Tony Blair talked yesterday about the thing you mentioned: that first it was weapons of mass destruction, and now suddenly it's liberation. He said the reason for the war is the weapons issue, not the liberation of the Iraqi people, because if we went to war over every tyrant, we'd be at war with half the world. But he said to remember that liberation will be a by-product, and that makes the war for him a matter of morality. In the same way, Churchill didn't go to war to liberate the Jews, but the Jews were liberated and so that good thing came of the war.
I've never argued that America's motives are pure. All the people who argue that America created Saddam are 100 per cent right. Saddam was supported by America (and armed) as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism, particularly against Iran. Osama bin Laden was supported to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. This is a perennial American problem, which Randy rightly pointed out today could happen again if the West supports the wrong person to take over Saddam.
For me, the bottom line is that the Middle East is a mess, largely of Britain's making because of drawing up maps with no respect for tribal differences, in order to reward warlords who had helped the British in some way, and then giving land to Israel -- which, whether you agree with it or not, has caused massive problems, and I wonder whether the British had the moral right to do it - no offence intended, Laurent. But now that it's there, it has to be defended. We can't expect the Israelis to go throw themselves in the sea. We've got pretend kings in Saudi Arabia, Jordan (which many would argue is where Palestine should be), and the other Gulf states. Some countries rich from oil, some countries very poor. Massive human rights violations wherever you look. The cauldron of Islamic fundamentalism constantly threatening the internal stability of all these countries, because of poverty, lack of due process, lack of representation, and no trust in their governments. So the West looks at this chaos, and thinks - the last thing we want to do is change anything - if there's a vicious dictator, at least he's keeping a lid on things. But as we've seen, it doesn't work - even tightly closed lids will bubble open if enough pressure builds up, and now with al-Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalism seems to have become a threat to everyone - the West AND the Arab world.
But at last someone is suggesting radical root and branch change, and I know it's surprising that it's George Bush, and this makes people suspicious of his motives. But regardless of motives, there's a real chance here for a secular democratic regime to be installed in Iraq - the first in the Arab world, and for Saudi oil to become less important, thereby weakening that regime. And maybe the Palestinians would be encouraged by that change to make changes of their own - remember they started out as a secular, democratic movement (or at least they wanted to be) - the involvement of the PLO with Islamic fundamentalists is relatively recent. It IS idealistic - but if no-one is idealistic, how is this kind of change ever going to happen? The Arabs are a great people, although often their own worst enemy, but I think if they could ever embrace democracy and accept Israel, Arabia could be a very great and enlightened nation. And as Arab nations have been some of the main sources and supporters of global terrorism since the 60s, it's in everyone's interests to help solve the problems of that region.
As I see it, the peace protesters have their faces turned in the wrong direction. They're not going to stop the war, but they could have an effect on whether Bush and Blair support the pro-democracy movement, or whether some other old fascist, perhaps less inclined to torture, is installed. But not enough people are watching that, so there's no pressure, and it's starting to look as though the Iraqi democrats will be let down again. If that happens, they will turn on the Americans, as will the Kurds, and what with the problems faced by the Kurds in Turkey as well as Iraq, there could be a horrible revolution inside Iraq which could spill over the borders. This is all speculation, but it's possible, so I hope Bush does support the democrats, even if, as you say Ron, it could mean a long period of uncertainty. But I feel that people have the right to be self-determining, even if they make mistakes.
Sarah
At 1:10 AM +0200 01/01/2000, ron wrote:
the problem that i have with the sudden "liberation" theory is how its been neatly dusted out & put on display now that the "weapons of mass destruction" thing seems to have lost popular favor.>>>>>You said Iraqis would probably be worse off if liberated. How could they be worse off? go ask the people of zimbabwe, namibia, zambia, mocambique, nigeria, kenya, zaire, mali, ivory coast, uganda. (and im sure many people could add numerous other examples to this list) they all thought they were getting a bargain when they got "democracy". they all came horribly, horribly short.
