Better the devil you know

[Guest]

George Bush has started the advertising for Gulf War II (coming soon to PPV), and believe me like all sequels this one's going to suck. Like all sequels, it is being done for nothing more than cold hard cash. Gulf War II is illegal, ill-advised and immoral, on all counts its wrong and will end up damaging America.

 

To soften us up for their newest blockbuster the Republican Junta is spewing forth a number of "miss-truths" from its propaganda department. Some rang from honest mistakes and misassumptions to downright lies. I feel it my duty to stand and show up some of these miss-truths and why "regime change" in Iraq is not in American self-interest.

 

If there's one thing that Saddam is not is an ideologue he doesn't preach any sort of global revolution nor does he really care about Islam or Palestine, all he cares about is maintaining and increasing his power. The fact is Saddam has nothing to gain from any further aggression, he knows full well that if he attacks anyone (except maybe Iran) he's done for. Saddam is no martyr he wants to stay alive and in power. So as long as America keeps in force security guarantees for the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia then he will stay put. Saddam knows any attack on America will result in his toppling and he has much to loose (he is thought to be the sixth richest man in the world due to oil smuggling) and because of this it is safe to say he poses no threat to America AT ALL.

 

Let's not leave it there though, not only does Saddam not pose a threat to America his regime is actually beneficial for America. The most obvious one is that America gets a whole load of cheap oil for aid it would have to give anyway if Saddam is toppled as a bribe to the new regime. Also it is the threat of Iraqi aggression that allows it to keep bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and that resulting strangle hold on Arab oil.

 

However there is also what would happen if Saddam was toppled. What should be remembered is that Iraq is not a natural country but an artificial one drawn up by the British in the 1920's. It is one of those states that needs to be a police state to stay together, the alternative is to fragment. The Kurds in the north who have practically had autonomy since the Gulf War (and grown rich through oil smuggling) and would be non to keen for direct rule to be reimposed. They would almost certainly break away destabilising not only Iran but our most valuable (and in reality only) Muslim ally Turkey as both these countries have large Kurd populations and have part of the land that makes up Kurdistan. Even worse the Sh'ite Muslims in the south are aligned to Iran and may either break away and join Iran or gain a position of dominance (like the Indian/ Russian backed Northern Alliance did in Afghanistan) in Iraqi making it a puppet of Iran.

 

Also you have to think what would Saddam do if he knew his days were up. Although has no interest in Palestine he is not averse to using and it is a certainty that he would attack Israel, maybe with chemical/ biological weapons. And there is the grave possibility that Sharon would respond with Nuclear weapons sucking America into a wider war in the Middle East.  Lest us never forget that both WW1 and WW2 came from struggles between a superpower and a pathetic little country (indeed Poland and Germany were practically align bar Danzig).

 

You also have to consider its wider impact. An attack on Iraq rewrites the rules of engagement for America from "Hurt us and your dead" to "Look at us funny and your dead" such a rewrite would be dangerous. Even though the new rules are no more than 5 months old already India (against Pakistan), Russia (in Chechnya), China (in Xinjiang), Israel (against Palestine) have used America's language against Terror to justify their own actions and human rights violations. And the oppressive dictatorships in Indonesia, the Arab countries, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan have used the fact that many of the dissidents are Muslims to claim they are Islamists and crush them.

 

Also you should realise that such a rewriting of the rules could very well lead America to be permanently mobilised and we have seen by the relatively small Afghan involvement the deals that had to be made with Russia (human rights abuses in Chechnya), China (invasion of Nepal) and Pakistan (Musharraf's dictatorship). American action could become more and more dependent on the approval of Russia and China, especially as these countries (and maybe India) become less dependent on American money.

 

Also you should realise the effect on the Europeans. The only thing keeping the European integrationist project together is a loathing of America and a fear of the American hegemony (this is why Britain (particularly the English) have always been reluctant "Europeans"). If America develops and increasingly realpolitik foreign policy going across the globe putting American puppets in charge will increase Europeans worry at their powerlessness in the face of American power. The push for a united Europe has already reached its endgame with the minting of the Euro coins will be far more liking to succeed with a unilateralist America running rampage and make it far more likely that Britain will be a part of it.

 

The final and most terrifying thing is the change in the rogue states themselves. The attack on Iraq will be the final abolishment of national sovereignty leaving a world where the powerful will be free and secure while the weak are once more organised into spheres of influence between the superpowers. However the ability of rival superpowers to protect their satellites will for the foreseeable future be limited (for example both Iran and Iraq are allied to Russia) so these states will need another security guarantee.

 

There is no other security guarantee against America other than the Nuclear Bomb. True sovereignty will come from threats of using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against invading American troops. An attack on Iraq will not stop but increase proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as states like Iran desperately try and join the likes of Pakistan and India that are safeguarded by their nuclear weaponry despite not being superpowers.

 

An attack on Iraq in the short time will lead may lead to an Iraqi civil war sucking in at least Turkey and Iran and maybe the likes of Saudi Arabia fearful of growing Iranian power. It could very lead to America becoming embroiled in a Israeli/ Arab war which could destabilise as many as three nuclear superpowers (Russia, China and India) all with large Muslim population and could lead to riots in western cities with large Muslim minorities.

 

Maybe it won't. Maybe will go okay.

 

But even if it goes well it WILL halt Middle Eastern oil supply increasing America's dependence on Russia, it WILL increase European loathing of America, it WILL create millions of new martyrs, it WILL rewrite the rules of engagement, and it WILL herald Nuclear Sovereignty.

 

An attack on Iraq will be a disaster, and will change the world for the worst.

 

There's no maybe about it.

 

 

 

William Cooling Ó-

reply:[email protected]

 

All feedback appericated.