A tale of two blessed presidents: George Bush and Saddam

Iqbal Widastomo, Research Associate, School of Politics London School of Economics, London

In Indonesia, advisors are needed to inform and stimulate an administration that appears lethargic and ineffectual. It is to be hoped that both nations and the world will not be left to rue the day that these second generation figures were entrusted with high office.

Consider the following description of one of the world's current national presidents: He leads a nation that has a history of military aggression. In recent years the military machine of his nation has -- at his command -- been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. He is the commander-in-chief of a major fighting force that has gone to war and invaded other lands under his orders.

He leads a nation of people that, in a sizable majority, support him -- some are even fanatical enough that they are willing to go to their deaths under his leadership. His rise to the power of the presidency can either be described as questionable or based on the collusion of others. Finally, it is widely acknowledged that he and his cronies have corruptly used their positions for personal gain and so his presidency has deliberately set-out on policies of obfuscation -- including the use of war to distract attention away from the less acceptable maneuvers of his presidential body.

By this time fingers would be pointing at Saddam Hussein but all of the above could equally be applied to George W. Bush. We are, then, in a woeful period in history when the world has to encounter two presidents that seem willing to enter into the death and destruction of lives and property -- presidents that can be described as, in essence, warmongers.

In fairness, it cannot be argued that Bush is in anyway as despotic as Saddam but the damage that he may do to world peace and stability can lead to the conclusion that he is as dangerous as the Iraqi tyrant. In recent times it has even been possible to detect isolation of both presidents within the world community as neither of them is well supported on the international stage.

The argument is consistently put forward that America must act now before it is too late and Saddam poses an even bigger threat through his alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. But it has to be considered that that threat is alleged. To-date no hard evidence has been provided that any court of law would convict on.

Circumstantial evidence has been procured through documents such as that which the British Prime Minister presented to the world, but most of the world has, in fact, agreed with Iraq that that document was rather more propaganda than hard evidence. The Russian President very publicly stating exactly that recently.

The world may, meanwhile, agree that Saddam Hussein has a history of pursuing some of the most horrific weapons in world history but not so many would agree with the Americans that Iraq poses a direct threat to the U.S.. Contriving a threat could easily be seen as the motive for this kind of talk coming out of Washington.

Inevitably, critics will speak of a "contrived threat" given the recent and on-going history of international intervention in and over Iraq. America and its few direct allies have maintained a "no-fly" zone over Iraq that has relatively crippled the Iraqi war machine.

The extent of surveillance over Iraq to maintain this zone would suggest that at least part of the international community has been highly watchful over Iraq. And so we must be being led to believe that under the very noses of these "watchers" the Iraqi dictator has been rebuilding his war machine, despite consistent bombing raids too.

Mixed into all of this confusion is the UN weapons inspection team that before and now has the potential again to participate in the monitoring and dismantling of any questionable military redevelopment within Iraq.

It is clear then that the Iraqi president has been a pariah within the international community but it is also equally clear that the international community already has the procedures to both contain and dismantle any unacceptable moves by him.

So why should one American president be so vehement in his desire and commitment to remove one Iraqi president? It is entirely possible to see it as a petulant personal vendetta. George W. Bush has been quoted as saying, in defense of his targeting Saddam Hussein, that "this is the guy who tried to kill my Dad," a reference to an apparent plot to assassinate George Bush, Senior in 1993.

It is also entirely possible to agree with Iraqi analysis that American pushes for involvement in Iraq's future leadership are predicated on interests in Iraq's oil fields and having a leading influence over Middle East affairs.

To date, though, American policies on the Middle East have been woefully inadequate and regrettably one-sided in favor of Israel. President Bush has linked his moves on Iraq to the so called "war on terror" but again tangible links between Iraq and terror groups such as al-Qaeda have yet to be established in a credible way that would stand-up in a court of law.

Worse still is the manner in which American policies are generating a more fragmented and radical response that may, in fact, increase the incidents and dangers of terrorism. It is possible that the horror inflicted on Bali is a response to America's "get tough" stance.

An American legislator Jeanette Rankin once said that "you can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake" and this would seem to count doubly so for the war on terrorism. The terrorists are extremely illusive and so any suggestion of victory over them may be little more than temporal.

Any preemptive strike would likely create a backlash. Militancy and fanaticism in the Middle East would be likely to be radicalized and in turn any attempts at dealing with terror groups would be hugely complicated.

The American president's "preemptive" actions could prove to be the preamble to greater Middle Eastern conflicts and more widespread terrorism. In short, two wrong presidents for our world will not add up to a right for world peace -- in fact, quite the contrary.

An old Indian proverb states that when two elephants fight it is the grass beneath them that really suffers. As this woeful tale of two presidents veers closer to war it is the people that will suffer the most.