The wrong reasons: an imminent war

'Saddam has been carrying on a reign of terror', 'He .. has to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face the consequences'. And so on and so forth spoke George W Bush. Now tell me we haven't heard this before. Or utterances similar some half a century ago.
GWB likens the war on terrorism in its latest form the fight for democracy, to the Crusades of the early ages. History teaches us that those Crusades were one of the bloodiest and most self-serving war campaigns ever to be fought. Rampant looting and brigandage characterized what was to be the battle of Christianity over the infidels. Cloaking ambitious aims using tokens like religion and or national security has long been the methods of politicians. But this time, the brazenness and the willful disregard to global movements seem to know no bounds. Massive rallies around the world, candlelight vigils tell a sign that people are aware of the potentially crippling costs of war. And what war is that? With what aims?
9/11 brought into focus with gory and ghastly reality, the aftermath of a consistent arm-disarm policy of the US. The fact that the hand that fed the child would be severely bitten, was a foregone conclusion. Yet, after the scenes of heroism died down, a severely somber GWB administration promised to smoke out the leader of the terrorist outfit. An expensive and a sapping campaign produced little or no results. Osama still manages to deliver dire warnings on video, and the war still goes on. Iraq is the latest casualty of the US's goal to redeem its battered ego and boost the self pride. It is another fact that while Clinton rule was characterized by moral decadence, the country had prospered on the wave of an economic recovery. Republican governments have been notorious for involving US in war campaigns that serve no end. And GWB is no exception. Iraq may possess WMD, but then these were part of the US's campaign in the proxy war against Iran. And just 'cause GB Sr faced a defeat at Saddam's hands in the Gulf War, does not make a solid case for creating another theatre of war. Till date there has been no consistent reason offered for the threat of war that is looming large over Iraq. And suspiciously, there have been no denials as to the comments and remarks that the entire campaign is geared not towards getting a 'democratic regime' in place but towards oil. Iraq sits on the richest oil fields, and Saddam seems in no mood to oblige.
The horse-trading that went on at the UNSC and is still in progress concerning the resolution might just have taken leaf out of the books of Indian political leadership. Such blatant offers of aid, arm-twisting and coaxing cajoling of the fence sitters has not been witnessed for quite a long time. While prominent members have repeatedly stated their intentions to use veto powers, the 'us or them' policy of the GWB administration led by the hawks reeks of national jingoism at its worst. A recent interview on CNBC with a Jane's Intelligence Digest specialist led to the revelation that Jane's predicts a short swift war. However, campaigns where the US has gotten itself in a bind by failing to identify the cause usually lasts for long and leaves festering wounds.
The economic costs of war have been discussed threadbare. The human costs need to be factored in. However, what is more required is to understand the shift in global realpolitik that has been the side issue. After the end of the Cold War years, it is again that the world has been sharply divided into them and us camps. Equally vocal and increasingly progressing far apart hawks and peace activists. Are we prepared to re-live the era and accept the costs?

- posted by sankarshan @ 3/18/2003 10:58:00 PM