The US says there is to be a war with Iraq. The world asks for sufficient reason to justify this important event. The reply is sparse. Traditional allies have spoken against this action, with the sole exception of Israel. The Israeli's want war with Iraq, because Iraq sent them SCUDS in the Gulf War, and still openly aids the Palestinians. The Israeli's are afraid Iraq will find a way to supply badly needed anti-tank and anti-helicopter rockets to the Palestinians. The Israeli's don't want an all-out war. They want the US to take the risks of subduing Iraq. The tone in the US is cautious. Not only foreign countries are opposed, many presidential advisers, experienced counselors, and veterans of the Gulf War advise against an Iraqi adventure. The fact is, most of the world says no, and there is considerable internal dissent, but in spite of this, the US administration listens to Israel; Israel says yes, so the war is on.
One wonders at the cost, both now and in future. Is it to be a declared war, announced with a formal declaration? Or is it to be a clandestine affair, shamefully concealed from the newsmen and their cameras? Are the combatants to be legal combatants, or some other category not entitled to the rights of the Geneva Convention? The US behaviour over the past year suggest it will be another covert and sleazy affair. War is never with honour, but recent US actions have found an original nadir. One wonders if much of American democratic ideals that preceeded the WTC attack was only a veneer for a venal core. There are some slight signs of a reawakening of conscience, but whether a restoration of earlier ideals is possible is in serious doubt, and the issue is deeply disturbing.
In a surprisingly fast reaction to US foreign policy over the past year, the world is in the process of re-aligning itself. The rapidity of this process is striking, and the names of the countries involved in making these new alliances provokes amazement. Future historians will face a formidable task to understand what happened, and why.
First to be noted is the strain placed on the NATO alliance. NATO was created by the winners of WWII as a means of confronting perceived Russian empirical ambitions. Russia used its convoluted version of communism as a unifying factor in an effort to dominate the world. It was thought for a time that the impetus came from Jewish Zionists. Since communism is atheistic, religion being considered "the opiate of the masses," it soon transformed into a war of the God-fearing against the God-less. The God-fearing countries were primarily the Christian countries of 'the West.' A cynic would say the Christians fought the Atheists, and the Christians have won, so far.
The European members of NATO have formed an economic/political union, and the dismemberment of the Russian Empire has obviated the purpose of the NATO alliance. While NATO members do not tolerate terrorist acts, it must be remembered that the military might of NATO was originally created in reaction to a perceived threat from Russia and communism. In an ironical turn of events, Russia has indicated an interest in joining NATO, and there is no obstreperous objection. Both Russia and the European Union have expressed disapproval of US policy toward Iraq, and the US ignores it. In consequence, NATO has become less a military factor, especially in its reluctance to be used in the US war against terrorism. The members, in general, refuse to participate in a nebulous fight against unnamed, and basically unknown adversaries. It is a perversion of NATO's purpose.
Germany is a strong member of NATO, both economically and militarily. It is a democracy, installed after its defeat by the allied armies in WWII. Germany has objected to a war against Iraq. Japan, the Asian member of the Axis alliance in WWII, also opposes the idea of a war against Iraq. These two enemy countries from WWII, developed as democracies during a long period of occupation, have been staunch allies of the US. Both now oppose the war against Iraq. The US ignores them, and this snub effectively negates fifty years of friendship and economic cooperation. Japan's population is re-evaluating its role in the world, especially its relationship with the US. The same might be said of the European Union, other European non-EU member countries, and the countries of Africa. This amounts to an enormous shift in world alignment, amounting to a total re-moulding of the world political and economic balance.
The countries of the Middle East oppose the war against Iraq, with the sole exception of Israel. Turkey is lukewarm. The US foreign policy, in only one year, has done more to unite the Middle East countries than all the pan-Arab movements of the last five hundred years. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have stated their strong objection. The US ignores them. Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia have added their displeasure. There are numerous others. The US ignores them all, hearing only the loud call of Israel. Whether true or not, the appearance is that the pro-Israel policy of the US is of greater concern than all other issues. The US is seen to approve of Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, and thus the matter tends to take an anti-Islamic tone. If the US intent is to demonise Islam, thereby uniting all the Islamic countries against it, then this unwise policy is succeeding beyond all belief.
The UN disapproves of using force to resolve the issue of arms inspection in Iraq. The US ignores the UN. The one organisation that could act as a voice of reason, and fulfill its role as a peacekeeper, is pushed aside as a nuisance. The US was the prime mover in the creation of the UN, and now is the primary obstacle it must overcome in order to attain its idealistic objectives. One must wonder what future the UN will play in world events if it must contend with the obduracy of the US with its unilateral stance. The UN is not a nuclear superpower, and it must conduct its business with the goodwill and cooperation of its members. When the US, as a superpower member, refuses to accept its agencies as moderator, then the UN becomes effete and superficial in its role as keeper of world peace. If the UN fails in its mission, the US will be held responsible.
Canada, the northern neighbor of the US, has serious reservations about supporting more war on terrorism adventures. England and Australia, along with most other Commonwealth nations, find continued alliance with US policy embarrassing. There is less enthusiasm now than ever to join in further Afghanistan raids and peacekeeping roles, and certainly there is strong popular demand for evidence to justify an attack on Iraq.
Mexico, the neighbor to the south, has received a recent rebuff, when the adjoining state of Texas (Bush's home) executed a Mexican citizen. Fox, the President of Mexico, promptly cancelled a planned visit, to the wide approval of his constituency. The anti-US feeling thus runs high in Mexico at the moment, and the execution must be considered an unfortunate (and unnecessary) failure of diplomacy. The US defends its right to incarcerate and execute foreigners, and does this over the objections of the countries whose citizens are held. The US does not feel constrained to offer minimal legal rights to its own citizens it considers even tangentially associated with terrorists or terrorist activity.
Anyone, regardless of nationality, can be killed or arrested without warrant, without legal representation, without charge, for indefinite periods, and in unknown prisons anywhere in the world. The US presents this activity as representative of the means a democracy is entitled to use in defending and perpetuating itself. Such immorality is covered by the exigencies of war, according to the US. There is widespread disagreement, even horror, at the prospect. The US should not be surprised when it is treated with disrespect and disdain.
The countries of South America are constantly irritated by an annoying CIA presence. Columbia struggles with the problems of its drug industry, while Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay face a danger of economic collapse caused by excessive debt and corruption. The US has involvement, and in some instances is blamed, in all of these. In Venezuela the US is accused of undermining the Chavez government in a 'regime change' operation. The purpose is clearly seen to be connected to Venezuela's oil resources. The alleged US interference in Venezuela is a sore point with all of South America, and the traditional unquestioning support of South American countries the US has always relied on for support of its policies is gone.
The attack against Iraq is to go on, in spite of every sincere caution by well-meaning friends against it. Such a stance is not difficult to understand. The answer is not just Israel, although Israel is extremely valuable for its aid in providing intelligence, and also as a source of military support to be used in an emergency. The main reason for the attack on Iraq is to be found elsewhere.
The CIA is blamed for removing the democratically elected leader of Iran, and in his place installing the Shah. The Shah ruthlessly suppressed dissent, while keeping the oil taps open to western buyers. He accepted payment in arms, allowing the West to better control its trade balance. When Iran was wrested back by an Islamic revolution, this alarmed the US. The Iranians captured the US Embassy in Tehran, and read all the diplomatic files contained there. The Iranians were infuriated by what they found, and their distrust of the US continues to the present day. To the Iranians, the US is duplicitous, totally unworthy of trust or respect. The Iranians share their information (and their disgust) with other Islamic countries, accentuating their effectiveness in exposing the hypocrisy of espoused US democratic ideals. Iran is a potential base for further expansion of revolutionary Islamic fervor, and thus a concerted effort is made to curtail and contain its influence.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq stands between Iran and the rich oil fields of the Arabian peninsula. Saddam Hussein became the primary vehicle for curbing the Iranian potential. Billions of dollars in arms and other weaponry were delivered to Iraq to ensure that Iran lost the Iran-Iraq war. The defeat of Iraq would put Iran next to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other UAE oil fields. It was decided that Iran must be stopped, at any cost, and by any means. Saddam Hussein thus became an important US ally. During the course of the war, he also amassed an enormous debt to the West for arms, about $50 billion by some estimates.
After eight long years the Iraq-Iran war finally came to a close. There was no winner. Iran did not defeat Iraq. The US considered their goal of containment accomplished, and therefore it was a victory. Only the graves, the unused weapons, and the debt remained. In order to pay the debt, Saddam Hussein decided to make a claim on disputed oil fields along the Kuwait border. He thought he had US approval to do this. There was a diplomatic misunderstanding, and the Gulf War was the result. Saddam Hussein was humiliated, the debt remains (greater than ever), and now he is an enemy to be invaded, with the reason given that he still has "weapons of mass destruction" that were delivered to Iraq by the West during the war with Iran.
Saddam feels betrayed, and cannot trust anyone. What is interesting is the manner in which world opinion has turned in his favor. Since Bush declared him a Charter Member of the Axis-of-Evil Club, his stock has risen dramatically. Iraq is now a desirable trading partner, and countries are signing trade agreements in spite of US sniping from a distance. Iraq, once alone, is now finding itself the center of a growing alliance of countries willing to flout US displeasure. The US feared Iran would spread its Islamic influence to Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters around the Persian Gulf. Thanks to Bush's inexperience in foreign policy, this has transpired in the blink of an eye.
The dependence of the US on oil is much like a drug addiction. The daily fix must come from somewhere, and the supplier is the most sought after business partner. The US is today the largest importer of oil, averaging about 10 million barrels a day. By contrast, the second largest consumer (Japan) requires less than 5 million barrels per day.
US oil imports come from Russia (believe it or not), Venezuela (surprise, surprise), and Norway. Additional supplies come from Saudi Arabia, often carried in Saudi ships. Finally, the scene begins to clear. Afghanistan is fundamental to the oil in the Caspian Sea region, along with Russia and others. Venezuela is not fond of present US policy, and especially resents US efforts to control and manipulate its oil. Russia has just signed a $20 billion trade package with Iraq. The Saudi's and other Persian Gulf producers are more interested in their local politics than the US oil problem. Their main concern is the internal resentment over the uneven distribution of petrodollars, aggravated by a perception the rulers have aided the US-Israeli persecution of the Palestinians.
Considering the negatives, why then does the US attack Iraq? It is simply a last ditch effort to maintain the flow of essential oil at a reasonable price. How is the effort going? Today the price of oil is at $30, and there is no reason it cannot go higher, much higher, given US inability to understand and intervene in the Palestinian situation. The US economy suffers enormous inflation when the price escalates. This is compounded when oil exporters demand payment in cash (or gold) rather than arms or other worthless American merchandise.
If Iraq is taken and occupied, with a new regime installed a'la Afghanistan and Iran, then the Iraqi oil supply is guaranteed. That also helps prevent further Iranian (Islamic) influence from spreading around the Persian Gulf, relieving a threat to future supplies. Success assumes Venezuela can be dominated, that the Russians prefer oil cash over increased political influence, and that the Afghanistan route from the Caspian region can be kept open. There are other contingencies. One watches the oil futures price to find a balance.
A daily soap opera unfolds. Will the arrogant giant find the courage to swallow pride and ego, seeking forgiveness in humility and supplication? Or will the powerful and desperate addict destroy the world attempting to get his fix?
The url of this page is: https://harunrmy0.tripod.com/06Iraq.html