The
unsuccessful wars of
Afghanistan and Iraq
By
Jonathan
Power
May 14, 2003
LONDON - The latest polls tell us that a majority of
American public opinion doesn't care that much if no
proof comes to light of Iraq possessing significant
numbers of weapons of mass destruction. Not just for
President George Bush but for America as a whole it has
been "a good war".
Nevertheless, deep down the Administration is a little
nervous about the course of events in Iraq. How else to
explain the rapid change in American senior personnel
supposedly running Iraq? But it can't be that concerned
about its long-time bete noire, nation-building, as
otherwise it would have asked for a sizeable
appropriation in the 2004 budget for reconstruction in
Iraq. But not only did it not ask Congress for any money
for Iraq, neither did it for Afghanistan. The old jibe
that America only does wars not peace has a sad ring of
truth. If one wanted to be nasty one could also ask where
is "Osama bin Laden"? Didn't George Bush tell the world
that the purpose of its war in Afghanistan was to "smoke
him out"? Just as he told us the purpose of regime change
in Iraq was to get rid of weapons of mass
destruction.
Many of us (including the then chairman of the U.S.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell) who saw a place for
sanctions as the primary tool to be used against Iraq
from the time of its 1990 invasion of neighbouring Kuwait
on, were browbeaten over the years by the
neo-conservative argument that a quick war brings about
less suffering to a society than years of sanctions. Now
we see in Iraq how wrong such an accusation was. If Iraq
was limping along after suffering the consequences of two
wars (one with Iran and one with the U.S.-led coalition)
and then also a decade of sanctions, the deprivation and
suffering are as nothing compared with today's havoc.
In February a Canadian-sponsored team spelt out the
likely vulnerability of Iraq if war went ahead. It warned
that Iraq was on the edge. Already, it said, close to a
quarter of Iraq's children were suffering from malnutrion
and the country's water and sewerage had not recovered
from their crippling during the 1991 war. The facts were
there for all to see and by the standards of any concept
of the "just war" theories of the religion that George
Bush is very publicly attached to, the reasons given for
going to war do not match the terrible outcome of the
invasion. A "feel good" factor in the polls is no
substitute for hard and honest thinking about how best it
might have been to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq. It
should have dealt with Al Qaeda with the same kind
hardworking application of coordinated police work- which
is what gave Israel Adolph Eichmann, the Nazi
exterminator-in-chief, France "Carlos", the ubiquitous
terrorist, and which in fact has led to the detention
already of a good number of the senior operatives of Al
Qaeda. The bombing of Afghanistan contributed not one wit
to that, other than killing more innocents than were
killed in the twin towers of New York.
Likewise, the means and the end have not been matched
in Iraq. It was long clear, even before the U.S.
investigators of weapons of mass destruction turned
up so little, that the 1991 war, the previous UN
inspections and the sanctions had effectively disarmed
Iraq, not just of most of the weapons of mass destruction
it was trying, rather unsuccessful, to develop but also
of ordinary military strength. How many fighter planes
did Iraq put in the air in this war? If my counting is
correct it was plus or minus zero.
It is in fact rather good that Washington does not
want the U.N. too involved. If the U.N went in to
administer the country in the effective way it did in
East Timor and Kosovo it would only serve to pull the
American chestnuts out of the fire. Frankly, the U.S.
made this mess, so the U.S. should clean it up. And then
it will learn, as it is slowly learning now, what is the
real cost of war compared with its alternatives and that,
indeed, there were alternatives. America has to come to
realize this, even if it has to learn the hard way
instead of the wise way.
The other war aim was to make the Middle East safe for
the sprouting of democracy. Democracy is a long, long way
away in Iraq. That has become obvious the last month. The
U.S. contribution to democracy in this part of the world
seems to be a tolerance of torture against detainees and
the locking up without any legal rights at all terrorist
and war crime suspects in Guantanamo and the sanction of
a policy of brute force by the Israeli occupation of much
of Palestine. This doesn't mean that those working in the
diplomatic, military and aid arms of the American and
British governments are not trying their hardest to make
democracy and governance work in Afghanistan and Iraq but
that their efforts are simply Sisyphean within the
political parameters laid down for them by George Bush
and his British war-making ally, Prime Minister Tony
Blair.
Mainly bad is coming out of America's wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. I am beginning to doubt if even
time, that friend to so many recent lost American causes,
is likely to be on Washington's side on this
occasion.
I can be reached by phone +44
7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2003 By
JONATHAN POWER
Follow this
link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book
written for the
40th Anniversary of
Amnesty International
"Like
Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty
International"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|