THE ANGLO-AMERICAN WAR ON Iraq in 1991 was markedly different from that today. In 1991 the war was provoked by Saddam Hussein. But today it is a pre-meditated act by George W. Bush. In 1991 there was a broad consensus under the UN in its favour. But today the broad consensus under the UN is against it. In 1991 the objective was to undo an act of aggression by Saddam Hussein against Kuwait. But today the objective is to change the Saddam Hussein regime by an act of aggression by the US. In 1991 there was no public protest against the war, either in the West or the East, before or after the war. But today the thunderous protest across the world has preceded the war in an unprecedented manner. In 1991, the Iraqi army was over a million-strong with a bristling armour and air force. But today, thanks to the UN inspectors and sanctions, the Iraqi army is barely a quarter of its old strength. Finally, in 1991 the war was fought under the rules of international law in an environment free of extraneous factors that could lead to a bitter blowback for the aggressor. But today the US aggression feeds “civilisational-clash” theories and threatens to disrupt the world order. For all these reasons, it is 2003 and not 1991 that can legitimately lay claim to being a definitive moment in history.
The Anglo-American axis claims it is fighting a just, moral and legitimate war. That is not true. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein represents any credible threat to the US or Britain or that it is in any way linked to Al-Qaeda. It is claimed that Iraq is in possession of banned weapons of mass destruction. That is not true. The weapons inspectors have not been able to unearth any such astounding weapons in ten months of renewed and detailed investigation. (Indeed, it is the US army that says it will use depleted uranium (DU) ammunition in the coming conflict). It is argued that UNSC resolution 1441 is sufficient to warrant an attack on Iraq. That is not true. If that had been the case, why did the slim “coalition of the willing” try so hard to obtain UNSC sanction for war under a new resolution? It is claimed that the Anglo-American patience with Iraq has run out after 12 years of failed disarmament. That is not true. More than 30 years ago the UN asked Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. But Israel continues its settlement policy and flouts dozens of UN resolutions without risking the wrath of the Western powers. Finally, “just” parallels are being made between military action today in Iraq and that in Kosovo some years ago outside the framework of the UN. But these comparisons are unfair. With the vetoing exception of Russia, military action in Kosovo had multinational support across the globe – in NATO, in the EU, in the OIC, in the NAM – while military action in Iraq today lacks the support of any of these organisations. Anyone who has read Bob Woodward’s best selling apologia on “Bush’s War” in Afghanistan published last November should not be surprised by this end-result. The book explains how President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld were keen on “sorting out” Iraq outside the framework of the UN after 9/11 but were dissuaded from doing so by Secretary of State Colin Powell who assured them he would obtain the same legitimate cover for American action as in the case of Afghanistan. But Mr Powell’s failure to do so has hardened the “resolve” of the Anglo-American axis to trash the UN, divide the EU, split NATO and “go it alone”. This was the advice proffered by Henry Kissinger to them: America can remain a superpower only if it shows the “resolve to act” in its own self-interest irrespective of international law. Indeed, if international law doesn’t suit the superpower, a new pre-emptive doctrine of action must be inserted into it to suit America.
Robert Fisk, that great and courageous journalist, has recently warned that in the aftermath of war the glue that holds Iraq together will come unstuck and there will be nothing left to hold people together. “The nightmare is not so much the cruel bombardment of Iraq as the growing conviction that the Anglo-American invasion will provoke a civil war, of Shia against Sunnis, of Sunnis against Kurds, of Kurds and Turkomans”. The pillage of Baghdad awaits the new conquerors.
America supported Osama bin Ladin’s jihad against the “evil Soviet empire” in the 1980s. Today OBL is the most wanted man in the world in America’s “war against terror”. America also supported Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980s. Today Saddam is being equated with Hitler and Milosovich in America’s “war against the axis of evil”. Will Iran and North Korea be next? But the war in Iraq will spawn a thousand OBLs across the Islamic world and American allies, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, will also find themselves in the eye of the gathering storm. The doctrine of “pre-emption” awaits its most fearful and treacherous application and blowback yet.