http://www.counterpunch.org/tariqnukes.html
Attacking Iraq Brings
Nuke Holocaust
Closer
By Tariq Ali
A new war is being plotted against Iraq and, while most of
Europe is nervous, the boy scout in No.10 is ready and
willing once more.
The Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals know there is not
much left to destroy.
In August 1999 the New York Times reported: "American
warplanes have methodically - with virtually no public
discussion - been attacking Iraq."
In the last eight months of 2001, US and British pilots have
fired 1,100 missiles against 359 targets in Iraq.
In October 1999 American officials were telling the Wall
Street Journal they would soon be running out of targets.
"We're down to the last outhouse," they admitted.
By the end of the year, the Anglo-US airforces had flown
more than 6,000 sorties, and dropped 1,800 bombs on Iraq.
By early 2001, the bombing of Iraq had lasted longer than
the US invasion of Vietnam.
And still they talk of going on because he has "weapons of
mass destruction".
Even if he does, they're useless if he can't deliver them.
Economic sanctions have driven the population into misery.
Before 1990 the country had a per capita GNP of over
$3,000. Today it is under $500, making Iraq one of the
poorest nations.
What justification is offered for this?
THAT Saddam's regime is stockpiling weapons of mass
destruction. Thus the civilized world - read Israel - can never
rest until Saddam is killed.
The argument is hollow.
The deadly threat from Iraqi weapons was never a problem
as long as the regime in Baghdad was regarded as a friend in
Washington and London.
As Iraq crushed Communists at home and fought Iranian
mullahs abroad, few apprehensions about its weapons were
expressed.
Once the Iraqi regime had turned against Western interests
in the Gulf, of course, the possibility of it acquiring nuclear
weapons suddenly became an apocalyptic danger.
But this is no longer a valid view. Today the nuclear
monopoly of the big powers has collapsed with India and
Pakistan getting the weapons.
And Iraq's own nuclear programme has been thoroughly
eradicated.
Even the super-hawk Scott Ritter, the UNSCOM inspector
now says there is no chance of its reconstitution. He says the
blockade should stop and a new war would be a disaster.
That the Ba'ath regime is a tyranny no one could doubt. That
it is unique in its cruelties is an abject fiction.
Turkey, where the Kurdish language is not permitted in
schools, has displaced 2 million Kurds from their homelands.
This is much worse than Iraq, where - whatever Saddam's
other crimes - there has never been any attempt at this kind
of annihilation. Yet, as a valued member of NATO and
candidate for the EU, Turkey suffers not the slightest
measure against it.
And the Saudi kingdom makes not even a pretence of
keeping human rights. Yet no state in the Arab world is more
toasted in Washington.
In killing and torture, Saddam was never a match for
President Suharto, whose massacres in Indonesia far
exceeded Iraq's.
But no Third World regime was more prized by the West.
Not a single part of the argument for war stands up.
So what? I've heard it said. Blair's favourite foreign policy
man, ex-diplomat Robert Cooper, has said: "We need to get
used to double standards."
The maxim underlying this view is that we will punish the
crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends.
This moral blank cheque will increase terrorism.
If Iraq is attacked, the instability in the region will be
accompanied by a desire to punish the US and its allies.
The worst-case scenario of a nuclear explosion in the US
might well come true.
That's why a political solution is needed. A war could end
badly for all sides.
Tariq Ali is a frequent contributor to CounterPunch. His most
recent book is The Clash of Fundamentalism, published by
Verso.