Implications of a U.S. attack on Iraq

Implications of a U.S. attack on Iraq

Riza Sihbudi, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta

The question whether or not the U.S. will attack Iraq seems
increasingly irrelevant, than when it will strike.

Iraq has indeed declared its acceptance of the United Nations
Security Council's Resolution No. 1441 and a UN team of arms
inspectors has got down to work. The wave of anti-war action
initiated by pro-peace activists has also spread over various
regions, including in Western countries, including Britain and
Australia, both U.S. allies.

Nonetheless, all this apparently will not dampen the ambition
of U.S. President George W. Bush to launch his military action
against Iraq as soon as possible, with the main target of
deposing President Saddam Hussein. With the statements that Bush
(and other senior U.S. officials) made before and after the
issuance of Resolution 1441 and the even more intensive
preparations by U.S. armed forces, it is very obvious that Bush
is too keen to invade Iraq.

Before the above UN resolution was issued, Bush not only
branded Saddam "a threat to world peace" for further developing
weapons of mass destruction, but also blamed him for
collaborating with international terrorists, particularly Osama
bin Laden. Saddam was even charged with involvement in the
bombing case in Bali, an accusation seen as ridiculous in many
circles.

It may be true that Iraq still possesses different types of
destructive weapons. But in the Middle East Iraq certainly is not
alone. Israel has also been long known to own and develop various
kinds of such weapons (including nuclear arms). Compared to Iraq
under Saddam, Israel under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has become
the only Middle East country evading peace efforts.

Saddam may have massacred thousands of civilians (especially
those of the Kurdish ethnic community and the Syiah group in
southern Iraq), but Sharon has done the same to Palestinians.
Ironically, the U.S. and the UN have so easily passed such a firm
and strict resolution on Iraq, while they have never done the
same to Israel. In fact, the strong domination of the Jewish
lobby in U.S. politics, notably under Bush, is undeniable.

However, as an international body obliged to protect citizens
of the world, the UN should have been able to give fair treatment
to all its members. The reality is that the UN has just become
further ensnared in the U.S.'s double standard policy in the
Middle East.

Bush's allegation of an alliance between Saddam and Osama is
also hard to accept by common sense and more like an invention.
It is a mere trick employed by Bush to win the sympathy of the
international community for his plan of war against Iraq, a plan
decreasing in popularity even among Americans.

By spreading charges of the Saddam-Osama alliance, Bush wishes
to declare that his war against Iraq is similar to the war
against international terrorism, so that the world's citizens
must support him. Actually, as a hardline fundamentalist, Osama
has very a slim likelihood of collaborating with a socialist and
secular Saddam.

Understandably, the war against Iraq is what Bush needs to
boost his domestic popularity, or obscure his failures in
handling various (especially economic) issues at home, or divert
public attention from his unsuccessful hunt for bin Laden and
Mullah Umar in Afghanistan, or create a puppet regime in Baghdad
to better guarantee Middle East oil supply (and promote the Bush
family's oil business?), or even merely give vent to the grudge
of his father (Bush Sr.), who failed to topple Saddam Hussein.

But Bush and his advisers should realize that the U.S. plan to
attack Iraq will just produce a negative impact on the doctrine
of war against international terrorism that Washington is
evolving.

If Bush really carries out its scheme to raid Iraq (reportedly
no later than February 2003), then there will be no difference
between him and the terrorists. The first victims of a U.S.
military assault will be Iraqi civilians (who have suffered as a
consequence of 11 years' UN embargo sponsored by the U.S.),
rather than Saddam or other Iraqi authorities. Aren't terrorists
always sacrificing civilians to achieve their political goals?

The other serious implication of a U.S. invasion of Iraq is a
growing anti-U.S. sentiment in the Arab world in particular and
in the Islamic community in general. So far the Arab and Islamic
communities have critically spotlighted the U.S. policy, which
always fully supports human rights violations committed daily by
Israeli authorities and military forces against civilians of
Palestine. Any U.S. attack on Iraq will just strengthen the
assumption that the U.S. in fact is fighting Arab nations and
people with Islamic majorities instead of fighting terrorism.

Violence begets violence. The planned U.S. attack on Iraq will
basically open wide opportunities for pro-violence or pro-
terrorism radical movements to arise from the oppressed or
marginalized. Then who is essentially to blame and responsible
for the phenomenon of thriving international terrorism? Is it
Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or George W. Bush himself?

The writer also chairs the Indonesian Society for Middle East
Studies (ISMES).