Regarding Iraq Survey Group’s latest report

The WAR on IRAQ And the Fiasco of WMD*

 

By Issam Shukri

 

Last week, the report of the Iraq Survey Group ISG was released. It brings to light the fact that the war on Iraq was illegal as there were no traces of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Despite all the protests of millions of people who believed that this war had nothing to do with WMDs, the war was carried out in Iraq and caused tremendous damage. Every one seemed to think then that the Bush administration with their ally in the UK were searching intensely for a justification to this war that, not only had nothing to do with WMD, but had nothing to do with their other allegations such as spread of democracy, saving Iraqis from Saddam’s suppression, and fighting international terrorism and so on. All these pretexts were used reciprocally. Many people believed that this war was in itself a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

The most significant, appropriate, and sellable pretext of all, however was the WMD because it is capable of creating fear among people and mobilize them around war. The bush administration tried to capitalize on fear in order to tame the anger of the people and eventually send the troops and invade Iraq. This war should be looked at through the American rightwing international policy which is called New World Order. The US has been pursing this policy since after the collapse of the Eastern block. This is the policy that aims at turning the whole world into a back yard of the USA, a battle field with the US foes namely brutal Political Islam, a huge free-market place that is well netted into the American economy causing the impoverishment of millions of workers and their families and robbing them their rights and age-long achievements. This is currently happening in Iraq. The war on Iraq is another chapter in the American book called NWO and the allegations they use should be read and comprehended only in this context.

 

Is Legal War right?

Some say that because the war did not result in discovering any WMD in Iraq then it was illegal. They also say that if the war was legal (i.e. WMD were to be found in Iraq), it might have been considered right. There are two points regarding the legality of the war and the relation to its righteousness. First: a legal war is understood to be authorized by a recognized international body. The international body in our case does not give the war its righteousness simply because this body is not independent. International law in the relations between nations is hardly been referred to when it comes to invading other nations. The current supreme body for legalizing wars (i.e. Security Council) is controlled by the West and the US government. In other words even if it was legalized by this body then this will not grant that it would be right. To give an example, the 13-year-old sanctions on Iraq were legal in the sense that it was imposed by the United Nations. At all levels, the sanctions were a crime against humanity. It ended the lives of innocent children and deprived 20 million people in Iraq from life necessities for 13 years. 1.5 million people in Iraq were “legally” murdered by this brutal action of the United Nations. Three generations were destroyed because of these sanctions. Legality has nothing to do with righteousness or humanity. Legality means following the rules which were put in the service of western capitalists. In the context of our circumstances, the war on Iraq, even if it were legal (which would not have been possible without the hegemony and pressures from the US), would not be right in the sense of liberating the people of Iraq. Second: is to ask the question: what is a right war? To describe a war as right or wrong depends on who is benefiting from this war. Who thinks it is right? Whose interests does it serve? Even if we try to look at war from the perspective of liberating peoples from a brutal tyranny then this does not apply either. What we witness now in Iraq provides us with the evidence. This war was against the freedom, equality and prosperity of Iraqi people. Even if the war were legal, it would not be considered right because its aim was to pursue the US right-wing interests and a handful of their local executives in the interim government of Iraq and absolutely not the interests of the people of Iraq.

 

Do Mass protests instigate the findings of ISG?

Mass protests were part of the struggle of the people in the US and the Western world in general to prevent the war on Iraq from happening. Mass protests however played a role in pulling back the monstrous machine of war and made capitalists think a hundred times before they attacked Iraq but have no direct impact on unveiling the recent facts of ISG. This kind of revelation, when a committee or a western controlled fact-finding mission is revealing some facts that seem to uncover the Western governments’ intentions, in our case the US and UK right-wing governments, is, in my view, part and parcel of the capitalist western system. Even some encouragement, in the after math of such a crime, to unveil some, but not all, the facts that were concealed by the perpetrators (Bush and -Blair) at that time would be useful to these governments. Of course I can not discard completely the fact that there is a huge pressure coming from within western societies and especially in the US and UK. But it is more likely though that this mechanism usually helps lubricating the system. For instance, the Democrats in the US elections would welcome using these findings in order to score more points over the Republicans and their representative G.W. Bush. Nationalism is fueled at times when the ruling classes want to engage the people in a war. But when things “cool down” then so called independent organizations are formulated to do their researches to find the truth. It is like the role an over-heating valve plays in a machine. It lets excessive pressure off the system. It regulates the “temperature of society” so to speak. It is worth mentioning that the new head of ISG, Charles Duelfer was appointed by George tenet, the previous CIA director.

 

It is also claimed that the war was intended to change the regime of Saddam Hussein not to contain it. The aim of the West was to put an end to the confrontation between Saddam’s militant Arab nationalism and the West. Tactically, it could be the main reason presented to launch the war. Saddam was ambitious and considered by many in the region as the relentless, expansionist leader of Arab Nationalism. He was firm, determined and brutal. The West felt that his ambitions in the region could threaten their interests and especially his enmity to Israel. This goes back to his invasion of Kuwait and his ambition to control oil fields and attack Israel in the after math of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Israel was in the background of the first and second gulf war. It is still hovering as a ghost over the US / Islamists bloody confrontation.

Changing Saddam’s regime was a vital necessity for the US ruling class. European bourgeoisie, however, was more leaning towards bargaining with him. The US and UK had to remove Saddam because they expired all the potentials of striking any deals with him since his invasion of Kuwait. This is well-suited in my opinion with the New-World-Order-preemptive-strike policies. Saddam was a long-due target for the US.

 

 

Strategic Reason for War

The real reason of war however was the application of the New World Order and the domination of the US on the world. The war was politically not economically motivated. The cost of war exceeds the price of oil that could be gained even to cover the costs. This war is about a world hegemony and domination by the US. Iraq is just a launching pad. They had started with Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq and tomorrow, who knows. The US wants to subjugate the whole world not only the third world but mainly the rivals; Europe, Japan, China, and Russia.

 

Is the World now “Better off”?!

The toppling of Saddam’s regime is being used by the right wing circles to claim that even thought nothing was found regarding WMD, the world is “better off” now without Saddam. Surely for the people of Iraq and the people in Middle East Saddam was a brutal tyrant. His regime was the most vicious and merciless in the modern history of Iraq. People know that Saddam was supported by the West long time before. They also knew that the West and especially the US is the cause of troubles and miseries in the region. They knew that without their own political will, the toppling of saddam might open the doors of hell on them. It has actually done that. Terrorism has ten-fold increased in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, South East Asia, Europe, and even in the US itself. Alerts about a suspected terrorist attacks happen frequently in the US cities. The ridding of Saddam and the claim that the world is “better off” is deceiving just as the word democracy. It has been used to justify the mass murder and genocide committed against the people of Iraq by the US war machine, It is a justification for thousands of causalities among their children, the destruction of their homes, bridges, water resources, sewers, hospitals, and electrical power networks. The phrase “the world is now better off” is ill-intentioned. Its main aim is to rationalize the atrocities, validate the criminal war and to give it a good positive morale. Its like telling the people of Iraq who for long waited to overthrow Saddam: “although you’re children were killed and your lives were shattered by our planes and bombs, although the Islamists are running your lives and killing more of you now, but the world is better off without Saddam!!. It is as if counting the dead had stopped at the minute the US toppled Saddam. This phrase and allegation is a shear hypocrisy. It is an insult to the human dignity of the people.

 

Hans Blix and the “Stimulation of Terrorism”

The war was not a signal for terrorist to stop their activities as Hans Blix, the former UN chief inspector in Iraq has recently hinted. The US war was not a war to reduce terror. The war was terrorist by definition. It had intended to terrorize. Blix truly says war has stimulated terrorism but fails to say that war itself is launched by the biggest state-terrorist, the US government. He tries to criticize the war based on ethics and norms of the US ruling elite not on humanity values (i.e. if it kills more terrorists then it is legitimate!). This is being obviously adopted by Democrats in their pathetic arguments with the ultra rightwing in the current running for presidency campaign between Bush and Kerry. It is important for us to throw the whole reasoning of the US /British Bourgeoisie to the war causes and reasoning. It is a well-known fact today that this war has inflicted far more terror on civilians itself and created more Islamic terrorism. The fact should be declared not as a piece meal but as a whole. The mainstream so-called Left and “anti-imperialist” Left claim that terror is coming solely from US “imperialism”, and directly or indirectly supports Islamic terrorism as being necessary “resistance”. The Right, on the other hand claims that it is the terror of the “extremists” that should be gotten rid of. The fact is that both these forces are one and the same; both are terrorists. Both should be condemned and fought against.

The Alternative for Humanity

Capitalism is the cause of misery of the people. Exploitation which requires competition and eventually wars and terrorism between the capitalists, religious and nationalistic hatred, production chaos, poverty, famines, and over-expenditures on weapon, drug trafficking, prostitution, and state over-paid beaurocracy, is produced and reproduced by capitalism. The world would be much better off and a safer place for billions of people and their children without the US developing its nuclear programs, launching its horrific wars and bombing millions from Hiroshima to Nagasaki to Cambodia to Vietnam to Granada to Yugoslavia to Iraq.

In the final analysis, the world would be much better off without capitalism. When socialism prevail, when human values prevail, equality, freedom for all prevail, then the world certainly becomes better off.

We must all fight for this better world.

 

* based on an interview hosted by Maryam Namazy of the New TV international