The destabilizing effects of the Iraq war
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
No comments
By Ahmed E Souaiaia
August 27, 2003
In one of his most recent remarks, President Bush acknowledged
that "terrorists are gathering in Iraq
” and he argued that “the more progress we make in
Iraq , the more desperate the terrorists will
become." At first glance, there may
appear to be some intelligent logic in that assessment of the situation in that
part of the world. However, when taken into
the context of how we arrived where we are now, that statement can only be construed
as an alarming admittance of failure and short-sightedness.
A year ago, around this time, Iraq
was bowing to the threat of military action if they
did not disarm. Access to suspected banned weapons was granted, Samud missiles
were being destroyed, so-called mobile labs were tested, and information
gathered by spy satellites and other intelligence means were analyzed. Had the
West kept the pressure on the regime under the UN umbrella, the world community
could have extracted Saddam’s consent to protect and honor his international
commitments to human rights or risk war that will remove him from power.
Four months after the unilateral action undertaken by President
Bush and Prime Minister Blair, the weapons of mass destruction are nowhere to
be found. And the scary part of this is: if this administration was correct in
its initial assessment of the existence of such weapons, by now, these weapons
may have already fallen in the wrong hands. Alternatively, if these weapons did
not exist in the first place, then the premise of sending troops to the killing
fields becomes non-existent as well.
Every day a life is lost in that war zone, the administration must face
the reality of stopping the loss of the next by doing the right thing, not by
spinning it.
This war was premised on disarming Iraq and putting an end to the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While WMD’s are yet to be found
in Iraq , the danger of proliferation became
more and more real as states who wanted to possess them accelerated their
quest. After all, it is only rational that regimes would learn from past
experience: compliance with disbarment demands did not guarantee Saddam’s
political survival but having a nuclear weapon could as the crisis with North
Korea shows. Because of this slow-acting
administration, we will see a new race for “weaponizing” and that would include
the acquisition of dangerous weapons.
Four months after the launch of this costly war, Saddam had the
Qaeda-type militants cornered and limited to the Northern small area controlled
in most part by the Kurds. Today, and according to the administration officials
and military leaders, al-Qaeda itself, or its representatives, are roaming the
streets of Baghdad and
killing at will.
Four months ago, the war on terror was taken to the opponents’
backyard with the support and blessings of the world community. This
administration inherited an overwhelming post-911 legacy of sympathy that could
have propelled the US to an
unprecedented moral leadership. Since the launch of the war, it would appear
that Bin Laden has recruited more members and affiliates than this
administration’s allies. Additionally, the real-estate that was shrinking under
the feet of the opponents in Somalia and
Afghanistan , miraculously expended to include
Iraq and soon, very likely, neighboring states
like Saudi Arabia and Jordan . The international outrage over the killing of innocents
in New York turned into an outrage against the
arrogance and unilateralism of this administration even from historical allies
like France as a result of hasty decision to
go to war. Never in my imagination, could a state transform itself from the
victim that earned the sympathy and support of the entire world into a
demonized bully in this short time. This administration blindsided the grieving
American public to carry out a counter-productive mission.
Four months ago, the reach of the brutal spy and security
personnel trained by Saddam to kill his enemies was shrinking due to the
watchful eye of world and the presence of numerous international organizations.
This week, the Interim US Administration in Iraq
decided to enlist the services of these same elements
to fight the resistance; it must be a painful memory-jolt for Iraqis who are
asked to believe that old ways are gone with Saddam.
What is most alarming is that this war is indirectly expending the
definition of terrorism to levels that would render terrorism legitimate in the
eyes of many. It seems that this administration is labeling anyone attacking
the US troops in
Iraq as a “terrorist”. In doing so, the US
runs the risk of blurring the boundaries between
terrorism and legitimate resistance.
Just as there is a legal context for the US occupation as defined in international law, resistance
movements, misguided as they may, have the legal protection as well. If the
administration insists on not making the distinction even in a sensitive
situation like this, then it will run the risk of legitimizing terrorism per
se.
