Tariq Ali: Attacking Iraq

pradeep ppillai at sprint.ca
Tue Mar 19 14:01:38 PST 2002


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.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list