no chemical or biological attacks. But the coalition is certain that the Iraqi regime possess both. In fact General Franks last night said that he has no doubt about it. Let’s re-state. They know Saddam has such weapons. Assassination of Saddam has already been attempted. The coalition looks to get rid of him in the most literal sense possible. But hope that we will not use his weapons of mass destruction even as they get rid of him. Let us say, for the sake of argument that he has, hidden somewhere deep underground, such weapons as they say he has. (And you can imagine the fallout if nothing of the like is ever discovered.) Say that they are discovered in a post Saddam Iraq. But the argument against Saddam starts from the premise that he is the kind of man who would use such things. The war is on not just because he has them. Apparently he is just too dangerous a person to be allowed to have such weapons as he would surely use it against the US in the future. The final and biggest irony, therefore, is that the legitimacy of this present war almost demands that Saddam not only has such weapons but uses them against the coalition troops. For if he doesn’t, (whether he has and chooses not to, or because he doesn’t have any) the whole argument behind the campaign falls flat.
March 2003