| |
COMMENTARY
Invading Iraq, no matter
the cost
By Ehsan Ahrari
Is
this really a unique moment in the history of nations
when the United States has acquired so much military
power that it can dictate its will - no matter how
questionable from the perspective of international law -
to the rest of the world, or is the international
community simply lacking moral courage to condemn the
notion of preemptively striking a country simply because
its head of state is so repugnant?
There should
be no international moral dilemma about opposing acts of
aggression from anyone, no matter how copiously they are
wrapped in highfalutin moralism, as is being done by
President George W Bush and his coterie of supporters
regarding attacking Iraq. Opposition from Europe is
forthcoming, but it is rather muted, perhaps, because
the preemption has not yet materialized. Arab states are
similarly opposed to it, but are manifesting a sense
that it is a fait accompli. If Saddam's ouster is
regarded as a silver bullet for America's manifold
problems in the Middle East, the Bush administration is
in for a major disillusionment.
Opposition in
Europe to military action against Iraq is rising, but
with a sense of double mindedness and a lack of
certitude. The Guardian newspaper gets to the heart of
the European dilemma by observing, "Not for the first
time, Europe does not look like being more than the sum
of its parts ... the mood is one of disarray and dismay.
Rarely have the terms of the transatlantic debate -
crudely summarized as wimps versus warriors, law-based
multilateralism versus the raw military might of the
world's only superpower - been so acrimonious."
The Middle Eastern states find themselves in a
more awkward position than their European counterparts.
At least the European countries are not receiving any
fair or undeserved criticism and blame for September 11.
The US media is incessantly criticizing the Arab states
for their undemocratic style of governance, as if that
reality had become apparent only since September 11. A
number of those countries are also unfairly labeled as
either "secretly" anti-US in orientation, or allegedly
operating on the basis of "double standards" - as if the
United States has never practiced double standards when
it comes to Arab states - by being pro-American only for
external consumption, while following de facto
anti-American policies within their domestic arenas.
Yet the US government continues to demand that
those countries kowtow to Bush's simplistic dictum,
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
Aside from an expression of blatant lack of concern for
the domestic realities of those countries that opt
against cooperating with the United States, this dictum
also conveys a not-so-subtle threat. If they refuse to
cooperate with Washington in toppling Saddam, then only
they (the Arab countries) are responsible for whatever
policy the United States adopts against them in the
coming years.
For Saudi Arabia, this
not-so-subtle threat could emerge in the form of
sanctions to force the rulers to crack down on the
Islamists inside their borders. Such measures would only
intensify pressure on a regime that is desperately
seeking to redefine its legitimacy from within, by
distancing itself from Washington. For Egypt, the
"punishment" might result in the withholding of economic
assistance. Such a policy would add to the worsening
economic plight of the burgeoning ranks of the
have-nots, a potentially ominous development which in
turn might only impair America's interests in the
region.
There are two crucial questions related
to the Bush administration's obsession about attacking
Iraq. First, are there really any perceptible linkages
between Saddam's regime and terrorism? Second, would the
toppling of the Iraqi dictator make the Middle East a
serene place?
The answer to the first question
is an unqualified no. If American intelligence could
have found any evidence to that effect, the Saddam
regime would have long been toppled a la the Taliban.
However, as an Egyptian analyst, Amr Elchoubak, notes,
"... justification of this type is totally absent in
Iraq's case." He goes on to add, "The Iraqi regime is a
terrible one, but it has not been implicated in the
September 11 attacks in any manner. Washington intends
to topple the Iraqi regime in a way that would end all
hope for that country to have a credible and sensible
regime. The Americans want to install a puppet
government that would be alienated from the people and
unable to survive without foreign protection."
A
credible answer to the second question also comes from
Egypt. The United States believes, states Elchoubak,
that by overthrowing Saddam it would resolve problems
related to terrorism, animosity toward America, and
other regional problems in the Middle East. Disagreeing
with that proposition, he notes that Washington may end
up defeating its own purpose. "Instead of being a major
power with a penchant for pressuring - or blackmailing -
others into a certain course of action, the United
States is seeking to become a direct partner in local
regimes. This is likely to be more dangerous, for
Washington would be blamed for any political mistakes
that its puppet regimes may commit."
There is
little doubt that the United States is wary of Saddam's
commitment to developing weapons of mass destruction.
But a solution may be found by insisting on intrusive
and frequent on-site United Nations-sponsored
inspections. The international community strongly favors
it. But insisting on toppling Saddam with virtually no
international support may only create unending problems
for Bush, especially when American military occupation
of Iraq will find no quick "exit strategy".
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is a Norfolk,
Virginia, US-based strategic analyst.
(©2002
Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
