Some of you will know my interest in political economy. The discussion here is of two opposing political doctrines – vengeance (in the guise of “punishment”, i.e. the war on terror, in itself an oxymoron of the first water), and laissez-faire (this too shall pass, just keep yer hair on and yer head down).
The fact is that the world will not side with America’s “next step” in its plan to “crush” terrorism. Tony Blair has made it plain through King Abdullah of Jordan that he completely disagrees with any attack on Iraq.
Most people in the West felt that Afghanistan was fair enough – al-Qaeda was based there, after all – but a protracted series of attacks on countries which have not actually done anything TO America is being seen as simple cultural imperialism. Or perhaps, more sinisterly, it is merely an attempt to exert direct control over a large percentage of the world’s petroleum reserves. Given the tenor of the current US administration, it is hardly beyond belief that this may be a motive.
And why, even not particularly well-educated people are asking, is the US picking on Iraq in particular, anyway? Iraq may be wiping out its citizens using mustard gas and firing squads, but it hardly has that kind of social policy on its own. Whatever, Iraq is no better nor any worse than, say, Iran, Libya, Turkey, Syria or even Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights. Consider Chop-Chop Square in Riyadh. That HAS to be unique in the 21st century, don’t you think? To use, then, a human rights issue as a casus belli against Iraq is coming it just a bit too strong, don’t you think?
Iraq has not, if you consider it, ever directly attacked the US, and neither had Iraq ever directly threatened the US or even what it understood to be US interests. It may be convenient to forget it now, but the US did actually signal to Saddam Hussein – intentionally or not – that it considered Kuwait to be none of its concern. I sincerely doubt if Saddam would have attacked Kuwait if the US had stated unequivocally that it was off-limits. He may be a tyrant, but he’s not a fool, something he’s proved again and again. He would not pick a fight he knew he couldn’t win.
Neither is there any solid evidence to back the US’ assertions that Iraq was “poised” to attack Saudi Arabia, although I wouldn’t have put a little foreign adventure down through the Gulf States past the laddy in Baghdad if he believed the circumstances were right.
If stamping out terrorism is the name of the game, why then, there are plenty of targets much closer to home. Consider Russia, for instance. While the government there may not directly support terrorism, it hardly has a clean bill of health when it comes to enforcement of its own laws. The Russian mafia is in a class of its own and operates virtually unmolested, and that organisation (inasmuch as it can be considered to be one) DOES export terror. Ask the citizens of Budapest who really runs their city. The Chechnya affair is a pretty good example of latterday state terrorism, on a par with the Soviet attack on Afghanistan.
The Sudan will, for a very small fee, provide a base for terror groups. It’s not particularly favoured because even terrorists like to live in a certain amount of safety and comfort, amenities that you have admit that Khartoum is rather sadly lacking. Besides, the government there blows hot and cold on religious extremism and when it blows cold, it ain’t very subtle.
And while you’re at it, why not sort out Muammar Ghaddafi? I mean, he’s been sitting on that Libyan sandpile of his for, what, twenty-five years, providing ready homes for wandering waifs and strays from virtually all of the terrorist groups, money, training bases, arms and ammunition and lots of ideological hatred of the West. Yet these days, he gets the wet bus ticket over the wrist approach. A rollicking good US invasion is probably just what Libya needs today.
Oh, and I keep forgetting: “The Great Satan” has Iran to thank for that lovely soubriquet. Has Iran come back into the fold of just ordinarily deranged countries in the Middle East, or is it still bankrolling terror outside its borders? Hammas and Hizbollah are getting their stash from somewhere.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is that the moment has been lost. The “war on terror” has already run its course. If the US lashes out now, no one will believe that its motives are what the US says they are. I’m not saying that the US won't attack Iraq, but I am suggesting that if it does then (a) it will have precious little support from its western allies and (b) it will make steadfast enemies of even its friend(s) in the Arab world. Not thinking about Saudi Arabia and Jordan or anything, of course.
I also note with interest the about face that the US government has taken on the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Rumsfeld announced tonight (our time) that the occupied territories on the West Bank and Gaza are now “so-called”. I guess that’s true, because the Jews displaced the Palestinians from nearly ALL of Palestine by waging a guerrilla war against them in 1948. Or are we all conveniently forgetting THAT fact as well?
What is terror? What the victor says it is!
