A weather forecast for Baghdad.
Twelve months on from 9/11 and we stand on the brink of a conflict both more complicated and controversial than the one in Afghanistan. In America's declared war on terrorism, with it's declared objective of ending the activities not only of the terrorists themselves, but also those states who harbour or provide succour to them, the US is now, quite understandably, pursuing a more pro-active approach to the problem. The action in Afghanistan was re-active, in that it was a direct reaction to the WTC atrocity. As such it gained wide based international support. Support for pro-active measures on the other hand, measures designed to ensure the future internal security of the US and the western world - BEFORE any further atrocity can occur - has been harder to come by. This is not entirely unexpected - international politics, like nature, always seeks the point of equilibrium, or status quo.
I think the question one has to ask oneself is if that status quo acceptable. I actually heard some simpering British female condemning further action on the world service a few nights back, suggesting that Blair was quote 'Bush's lapdog'. I was both horrified and appalled. How do people that stupid find their way home from work every night I asked myself? Just for the benefit of that woman I would like to point out that we in the 53rd state are just as much a target of terrorism as those in the first 52. If the Stockholm hijacker had actually made it aboard that flight to London earlier this month then we too could have been left counting the number of children who lost one or both parents. Should we accept the status quo, and wait for another atrocity to steel international resolve? Both Bush and Blair patently think not. I tend to agree with them. Does that make either Blair or myself a lapdog? Not hardly. It just means that, after careful consideration of the options, we have all independently come to the conclusion that the status quo is unacceptable.
That being the case we must cast our gaze worldwide to see where the next potential atrocity is most likely to come from. Which states harbour or provide succour to terrorists? Who is the greatest threat in the post cold-war era? What criteria should our search use? Well, the next target in the war against terror should be a state sponsor of terrorism, a state prepared to deal with organisations such as Al-Quaida, the state with the largest stock-piles of weapons of mass destruction and a proven disregard for the consequences of their use, a state with the most brutal human rights record since Stalinist Russia and an avowed enemy of the west.
Does Iraq fit these criteria? Iraq pays $25,000 to the family of every member of the Hammas Martyrs-Brigade who blows themselves and Israeli civilians up. Yes, I've seen footage of the presentation ceremonies. Does Iraq provide financial and intelligence resources to organisations like Hammas and Al-Quaida? Yes, and if even some of those resources were used by the 9/11 terrorists, either with or without the fore-knowledge of Iraq, does that not make Iraq culpable? Yes. Did Iraq have foreknowledge of what the terrorists planned to do with those resources on 9/11? Probably, but does it matter? Iraq has far more plausible deniability in the 9/11 operations than was ever effected by the CIA 'Bay-of-Pigs' operation/fiasco so we may never know what they knew and when they knew it. But again, does it matter? And what of Iraq's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction? Since the expulsion of the UN weapons inspectors, and even prior to that, Saddam Hussein has time and again proven his desire to accumulate such weapons, chemical, biological and nuclear. Not since Stalin has a dictator brutalised his own nation, time and again proving his resolve to use weapons of mass destruction, even on his own people in his barbaric genocide of the Kurdish Iraqis. Is he prepared to use these weapons against the west? Saddam authorised their use against the coalition forces during Desert Storm. His generals baulked at their actual use however when they were informed that, "should weapons of mass destruction be brought to bear against coalition forces then the response would be /disproportionate/', i.e. we'll level your entire country.
Ask yourself this question. If Saddam could fabricate a two-stage thermo-nuclear device, plant it in a major western city and have enough plausible deniability to avoid direct retribution, would he do it? Answer - in a heartbeat. Saddam can wage his war against the west in the comfort of plausible deniability through his usage of a third party, namely the terrorists. CIA has done the same in the past of course, funding Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, Iraq to fight Iran, South Korea to fight North Korea and the Vietnamese against the Vietcong. Most of the current generation of the Iraqi military leadership learn their trade at Sandhurt (Our West-Point) for that very reason. Like cricket is to the British, international intrigue is to the Americans. We invented the game, but now everybody seems to be able to kick our arse at it. Direct action against those who sponsor or succour world terrorism would now seem the only action available and Iraq seems the most likely candidate for such direct action. An attack on Iraq is the most direct attack possible on the sponsorship of world terrorism, and without a state sponsor a terrorist is just a murderer.
But this current endeavour against Iraq cannot simply be a case of toppling the leadership and getting the hell out of Dodge. That would be de-stabilizing to the entire region and the Islamic world as a whole. Anyone suggesting that anything other than a long-term occupation of Iraq by a sizeable force is either ill informed or deliberately misleading. Such occupation would certainly have to last long enough to remove the incumbent leadership and install a more moderate premier. This is where it gets complicated however because Saddam has ruthlessly assassinated every other potential premier for decades. In Iraq 'Leader-of-the-opposition' is less a political role than a death sentence. A temporary 'McArthur in Japan' style of governance would be required until a suitable successor could be found. This may take many months however as such a successor would not only have to be palatable to the West but to the Iraqis themselves and democratically elected. To do so without destabilisation in the region is only to be achieved through a presence on the ground. Mossad style anti-terrorist cells of small groups of special forces are being adopted by the West to deal with the terrorists themselves, to look into the eyes of the man and list their crimes before putting a bullet between their ears. But at state level only an ongoing military presence can ensure the security of the region and that presence will more than likely be unpopular. No-one wants a re-play of the scenes in Somalia, but we must accept that this endeavour will incur casualties. But ask yourself this, would the numbers of casualties incurred by the detonation of our hypothetical two stage thermo-nuclear device in a major western city be any less?
And how hypothetical /is/ our nuclear device? Yesterday a Russian was arrested trying to sell strontium 90 in the Ukraine. As fissile material it probably wasn't up to the job of even a dirty bomb with a half life of only about 20 years, but it is a concern. Usually for every criminal caught 3 get away with it. Who is to say the fissile material being vendored by the other 3 dealers was as impotent as the shipment that was taken? Even more concerning is that the old Soviet Union had on its weapons inventory 90 'Suit-Case' nuclear devices (a nuclear bomb in a suit case). At last count less than 20 could be accounted for. I have been to Russia. I have seen ex-KGB officers on the back streets of Moscow, selling their colonels uniforms, boots, underwear even, to tourists for hard currency to feed their children. I was on a school trip - if I had looked a little older I am sure a lot more 'souvenirs' would have been on offer. I heard a story once about a film director who actually got a Russian tank for a movie. I don't know if this is verifiable, but I would believe it from what I saw. Money talks. When your children are starving, your political belief system has disintegrated and you don't even have a god for comfort, money /really/ talks. Our hypothetical nuclear device is in fact only a matter of time and whilst we wait that amount of time becomes imperceptibly shorter. Or maybe it will be sarin, or VX or anthrax. Whichever has the most plausible deniability in all probability. Whatever the threat, the clock is already ticking on the next disaster.
Because of the clear and present danger to both the US and UK we have no option but to insist on weapons inspections or military action. The understandable desire of the UN to maintain the status quo in the face of pro-active measures must be carefully considered by its membership. If Britain and more importantly the US act outside the blessing of the UN it would at once render the UN as impotent as the doomed 'League of Nations' when it is most needed, first to act in an arbitrational role in post-Saddam-Hussein Iraq, and then to act to stabilise the region. The UN would also be invaluable in support of the US in resolving the issue of Palestine. I would urge the members of the security council to consider the implications of passing up this opportunity to once and for all make amends for the mistakes that the West has made in the past by instituting some real stability into the lives of those that has know little but misery and suffering for generations. In the end that is the only way to combat terrorism. Happy people don't strap explosives to themselves and blow-up children.
I have heard many Islamic spokes-people talk of the necessity to deal with the Israel Palestine issue prior to that of Iraq, but for the reasons above I feel that Iraq is, at present, the largest potential danger to international peace. Once and for all Arafat has proved himself incapable of controlling the actions of all of the splinter groups of his movement. The gunmen have ignored his recent written edict condemning violence. Arafat has proved to the West that dealing with him is futile. The only option is to eliminate the source of weapons, funding and intelligence for the terrorists that Arafat has so patently lost control over. Once this is achieved the gunmen must realise that their only recourse is to sit peacefully at the negotiating table until they find an agreement that will allow the independence of Palestine that it's beleaguered people so desperately deserve.
A weather forecast for Baghdad? Well, if Saddam even thinks about using WMD on coalition forces then I would guess about 2000 degrees centigrade and very cloudy.
Quote:
Nobody likes the Brits, 53rd state, bleh lol! Wooooooooooooo
Thank you to whoever left this comment (anonymously via negative APs). I was so impressed by the depth of your knowledge and incitefulness of your commentry that I felt compelled to share it with the rest of the readership. Tosser.
