Open Letter to Those Opposing the Iraq War

sameerJB #144 One more thing: Notice the Freudian slip whereby you do not mention Turkey among your list of WMD dominoes. This, despite the fact that Turkey made things very difficult for the US by not letting them use it as a base for operations. The reason obviously is: In Turkey it was an elected parliament speaking, not some general or Arab pharaoh-wanna-be. The parliament possesses a certain dignity and gravitas that comes with being properly elected spokesmen for a nation. while a Saddam Hussein or a King or a Dictator is always a lightweight as far as the rest of the world - US included - is concerned.

sameerJB #144 You make two points (a) that the issue of WMD was a pretext and (b) that this pretext can be used to attack the Great Assad Dynasty in Syria (just kidding), the Democracy-for-Certain-Maulvis-Only in Iran (just being funny here, no offense to the black cloaked viceroys of God in Iran) and the Martial-Race-Democracy in our own beloved Pakistan.
On (a), the causes are academic and one could debate them forever. It is the ACTUAL OUTCOME that is relevant. And as I suggested to PM, only time (and not your or me or anyone else) will tell where all this leads to. One think I know for sure: Iraq will be a better place without the obscene idols of Saddam, and the narcissistic pictures of Saddam littering the country side. They just renamed Saddam International Airport to be Baghdad International Airport.
On (b), perhaps the Great King Assad (son of the Great King Assad) is fearing the same thing you are. And maybe he will learn a lesson from Saddam`s fate and realize that maybe he better get his act together and stop trying to become a modern day Arab Pharaoh.
(Just presenting you with an alternate viewpoint - far be it from me to question your infinite wisdom).

ali87 #143 The scenarios you paint are all plausible. And certainly, one hopes for the third scenario you provide, when Baghdad finds its former glory as a center of learning, a melting pot of cultures from India to Rome - the glory that died eight centuries ago. That would be expecting too much I think in the foreseeable future, but Baghdad has every possibiity of becoming a thriving cosmopolitan city, and Iraq the first true democracy in the Arab world. You are not as hopeful as I am of this happy outcome, but at least we both can agree that this would indeed be a happy outcome.
The reasons I am optimistic are of course described in my article. The reasons you do not share this optimism seem (if I understand them) to be as follows:

1. The US is not as motivated as it was in case of Japan/Germany: I think this is anybody`s guess at this stage, since who can measure motivations? Certainly the US did not love the Japanese and Germans after five years of bitter fighting in WWII, but decided it was wise not to lord it over them and seek reperations during the period of US occupation, but rather to give them funds to recover economically and to help them develop democratic institutions.
2. The US will seek to make Iraq a colony: I think what you describe is the 19th/early 20th century era colonies. I dont think it is possible for any country - particularly the US, given its pluralistic and democratic society - to carry out such blatant exploitation today. That was possible in the era of kings and east india companies. Today, with globalization and a vastly different economy (where services for example are far more important than material goods, and the knowledge component of goods increasingly important relative to the raw material component), I dont think that model is realistic any more.

So: Let us both at least HOPE I am right in being more optimistic than you. The bottom line is that nobody really knows today what the long term results of the Iraq War will be. It does seem, mercifully, to be coming to a quick end, so at least we are off to a good start for post-Saddam Iraq.

PM #141 First Saminasha asks me four questions - at least she gave me an A on the test. Now you present me and ahmedzai another quiz. This must be pop quiz week, I think. :-)
Since none of us has a crystal ball, and since we can present arguments and counterarguments from dawn to dusk, how about this: We agree to assemble again on chowk on April 1 2004 (that should be an easy day to remember, being April Fools Day), on the topmost article on chowk (whatever that happens to be - most likely the 9 thousandth article on Kashmir I would think) and see what the outcome has been by then?

Open Letter to Those Opposing the Syrian War:

Jerusalem Post has reported that Saddam has moved all WMD to Syria. So we have no choice but to go after Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. I think Syria is planning to transfer Iraqi WMD to Iran once it is attacked. Now the big question is: Will Iran move Iraqi WMD comig through Syria to Pakistan once Iran is attacked to find Iraqi WMD. If Iraqi WMD end up in Pakistan after sometime, they will be handed over to Jihadis to hide them in Indian Kashmir and then tell Bush where Iraqi WMD are. To sweeten the deal, Pakistan will handover UBL to USA also. So USA will be in Kashmir on the trail of Iraqi WMD and Kashmir problem will be ultimately solved.

Just write one Open Letter and change the name of country every six to nine months. Hor choopo gannay...........

#134 by tahmed32 on April 3, 2003 8:34am PT

Let us see some possible future short term (2-5 years) scenarios which people who take things for granted. US get rids of Saddam.

Scenario 1
US Rules through its people at helm as ministers a working through appointed Iraqis(This is one of the plans put forward by US). It opens up the Iraqi market to open market forces. Ie privateisation ie US companies will pick up Iraqi oil comapnies on the cheap. Ie National assets of Iraq will pass on to US hands. Most people in the west say that oil prices can be brought down to $3 and still make drilling profitable(the call OPEC price gougers). In which case the US and western economy gain at the cost of the US oil companies(who will not make loss though) at the expense of the Iraqis.

Every thing is hunky dory and Iraqis garland their liberators and even there is some amoutn of normalcy in financial life. But their markets are taken over totally by US goods and thus elmination local manufacture and production to the extent that even farm produce/food is cheaper if Imported from US killing the Agriculture too.

As recipts become low and there is no local production of goods Iraqi economy starts faltering. Job losses, belt tighening etc, public anger, old rivalries shoot up(more people clamouring for same jobs and limited recources, leads to favouritism and then resentememt) As the country becomes more and more bankrupt US advices more opening up of the economy and then says that Iraq is in a debt trap becuase it spends more than it earns. I cannot however take decision to create local production base so as not to incur payments to others because the US does not allow it by threatning with ecomnmic retaliation(stopping of loans, sanctions on Oil imported etc) and Iraq is already dependent on US for many things. Stalemate for years. Internal tensions rise. Local rivalires shoot up. IMF and US go about suppourting the economy and then proudly ask ``what would they do without us?`` ``Why are the so ungreatful?``

As poverty rises so does anarchy. Groups of people want to take control and throw out US and people who agree cannot take up the agenda in public discource as it is diffiuclt to describe the effect of economic methods. It does not get people to their view point. What people however understand is the Imagery of religous/national extreemism. This route is take by some disaffected people who want some solutions. Religous fundamentalism starts again (a tool used to rally people together) as when there is no economic incentive, as the Iraqis are not any longer consumers nor is the Iraqi oil so profitable. US leaves Iraq to rot and lets its ignores its puppets in Iraq leaving them to face the warth of the fundamentalists.
A few years down the line we revist the Al-Quaida again.

Scenario 2

Saddam is removed. Attempt to gain control of Iraq oil either by way of war repartions or direct or indirect(by a installed Iraqi govt) privitasion of Iraqi oil compaies. The people who oppose US be they saddams people or others never let a peaceful transiston requiring the US to either stay back or heavily back a new regime which cannot regain control. More atrocities by both sides now justified by the US because ``We are still in a phase of war, Iraq is still to be stabilised``(remember that Afghan after a year is yet to be stablised.) Only now it is not called opression but stabilsation. A bombing run on a marriage party is a mistake but the fault of the people.
As things hot up and get messier. There were opinons by kind comentators (the no war kind and fence sitters) who dont like the war but suppourt bush for sake of unity or a chance at a some thing positve coming out of it. Their opoinon is that ``Democracy is some thing that socites take ages to come to terms to. Not only that when a new nation is defined it takes many decades for the groups within to come to terms with each others limits and rights. Democarcy cannot be imposed from outside. We cannot impose a westernstyle democracy on people it has to come out of peoples choice and learnign to accomodate each other. So Since we have done the job of removing saddam we should let iraqis decide the pace and nature of democracy they want. let us withdraw with some conditonalites and some controls in place(Notably with promise of invasion if things go wrong again, ie when the oil arrangement is tampered with,) The semi democracy that comes into being will be safe as long as it keeps the oil contract unchanged. There is less rebellion becaue there are no backers to the rebellion selling dreams of success. since there is no rebillion there is no need for massive atorcities to teach people a lesson. But the cost again is the Iraqis pay with their improvishment. This is done through making sure that Iraq (goes out of OPEC or becomes a US stoge inside Opec)keeps the oil price low and US investment is allowed in Iraqi companies(other wayof saying that the natinal wealth is brought by US at cheap price.)
What has changed here? true people are peacefull they do not loose their lives as fequently as they did in saddams regime. But do they have freedom? US does not care as long as they are onthe ``Path towards democracy`` What is sure is they are getting increasingly poorer. Their resources give them very little wealth. The govt has less control on how todevelop its local capabilites as Global Free markets need to be strenghtend ie US should be able to sell goods in Iraq and take back what ever little money iraq made by selling oil. Iraqi economy will remain in doldroms. We will revist the same situaton again which happens in proverty and people grabbing their share of megere resources leadign to either a strong man coming to power or anarchy.

Let me be clear without a market to sell to no development can take place in any country. If there are no marktet there are no factories if the are no factories there is no need to master skills by people. If there are no factories the and there are no skilled people the newly eduacted people dont have any problem to solve. No problems to slove no innovation no mastering of skills. No such skills the people are not productive and become more and more poor. This is why indians and pakistanis are able to do much outside their lands. There needs to be some economic activty going on inside the country which poeple have access to and which they can releate to and give solutions to its problems. As generations go people master more and more complex skills and the economy builds on its experinece. The solution to break this achive this is to have a judicious mix of exposure to the modern technogy companies and while retaining some controls to see that the local people can get a chance to master some businesses before being exposed to successful compettiors. Some thing which a puppet regime cant control and something which people in Washington will be least bothered about.

Scenario 3

Everything is hunky dory, Americans actually liberate Iraq take only nominal price for doing so. A popular govt comes into being. The US embraces Iraqi people and helps them rebuild(They themselves are quite capable, remember this is no poor thirdworld country, recall the pace at which theyrebuilt Bagdadh after the gulf war1)not only that like germany or Iraq or Korea US builds a sepcial releationship giving them access to technology as well as US markets as well as letting them decide the pace of opening up of their markets in agreeable time frames.
In a few decades Iraq becomes a powerhouse in the muslim world. Its univeristies overflow with students and qulaified teachers mastering technology. It companies and R&D organisations taking their place in the modern world.

Lets be realistic is this last scenario likely to happen? The reason Japan, Korea and Germany became what they are now was
1) they had a strong prewar industry and economy(japan and germany)and their development was a strategic objective for US. The Idea was that north korea, China, soviet block should understand what rewards awaited if the took the US line in not adhering to communism which was a serious competing system represented by a very strong Soviet Union.
No such entity exists. There are irrants in muslim extreemists. They neither control any country nor much need to be sacrificed to contain them.
Japan, Germany, south korea had very strong self Identity this question is still beign resolved in Iraq and many arab countries. Who are we why are the borders defined as they are? what should be the nature of relationship of various groups In Iraq these questions that the Iraqis are still looking for acceptable answers. (Just like Ethinic muslims in pakistan sitll ask this question. The reference point is the Two Nation theory but that didn not reslove the question of how to accomodate the various ethinic differences)
US sees Iraq as a arab state. They have no love for arabs neither Islam and in absence of a large adversery to whom Development of Iraq makes a strategic objective no effort is going to be directed towards this.

The first two scenarios are more plausible. You ask the question as to what we can do or any body can do. Agreed there is not much we can do but by opposing this we count ourselves as part of the opposition to war. This projected numbers enable france, russia or those concerned to oppose (their motivations are not the same as ours though). To say that we have had no effect is to ingnore the obvious. US action is condemmed by most nations. In fact opposition to US stand is voiceferous and for the first time since WW11 US role as a just arbirter have been seriously condemmed. Not only that France Germany Russia have already taken the statements enemating out of Washington at face value and are now taking steps as they can to protect their intrests in future. US stands exposed for its hypocircy some thing that couldnt be done earlier. Countries will find it easier to resist it at least morally(that is a start) not only that it capacity of waging war and beinfiting from it has been severly come under doubt. Remember if there was no French oppostion, US would have waged the war got control of the oil and billed it to france, kuwait, Germany, and japan(if you remember this is what powell had asked just a few weeks back.) Though the opposition to war has not stopped it has made it costlier and reduced its scope and will keep US on its toes as far as post war situation.

US made saddam the strong man he is. Without US`s suppourt at a time when he had not yet consolidated his machinery of oppression and methods he would have been weaker, withouth suppourt of US to people to rebell on ethnic lines the Saddam would have had less reason to commit those atrocities.
May be with interaction and encouragemnt they could have built a non confortational oppostion within Iraq as well as it would had given less reason for saddam to strike at his opponnets. Many lives could have been saved. Where US Intrests are there ie cheap manufacturing base and unablilty to manuvure it adopts a more sensible policy in china. However this kind of policy would never have let US control Iraqi oil. A improvished Iraq will be dependant on US companies for technology.

The economic angle is very clear. US choose to give the contract to the US company to run the newly ocucpied port where as the British went about saying that the people who were running earlier should run it again now. I see no reason to give a conract to a US company when the local people used to run it earlier and without any problems.

Infact the economic angle is brought out in the neocon argument. That is the core of their policy. The talk about democracy may be they might be glad if it comes about but the key aspect is economic. Unless that is satisfied no solution either democracy nor dictatorship.

Iraq War Quiz-- By Steven R. Shalom
http://truthout.org/docs_03/040103H.shtml

re. ahmedzai #127, tahmed
Here are some pointers:
(from Iraq War Quiz-- )
------------------------
9. The Bush administration says it wants to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. Which of the following is true?

a. If there were democracy in Saudi Arabia today, backing for the U.S. war effort would be the first thing to go, given the country`s ``increasingly anti-American population deeply opposed to the war.``

b. The United States subverted some of the few democratic governments in the Middle East (Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953), and has backed undemocratic regimes in the region ever since.

c. The United States supported the crushing of anti-Saddam Hussein revolts in Iraq in 1991.

d. All of the above.
------------------------

5. George Bush has declared that ``we have no fight with the Iraqi people.`` What could he have cited as supporting evidence?

a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that strengthened Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

b. The fact that ``coalition`` forces have indicated that they will use cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups that ``The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for years to come.``

c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S. pledged not to forget about when the war was over, and for which the current Bush administration foreign aid budget request included not one cent in aid.

d. All of the above.
--------------------------

http://truthout.org/docs_03/040403E.shtml

Kucinich Takes to the House Floor to Call For An End to The War
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Wednesday 2 April 2003

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), who leads opposition to the War in Iraq within the House, today, issued the following statement on the House floor:

``Stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq for biological and chemical weapons. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will find out, in combat, whether Iraq has such weapons. Why put our troops at greater risk? We could get the United Nations inspectors back in.

``Stop the war now. Before we send our troops into house-to-house combat in Baghdad, a city of five million people. Before we ask our troops to take up the burden of shooting innocent civilians in the fog of war.

``Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaeda may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country. Iraq did not tried to acquire nuclear weapons technology from Niger. This war is built on falsehood.

``Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not attack this nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this nation. Each innocent civilian casualty represents a threat to America for years to come and will end up making our nation less safe. The seventy-five billion dollar supplemental needs to be challenged because each dime we spend on this war makes America less safe. Only international cooperation will help us meet the challenge of terrorism. After 9/11 all Americans remember we had the support and the sympathy of the world. Every nation was ready to be of assistance to the United States in meeting the challenge of terrorism. And yet, with this war, we have squandered the sympathy of the world. We have brought upon this nation the anger of the world. We need the cooperation of the world, to find the terrorists before they come to our shores.

``Stop this war now. Seventy-five billion dollars more for war. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans ` benefits. Money for war. No money for health care in America, but money for war. No money for social security, but money for war. We have money to blow up bridges over the Tigris and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs.

``Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country.

``Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral.

``Stop this war now.``

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

CIA ATTACKS KUWAITI SHOPPING MALL

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/wecontrolamerica/calcm.html

hxn # 136

The judicial murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Zia`s downing of the plane is also blamed on big satan. One elected, one referendumed.

ahmedzai #132 You may be right in saying that perhaps the US should have concentrated on Afghanistan first before going off to Iraq. A progressive Afghanistan as a neighbor would certainly benefit us Pakistanis much more directly than a more distant country like Iraq. The only rationale I can think of that justifies this additional focus in Iraq is the famous ``9-woman 1 month`` example: i.e., you cant recruit 9 women to reduce the time taken from conception to birth from 9 months to 1 month. :-)
So, I think the important thing is that the US and other rich nations do not lose interest after some time in helping Afghanistan continue steadily down the path of modernization (i.e. building up a large professional class, strengthening democratic institutions, and so forth).
It is indeed true that ethnic divisions are strong in Afghanistan - and no doubt the post-soviet civil war as well as the US-led war against the taliban (who were basically pashtoons) hardened these positions. However, given that Karzai is a pashtoon, and given that he has the full support of the US and other countries involved, it does appear that the ``ethnic balance of power`` is being maintained - but you would know better. Ultimately, I can think of no permanent solution to such traditional differences than the development of a middle class. Since the middle class tends to have more important things to worry about than ethnic rivalries.
Hope this makes sense.

saminasha # 119

there is a current of anti-americanism (illiogical resentment of america) in your comments. here`s how:

re: after i asked, you gave 4 examples to back up your implication that the US gov assasinates democratically elected leaders. out of the examples you provided, i only saw one who was actually assasinated (in Chile) while the others, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, some school in Central America(?) were not assasinations (to the best of my knowldedge). Futhermore, is it accepted history (to more magazines then just ``the nation``), that america is behind this? in the case of the deposed shah, he was our ally! look, i won`t defend all US policy but your implication and evidence is clearly wrong.

2ndly, america has not and will not ``bomb Iraq to bits`` american armed forces are going out of their way, putting american soliders at risk, to prevent harming civillians by avoiding (to the best of their ability) civillian targets, not taking out power and other infrastructure, etc...that`s not to say innocents won`t be hurt (they have already), but why do you lay this at america`s door before saddam`s?...(pssst: anti-americanism?)

finally, you still haven`t answered my question! :) i didn`t ask you what iraqis will think about the war vs life under sanctions...i asked YOU which YOU THINK is worse - the misery and suffering endured by iraqi people under saddam`s regime or the suffering caused directly by american forces trying to remove saddam?

btw, i noticed you didn`t say much about the points in tahmed`s article. that makes sense b/c i thought his points were very good, but i thought you would`ve iisagreed with them...

ahmedzai #132 I am still baby-sitting this article, as you can see. :-) I have to go now, but will go over your post carefully and respond later on.

ali87 #131 you ask ``Exactly why are you exhotring the people to wait to see what he (Bush) does in Iraq.`` Fair question. Two reasons:
First, what else are you (or anyone else) going to do except wait and see if he delivers on what he says he will? :-)
Second, (and more seriously) Bush`s stated goals in Iraq as I have heard them from him in his public announcements are as follows:
(a) removal of the Saddam regime: I think you will agree that he is sincere when he says this (no one can reasonably argue that this war is a big trick to consolidate Saddam`s regime). And I think you will also agree that Iraqi people have in fact been brutally oppressed by Saddam for two decades now (remember halabja).
(b) a period of US control whereby Iraq`s economy is stabilized and the infrastructure for a democratic government put in place: this is where my references to the US record become relevant I think. I may of course be wrong in my predictions, and people more skeptical (as you are) may be right. But no one can tell at this stage (not even Bush himself I would think), and that is why I say let us wait and see. And indeed, for people who feel strongly enough (e.g. Iraqi-Americans) they can even try to help in the process of making that country a democratic, peaceful and economically progressive nation. (I for one have more interest in seeing the same in Pakistan, but that is a different topic from the topic of this article).
Thanks for your comments.

Wajahat #130 Hxn suggested rather than calling me names, you focus on the specific points I make in the article and explain if and why you disagree. You continue to ignore that, and instead you replace namecalling with threats by saying that I have gone over to the other side.

Let me see exactly what this ``other side`` is to which you say I have gone over: This ``other side`` is the side that searches for the truth rather than accepting emotionally convenient lies. This ``other side`` is the side of peace and respect for people of all faiths. In other words, this ``other side`` in which you place me is the side of the Quran!!

So you can call me names and you can threaten me: I refuse to join you and your kind in joining the side that violates the basic message of the Quran, that closes its eyes to the truth, and that lives a life of hypocrisy (as exposed when you called me names), lies (as exposed in your continued refusal to address the specific points I put down) and hatreds.