BOSOMS FOR BUSH
MINH NGUYEN
28 April 2003
Minh Nguyen asks whether it was the doves that comforted
Saddam, or the hawks that reassured Bush he could get away
with an illegal invasion
Within the month since our last enews, we have seen the start
of the Iraq invasion and the quick fall of Baghdad. Thousands
of innocent men, women and children have been killed, maimed,
or made homeless. Historical treasures, thousands year old,
were plundered and torched; fragile societies brought to the
brink of anarchy. In contrast to the military precision at
which oil reserves and the oil ministry building were secured
and protected, the US admitted it was unprepared for the humanitarian
crisis that everyone had been warning them about. Meanwhile,
the UN is being shut out from post-war Iraq and contracts
are being rewarded to US corporate favourites with other casting
lots for the remaining share of the spoils. Yet unbelievably
the warmongers continue to wallow at the quick success of
the war, pointing to images of jubilant Iraqi dancing in the
streets behind fallen statues.
Putting aside evidence of stage management, the irony is
that the very reasons for the apparent vindication of their
stance are the reasons why this war remains illegitimate and
immoral. The whole pretext for charging into Iraq is based
on the idea that the US and its warring coalition were in
real danger from Saddam's treacherous war machine. The threat
was so imminent that weapons inspectors could not be given
even a day more, despite the progress made. Yet as Arianna
Huffington points out, far from being on the verge of destroying
Western civilisation, Saddam was unable to even muster a half-hearted
defense of his own capital. The chemical attacks never came.
The warring coalition is now scurrying to find traces of Saddam's
"smoking gun".
From day one, we were asked to put our trust in our "leaders",
since our leaders knew something about Saddam we did not.
But as it turned out (or confirmed), either US-UK intelligence
is a complete rot or their governments have been embarking
on an astonishing charade of deception for an invasion with
no apparent reasons left other than regime change and to plunder
the country's resources. Perhaps it's a bit of both.
Even Paddy McGuinness (SMH, 15/4/2003) has come as
close as one can get him to admitting that the absence of
a smoking gun provides the most serious hole in the US's moral
authority for the invasion. Obviously puzzled by the missing
link, McGuinness resorted to blaming Saddam for bringing it
upon himself by not being frank with the UN inspectors. Similarly,
in the same Herald edition, Gerard Henderson found issues
with the church's stance, which according to him "played
into Iraq's hands". Apparently the Christian churches'
strong moral stance against the war caused Saddam to believe
the West was too soft, thus giving him false comfort. Implicit
here is that Saddam, again, brought it upon himself but this
time with the assistance of some misguided clerics. He then
advised church leaders "to step down from the pulpit
and assess their own responsibility for the conflict."
It seems the unravelling of the US's pretext for war is
causing a flurry among the more dogmatic (or naïve) intellectuals
to find meaning. But the fact they are looking everywhere
but the corridors of Washington reveals their underlying assumption:
these people must seriously believe the world is divided in
axis of good and evil and that the US falls within the former
(the Pax Americana myth). Elsewhere Henderson advised his
readers to "give common sense a chance" (SMH,
18/2/03). But whose common sense? Was it Saddam who thought
he could get away with non-compliance even as tens of thousands
US troops were massing at his border? Or Bush and Howard who
thought they could get away with an illegal invasion as millions
around the world marched for peace? In the Pax Americana version
of common sense, the latter is simply not asked. Contrary
to the idiotic claim that the peace movement had any part
in the war, perhaps these intellectuals will do well to examine
their own culpability for giving comfort to Bush and his lap
dogs in their reprehensible defiance of international law
and world opinion.
These are worrisome times. Following Afghanistan and Iraq,
the hawks have indeed tasted blood; they've marked their next
kill; their "end of history" thesis thus becomes
self-fulfilling. And all the while nesting in the moral comfort
provided by intellectuals like Henderson. It is in this context
that the peace movement is right to continue to be vigilant
than ever before and refuse to be silenced by the warring
ideologues bent on finding excuses and blame for a war drenched
by the blood of the innocent and of the rule of law.
Minh Nguyen BA LLB MA is a committee member of ACMICA
and a researcher in area of social justice.
|
