Peace and War

The Iraq blues

Now that the United States is withdrawing its last military forces from Iraq – as have the British and other allies – America is going through the same introspection and malaise as it did after Vietnam.

Columnist Joel Stein in Time magazine, August 5, 2010 issue, regrets his earlier, mild support for the 7 ½ year war and now says the cost in US military lives, civilian deaths and ongoing civil strife in Iraq mean that the US should never take military action ever again unless under attack or under imminent attack. (3rd last sentence.)

Such heartfelt guilt and dismay at a war without ‘real victory’ is a reemergence of the old Vietnam syndrome three and a half decades later.

Yes, the ‘war’ and American troop withdrawal did not come after a resounding victory and ensured stability in Iraq (or Vietnam) and thousands of American troops did die, and countless more Iraqis.

But to follow Stein’s closing advice is suicidal.


We no longer live in a world were enemies send formal declarations of war or ultimatums before the fighting begins. We no longer live in a world were nuclear weapons or deadly biological and chemical substances are under the control of a few states who realize (or care) that the ensuing WW3 will be the end of mankind.

Allowing unstable, megalomaniacal state leaders – whether motivated by religious or other ideology, or past history – to possess nuclear or biological and chemical weapons cannot be ignored.

Allowing terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to obtain such weapons is even more unthinkable as the mind of the suicide bomber does not fear Armageddon and sees it as the doorway to some Messianic Age. As these groups rely on money and a secret supply of weapons from ‘mentor states’ and ‘backers’ – some of whom have long been in the process of developing or already have such instruments of mass death (think Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya, today’s Iran, possibly Pakistan) the danger factor multiplies.

So, should we just hold back and watch and wait until an attack is ‘imminent’ or ‘begun’ as Stein suggests?

I think not.

Constant world wide vigilance and improved spying is key, but there is never 100% proof in advance any more.

The age of chivalry and lining up armies at a preset time and place is gone. And with weapons more deadly than in the past, the margin for error – for inaction – is close to nil.

So, a guessing game ensues. Which leaders, which groups can be merely watched and ‘contained’ and which constitute a deadly threat today -- or tomorrow.

And, maybe, Joel Stein should remember that soon after the overthrow of Saddam, Libyan Omar Gaddafi suddenly ended his quest for nuclear weapons and nuclear North Korea began to make overtures for peace.


_______________________


As for Iraq in particular, yes, Iraq has not gone as expected.

In the post 911 environment, in light of Saddam’s megalomaniac dreams of heading a new Persian empire (remember his decade long war with Iran in the 1980s) and Muslim world caliphate (invading Kuwait and vicinity – and possibly Saudi Arabia with its oil and holy Mecca in 1990 -- blocked by the West in the first Persian Gulf War), his ongoing support for anti-west terrorism, and with phone chatter intercepted by American, British, French, Russian and Israeli intelligence: between Saddam, his officials and scientists working secretly on completing nuclear weapons, etc.,** ongoing containment was no longer the option in the minds of at least the United States, Great Britain and their allies.

As for the ensuing war, it lasted less than 2 weeks in a resounding victory for western military strategy, superior equipment and well trained troops.


However, what was not expected was the subsequent fratricide, and ingratitude.

The Kurds, for the first time in over 3 decades, are living in peace in the north,
but Iraq’s two main groups, the majority Shiites and the previous dominant Sunnis have been unable to find a modus vivendi within a democratic framework.

Blood revenge for Saddam era atrocities was common at first, and then the battle for clan and warlord turf -- with its attacks and counter attacks – began. This is what has turned much of Iraq into a fratricidal bloodbath – usually misreported as religious strife of Sunni vs. Shiite.

With the exception of a small influx of anti-western Al Qaeda mujahidin terrorists, attacks on and battles with western troops have been part of these turf wars, as American and other troops ‘got in the way’.


Being ‘peacemakers’ is never easy; you become collateral damage.




** While weapons of mass destruction have not been found, Saddam did think he had such weapons at or near completion. The phone chatter convinced him and the world spy agencies. But the scientists and officials were lying to him – for fear they and their families would be killed.

Note: Even Canadian experts and news people were convinced. On the TVO show Diplomatic Immunity, just before the war started, all the experts from diverse backgrounds agreed Saddam did or would soon have such deadly, secretly developed weapons. They too trusted the intercepted phone chatter as well as the reports from Iraqi scientists who had fled to the West.