THE EDITOR, Sir:
STEPHEN VACCIANNIE wrote a very good and balanced article 'Reflections on the Iraq war' published November 24, 2003.
There are three points I would like to explore further. The first is the reason for war. As I recall it, the reason given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq was that Iraq posed a real and imminent danger to U.S. interest by virtue of their weapons of mass destruction. Nine months into the invasion, and with hundreds of thousands of military and other personnel on the ground they are yet to turn up these weapons of mass destruction.
These days the posture of the U.S. administration has changed. Its punch-line is now that Iraq itself as well as the rest of the world are better off without Saddam. But even if we accept that, it was never the reason advanced for war.
There are numerous lessons to be learned from this. Perhaps the most important of which relate to those who believe in the doctrine of "pre-emptive strikes". If we assume that there are indeed no weapons of mass destruction, we are admitting one of two things. Either that, with the greatest sophistication in technology, the intelligence received by the Bush Government was wrong. Or that the technology and intelligence were right but that the government was sufficiently corrupt to deceive its people into war.
The second point is the effect of war. When President Bush made his declaration of war he promised "that the world would become a safer place" as a result of the invasion. What we have seen in response to the invasion are unparalleled levels of terrorist activity not just in Iraq (where the U.S. military are haemorrhaging) but even in areas not generally on the radar for attacks, example Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
In the aftermath of the invasion we have also seen countries like North Korea and Iran kick their nuclear programmes into high gear and move to significantly strengthen their military capability. Why? Because they realise, as I do, the greatest irony - certainly in my lifetime. Saddam's Iraq was invaded because it did not have enough weapons of mass destruction, if any at all. The reason the United States has not attacked North Korea, which every credible analyst agrees is a greater threat to the U.S. than Iraq could ever be, is precisely that. The fact that North Korea has both conventional and nuclear weapons capable of bleeding South Korea and Japan makes the United States far more respectful.
But what if Premier Kim Jung IL sees a U.S. military build-up in the South Pacific and feels that they might be coming for him? Is he allowed to take a swing at the 30,000 U.S. troops in South Korea or try to put a piece of Japan into the ocean? For such is the doctrine of pre-emption. So what we see is that even countries that are incapable of feeding their people now feel obliged to develop (whether overtly or not) weapons capable of inflicting maximum pain, lest they become targets for invasion.
The third point is the tragedy of war. I do know how many of the invading troops have been killed and wounded. What I do not know are the number of innocent Iraqis who have been killed and injured. These are the people I most feel for.
The international community stood united with the U.S. in the war prosecuted against Afghanistan (and rightly so) because there was clear, unmistakable and direct evidence of the complicity of the Taliban regime.
On the admission of President Bush himself, "there is no evidence tying Iraq to 9/11." But he invaded anyway. And with his expedition in Iraq President Bush has thrown away this support and goodwill, sacrificed his credibility, isolated the international community, fractured the United Nations, induced the increased armament among other countries, reduced Iraq to a tribal wasteland (with oil) and left this world a more dangerous and unjust place...pre-emptively.
I am etc.,
GREGORY McKNIGHT
gregmcknight@acncanada.net
Brampton, Canada
Via Go-Jamaica
