|
A War that Opened another Front
By Demhas
August 27, 2003
In
one of his most recent remarks, President Bush acknowledged that
"terrorists are gathering in
Iraq
” and he argued that
“the more progress we make in
Iraq
, the more desperate the
terrorists will become." At
first glance, there may appear to be some intelligent logic in that
assessment of the situation in that part of the world.
However, when taken into the context of how we arrived where
we are now, that statement can only be construed as an alarming
admittance of failure and short-sightedness.
A
year ago, around this time,
Iraq
was bowing to the
threat of military action if they did not disarm. Access to
suspected banned weapons was granted, Samud missiles were being
destroyed, so-called mobile labs were tested, and information
gathered by spy satellites and other intelligence means were
analyzed. Had the West kept the pressure on the regime under the UN
umbrella, the world community could have extracted Saddam’s
consent to protect and honor his international commitments to human
rights or risk war that will remove him from power.
Four
months after the unilateral action undertaken by President Bush and
Prime Minister Blair, the weapons of mass destruction are nowhere to
be found. And the scary part of this is: if this administration was
correct in its initial assessment of the existence of such weapons,
by now, these weapons may have already fallen in the wrong hands.
Alternatively, if these weapons did not exist in the first place,
then the premise of sending troops to the killing fields becomes
non-existent as well. Every
day a life is lost in that war zone, the administration must face
the reality of stopping the loss of the next by doing the right
thing, not by spinning it.
This
war was premised on disarming
Iraq
and putting an end to
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While WMD’s are
yet to be found in
Iraq
, the danger of
proliferation became more and more real as states who wanted to
possess them accelerated their quest. After all, it is only rational
that regimes would learn from past experience: compliance with
disbarment demands did not guarantee Saddam’s political survival
but having a nuclear weapon could as the crisis with
North Korea
shows. Because of this
slow-acting administration, we will see a new race for
“weaponizing” and that would include the acquisition of
dangerous weapons.
Four
months after the launch of this costly war, Saddam had the Qaeda-type
militants cornered and limited to the Northern small area controlled
in most part by the Kurds. Today, and according to the
administration officials and military leaders, al-Qaeda itself, or
its representatives, are roaming the streets of
Baghdad
and killing at will.
Four
months ago, the war on terror was taken to the opponents’ backyard
with the support and blessings of the world community. This
administration inherited an overwhelming post-911 legacy of sympathy
that could have propelled the
US
to an unprecedented
moral leadership. Since the launch of the war, it would appear that
Bin Laden has recruited more members and affiliates than this
administration’s allies. Additionally, the real-estate that was
shrinking under the feet of the opponents in
Somalia
and
Afghanistan
, miraculously expended
to include
Iraq
and soon, very likely,
neighboring states like
Saudi Arabia
and
Jordan
. The international
outrage over the killing of innocents in
New York
turned into an outrage
against the arrogance and unilateralism of this administration even
from historical allies like
France
as a result of hasty
decision to go to war. Never in my imagination, could a state
transform itself from the victim that earned the sympathy and
support of the entire world into a demonized bully in this short
time. This administration blindsided the grieving American public to
carry out a counter-productive mission.
Four
months ago, the reach of the brutal spy and security personnel
trained by Saddam to kill his enemies was shrinking due to the
watchful eye of world and the presence of numerous international
organizations. This week, the Interim US Administration in
Iraq
decided to enlist the
services of these same elements to fight the resistance; it must be
a painful memory-jolt for Iraqis who are asked to believe that old
ways are gone with Saddam.
What
is most alarming is that this war is indirectly expending the
definition of terrorism to levels that would render terrorism
legitimate in the eyes of many. It seems that this administration is
labeling anyone attacking the
US
troops in
Iraq
as a “terrorist”.
In doing so, the
US
runs the risk of
blurring the boundaries between terrorism and legitimate resistance.
Just as there is a legal context for the
US
occupation as defined
in international law, resistance movements, misguided as they may,
have the legal protection as well. If the administration insists on
not making the distinction even in a sensitive situation like this,
then it will run the risk of legitimizing terrorism per se.
Note:
Well argued
commentaries are welcome, please email your opinion directly;
News editorials and opinions are not peer-reviewed.
|
|
