|
« Nationalising childhood
Main The swamp in which Huntley swam » |
December 15, 2003
Tipping point in Iraq
Daily Mail, 15 December 2003 The capture of Saddam Hussein is absolutely tremendous news, a great day for the people of Iraq and for everybody who believes in life and freedom and the need to fight to preserve them. A mass murderer, responsible for a regime of hideous and barbaric cruelty, is now to be brought to justice, tried and sentenced -- as he must be -- by the people he enslaved. And a significant player in world terrorism who menaced the security of the west has at last been removed from that terrifying picture. The discovery of the former dictator in his underground hole is of enormous military and political significance. At a stroke, the dynamic within Iraq has been transformed. For despite the ostensible military victory in the spring, the war did not end there. For the second time, the US-led coalition had merely scotched the snake, not killed it. It let Saddam get away in 1991 after the liberation of Kuwait, allowing him to run rings round the world over his weapons of mass destruction programme. When it finally went to war again last spring, it toppled his regime but found he once again slipped through its fingers. The result was that the Iraqis simply didn’t believe he had gone forever. When people have been subjected to a tyranny as all-embracing as Saddam’s regime, the terror does not begin to disappear unless the tyrant is captured and visibly removed from the stage. And indeed, he had not gone, since attacks by Saddam loyalists continued. Just a few hours before news of his capture, a car bomb killed 17 people at a police station near Baghdad. Such a terrorist insurgency was precisely what Saddam himself had threatened: that if he lost the conventional war, he would go underground and fight a war of attrition. Whether he was actually still directing murder operations against the coalition forces, or whether Saddamite terrorists were merely drawing inspiration from the fact that he was still at liberty, the former dictator continued to cast a poisonous shadow over Iraq. Many Iraqis therefore remained far too terrified to bring the coalition useful information, and even some captured Iraqi officials undoubtedly remained silent in either hope or fear that Saddam might eventually emerge victorious once again. Now that shadow has finally been lifted, and the joy of the Iraqis is plain for all to see. Only now can they properly emerge from the nightmare through which they have lived. The psychological importance of this event cannot be overestimated. The Saddamite insurgents are now truly leaderless. Maybe they will now lay down their arms; and maybe those who have important information will at last come forward. And of course, there are hopes that Saddam will himself finally answer the great questions arising from his record: in particular, the true state of his WMD programme, and what he did with the WMD material for which he refused to account to the UN. According to security sources, the whole lot could be stored within an area no bigger than an American two-car garage, so it could easily have been hidden in Iraq or in a neighbouring Arab state. But there is no guarantee that Saddam will spill the beans on any of this. Why should he, since the absence of such evidence has done so much to weaken the coalition through internal dissent? And hugely significant though his capture undoubtedly is, this is by no means the end of the war in Iraq, let alone the wider war against terror. For Saddam’s loyalists are not the only people wreaking havoc within Iraq. Iran and Syria are also major players in the terrorism that continues there. Saddam’s arrest, and the resulting increased likelihood that Iraq will now move towards peace and prosperity, might even provoke them to step up a terrorist campaign whose purpose is to frustrate precisely that objective for fear it destabilise their own tyrannical regimes. If Iraq is to be stabilised, much depends on how this new situation is handled. It offers the coalition the chance of regaining an initiative that has been greatly endangered by the serious blunders made in post-war Iraq by the US administration, paralysed as it has been by internal fighting between the State Department and the Pentagon, with President George W Bush playing shuttlecock in the middle. In particular, it should now put the squeeze on both Iran and Syria, both of whose regimes – along with other Arab leaders – will have been severely shaken by the capture of Saddam whose ability to call the shots (both literally and figuratively) against the west gave him near-mythic status. The US has already imposed sanctions on Syria in order to pressurise it to end its sponsorship of terrorism -- which is doubtless why Syria is now calling for a ‘clear, constructive and reasonable dialogue’ with America. As for Iran, seen by many as the very pivot of the terror infrastructure, America should not only stand fast against its development of the nuclear bomb; it should also actively assist the majority of its people who wish to be freed from the tyrannical regime imposed by their rulers, but who need practical support and encouragement if they are to bring about its fall. Beyond all this, however, al Q’aeda still remains to be dealt with. There is increasing evidence that Saddam – whose involvement in Arab terrorism over the years has never been in doubt -- was involved with al Q’aeda as well. Yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph reported a top-secret memo published by Iraq’s coalition government which linked Saddam’s regime to Mohammed Atta, the al Q’aeda mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and the Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. This follows the leak of a memorandum by the American defence department to the Senate intelligence committee which detailed astonishingly intricate links between Saddam and al Qaeda going back to 1990. It said they had a relationship that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps, Iraqi financial support and safe haven in Iraq. But al Q’aeda is a complex global network of terror, and if Saddam was involved he was merely one of its players. His removal only points up the failure to catch Osama bin Laden, and the still baleful threat of further atrocities by his outfit. Saddam was not merely a bad man to his people but also – whether or not he was involved with al Q’aeda -- a significant weaver of the intricate web of the terrorism that threatens all of us. Now finally he has been stopped. That’s a cause for rejoicing, and a potential tipping point. But no-one should be under any illusions that terrorism in Iraq, let alone the rest of the world, will now cease. Instead, Saddam’s arrest offers America its biggest – but possibly, its last – chance to get the peace in Iraq back on track and worldwide terror ultimately defeated.
Posted by melanie at December 15, 2003
Comments
But why doesnot US takes responsibility for creating Saddam , I mean surely with out the weapons supplied by US to Saddam he was nothing. But its good to see Americans trying to correct their mistake , and also good to know that the oil rich Middle east is secured form China Posted by: sheraz at December 17, 2003 06:53 AMNo, no, Sheraz. He had all the weapons he'd ever need coming from France. Also, Sheraz, you have to understand that world situations change. What may have been right, in realpolitik terms at one time, will have to be rethought when the realpolitik shifts. This is life. Posted by: Caroline at December 17, 2003 11:52 AMyes caroline and please don't forget the British supply of weapons to him. Posted by: bernie at December 17, 2003 05:14 PMI guess you have a point that forign policies change with each government. But I noticed that USA usually admits these things after 20-50 years have past and the desicion makes no real global impact. I think the move in Iraq was good for the people in that region and also from a Economical stand point for America & world as well. I am happy that he (Saddam) is gone , and wish that Iraqi people can again learn to live a normal life. Of course also good to see the economy move couple of index. Its been hard for them. I just wished that people as a whole had been able to avert war and some how, take this man down with out need for war. That whole issue just caused a global debate. For one person's idiotic rampage (Saddam) the whole world had to waste 1-2 years in debates. As far as the French and Russians were concerned well they were just worried about the billions in debts that Saddam owed them thats all. Germans well I am not sure what was the deal with them. In the end , the decision to go to war was from my stand point was sad but needed since I looked at the people & soldiers (US) But now that the person (saddam) is brought down its a huge responsibility for the Americans not to let the people of that region down, they must do more ....I think people of Iraq are really looking up to the Americans to give them what they promissed. A free state where they have freedom not another occupation. But then again anything is better then what they gone through under Saddam. One point that does remins and sorta stings in my mind is didn't the UN sancation of trade of oil & other goods actually did more harm to Iraqi people then it did to Saddam ? I mean he still lived a good 10 years in a palace. So does that means that UN is a failiure? Can we say UN is a tyrant since its decisions impacted lives of millions while the real person who was the main cause enjoyed a castle with perhaps a big screen TV ? I just think its so cruel ..that such resolutions are passed with out considering the consequesnces to the general public. I really think that UN has absolutely no purpose on the global stage. The same steps are being implemented in North Korea yet , now their leader knows what will happen if the UN security officials are allowed to varify that their are no WMD .... This idealogy that is surely in the North Korean's minds now is very dangerous and could result and a very devestating blow, its a very dangerous world out side of North American continent. If President Bush was to go now and someone else comes in god nows if the policies will shift agian and what will happen to Iraq? Although I do not agree with his direct approch but now from an international prespective its important that he stays and get a chance to really do what he sat out to do ...after he gets rid of Saddam. Its a very critical stage in the world that can define global policies and issues for next 10-20 years to come. I do think that a policies should be introduced to put a ban on weapon companies that export weapons to suspected Tyrant nation. Becasue if there are no guns and planes to wage wars there will be need for wars. Posted by: sheraz at December 17, 2003 06:27 PMProbably the strangest piece of self-justification to have come out of Saddam's arrest was Mr. Charles Kennedy's insistence on the BBC's politics programme today that the weapons inspectors would have got rid of Saddam. Hans Blix and his friends, touring Iraq in jeeps, looking for non-existent WMD... could have got rid of Saddam? Whatever dude! It's particularly impressive that all the people who have supported Saddam, from the extreme Left (Gorgeous George, et al.) to the Far Right (the BNP, Jorg Haider, Monsieur Le Pen, etc.) through the extreme centre (Simon Jenkins) seem to have only one thing in common, which is that they're cuckoo. Posted by: Oliver McCarthy at December 17, 2003 07:39 PM"a direct attack on North Korea" Sheraz, have they got anything worth stealing? Posted by: bernietrip at December 18, 2003 12:49 AM"yes caroline and please don't forget the British supply of weapons to him" Do tell me which weapons these were Bernie. Selling weapons is a way of gaining influence since they are dependent on you for spares. France makes cheap weapons for 3rd world states and buys influence in Africa and the Mid-East with Mirage and other kit ......it was de Gaulle's policy. I doubt that the Iraqis could have mastered US/UK kit as they had a lot of trouble with Soviet tanks and could not use targetting equipment properly, plus which their maintenance standards were very low.....Soviet kit was better for them as it is more tolerant of poor servicing.......and he did have 4000 T-72s on order in Russia. No, had the US/UK supplied kit he would have needed lots of people to train them.....and it was MIGs his A/F flew not Tornados; and T-72s his tank crews drove not Challenger or Abrams.....and it was AK-47 and AK-74 his militias used not SA-80s........he got a few radars from Britain in the past.......but Iraq was a Franco-Soviet customer. Posted by: Romulus at December 18, 2003 02:10 PMWell in response to Barnie Question: Well there is nothing physical in terms of oil or gold but there are other very strong incentives. As we know Japan is the 2nd best economy in the world plus you also have South Korea and plus china Historically they do not get along well. But toghether they do make a very hard block with serious business desicion making ability. That affects international trade and policies regarding import and export which directly influence majority of American companies. North Korea is a threat in terms of de stabalizing that region & that in turn effects American trades over seas amd plus lets not forget that we are talking againt multi billion dollar industry per year. Which I suppose if you do the math and accounting account for perhaps more revenue then what is involved in Oil trade? Its a questionable remark. Also strategically, an american presence in the region in Japan /Korea also gives some more power to the negotiators that are in Japan or Korea for trade talks and other political agendas. Since without American Army , Japan & South Korea are both defenselesss against China & North Korea.
Great news guys but the world community keeps supplying these people with all they want. Realpolitik, my eye ! meanwhile we fund tyrants and terrorists and then cry mea culpa after the fact. We have financed terrorists and some would say we get what we deserve. see this article sourced from USA. # The Money Keeps Pouring into the PA - Rachel Ehrenfeld Mike NZ Posted by: Mike NZ at December 18, 2003 09:25 PMapologies for my slip in wording, "weapons-related" material and equipment were sold. After Halajba "the government expressed its "Selling weapons is a way of gaining influence" Romulus, well that's allright then, let us ignore the tragic consequences to that sale then. Posted by: bernie at December 19, 2003 01:42 PM""Selling weapons is a way of gaining influence" Romulus, well that's allright then, let us ignore the tragic consequences to that sale then." Bit of an infantile comment Bernie. You must try better than that. The Kurds were working with Iran providing a back route into Iraq.....they were hardly innocents. To express horror and condemnation at the use of gas should not blind us to the fact that any enemy of Saddam was a friend of the Kurds. Frankly, given a choice between Saddam in power and Khomeini ruling the Middle East from Iran to Saudi Arabia.......I vote Saddam. If the French had killed this batty cleric instead of lettting him leave his French villa and return to Teheran we might all be living more peaceably. Saddam was not up for country-club membership; but he did have control of a piece of real-estate at the tip of the Gulf Waterway where the tankers move from Basra and the Gulf ports........in the past The Shah took care of this area......but when Madman Khomeini turned the world upside-down we had a risk there and Saddam offered to be guardian at the bridge. FRankly, I did not want Islamofascism from Iran wrecking my energy supplies or spreading its diseased fantaticism throughout Iraq, Saudi and Kuwait.......and Saddam blocked their way. How much better if they were democracies....but the USSR, WEstern Europe, Asia and the US backed Saddam together with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait....then Khomeini was the Hitler we needed to box in. Posted by: Romulus at December 19, 2003 02:39 PMSheraz: Saddam got most of his weapons from the Russians/Soviets, French and Chinese. The US contributions to Saddam's weaponry was less than one percent. Now tell me again who exactly "created" Saddam? Posted by: Susan at December 20, 2003 10:04 PMCaroline is right when she says that realpolitick dictates the foreign policy of a state. Much is it might be nice to think in terms of right and wrong, states only have interests. When Saddam Hussein was being armed by the British and Americans, the greater danger was seen to come from Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran. We all like to believe that our country only acts in a moral fashion, unfortunately if it did, it would probably not survive for long. Posted by: John Richmond at December 28, 2003 12:29 PMSADAMN HUSSAIN'S CAPUTURE PROOVES THE VICTIM CULTURE IS THE FOUNDATION OF A GOOD SOCIETY I thought MP said she did not like the idea of a victim culture. She used it to attack victims of domestic abuse who she regards as part of a victim culture. Yet now she wants the victims of Sadamn Hussain to gain their justice and revenge. So where is the line. It seems once again this "victim culture" phrase is only used for abuses you don't really care about. So Sadamnj can have victims but wife beaters are not allowed to have victims. Iwas a victim of bullying am i allowed to complain or will some evil bullying psycho come along tell me it does me no good to complain. But that it does to victims of Sadamn Hussian to complain. SADAMN HUSSIAN CAPTURE AND THE JOY OF HIS VICTIMS PROOVES A VICTIM CULTURE IS HEALTY GOOD AND DECENT. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT BULLIES WHO BULLIED ME. VICTIMS OF WIFE BEATING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COMPLAIBN ABOUT THOSE WHO ABUSED THEM FULL STIOP END OF STORY. IT DOES NOT SOLVE ANYHTING IN JUST TELLING ALL VICTIMS TO SHUT UP. ALL THAT DOES IT LET ABUSERS OFF THE HOO, AND MAKES VICTIMS UFFER IN SILENCE AS USUAL. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT ABUSERS WANT AND DEMAND. NO WONDER PAEDOPHILES HATE THE VICTIM CULTURE. A person never tells you anything until contradicted. Posted by: Rheinfrank Todd at January 26, 2004 09:16 PM |
