Any hawks out there feel like admitting they were wrong?
Published on March 8, 2004 By O G San In International
It’s nearly a year since American tanks began rolling across the Iraq – Kuwait border. The first anniversary of an event is a common juncture to indulge in a little reflection. My intention in writing this blog is both to reflect and to challenge. Specifically, I want to challenge the hawks to defend their war with the benefit of hindsight. Are you proud of your conflict? Do you still think it was right?

It’s my belief that the anti-war camp has essentially been vindicated by the course of events over the past twelve months. However not every prediction we made has turned out to be accurate so, for the sake of balance, I will begin by outlining where I think we went wrong.

The invasion of Iraq has not (yet) led to wider instability in the Middle East. No Arab regime has been toppled by Islamist opposition forces as some claimed would happen if America invaded Iraq. The war has not, as Amr Moussa memorably predicted, “opened the gates of hell”. Of course this could still happen if Iraq descends into civil war. For the time being though, the Arab street has proven yet again to be a paper tiger.

Neither has the Iraq war led to a wider conflagration between the West and the Middle East. If as Hosni Mubarak warned, the conflict creates “a thousand bin Ladens” then we in the west are yet to hear from them. Al-Qaida may well have recruited new members because of the war but it has not been able to use this new strength to attack “coalition” cities.

On most other matters though, the peace camp has been vindicated. Reconstructing Iraq has not been the cakewalk which the Pentagon claimed. Iraqi oil revenue has not been sufficient to get the country back on its feet as Paul Wolfowitz predicted. American troops were greeted not with flowers but with bullets. The “coalition” forces are seen as occupiers not liberators. Iraq teeters on the brink of all-out civil war following last week’s huge bombings. Only the admirable moderation of Shia leaders seems to be holding the country together.

Most of all the left has been vindicated by the failure of America to find WMD. Peace protestors always claimed that WMD was a fake casus belli concocted by an administration hell-bent on toppling Saddam. It’s still possible that some WMD will be found though, with each passing day, this becomes less likely. Even if some weapons are found somewhere in Iraq, it’s clear that the massive programmes of WMD which Washington alleged Saddam was running simply weren’t there. How ironic that the US, which wouldn’t give Hans Blix the “weeks, not months” he wanted to complete his task, now begs for more time to find WMD.

The web of lies, so carefully spun, is now falling apart. Some claims, like the 45 minute attack and Niger plutonium, have already been so thoroughly discredited that not even the most red-in-tooth-and-claw hawk now defends them. Other allegations will soon be just as thoroughly disproved. As their lies are exposed, the belligerents have resorted to ever more laughable excuses for their failure to find WMD. Any takers for: “Iraqi generals destroyed the WMD but they were too scared to tell Saddam”? No? Don’t worry; there’ll be another fairytale along soon.

Some hawks have at least had the good grace to admit that they were wrong. “OK, so we lied but we liberated Iraq so all’s well that ends well” is their attitude. This position at least has some credibility. Others though, particularly the contemptible Blair, can never admit the truth without simultaneously admitting that they lied to press their people into war. The day Blair admits that he lied would also have to be the day that he resigns.

Given the gravity of their crimes, it is a disgrace that both Bush and Blair are still in power. They pushed relentlessly for a war of aggression on false premises. They marched their people into war with talk of mushroom clouds and vials of anthrax. Thousands have died because of their belligerence. Tens of thousands have been wounded. This will forever be on their heads.

As I said at the start, I’m writing this blog to challenge not to reflect. So I want to finish by asking the remaining unrepentant hawks a few questions. If you knew then what you know now, would you still have backed the war? If you knew that 45 minutes, mushroom clouds, Niger, Saddam working with al-Qaida were all myths; would you still support the conflict? And if you really believed all the pre-war propaganda, do you feel like a sucker?

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 08, 2004
If I point a gun at a policeman, and he attempts to shoot me, is it self defense when I shoot him? Hardly, I shouldn't have pointed the gun to begin with.


But if you point at a gun at a policeman in a foreign country, don't they have the right to shoot back?

Cheers
on Mar 08, 2004
"But if you point at a gun at a policeman in a foreign country, don't they have the right to shoot back?"

So you really, really believe that coalition aircraft were just shooting at Iraqis with no rhyme or reason? I personally believe that had they not been engaged, they wouldn't have fired the first shot. You have information to the contrary? The no fly zones were the price Hussein was paying for invading Kuwait and committing genocidal acts against those opposed to him in the North and South. I doubt they were anxious for the patrols to be lifted.
on Mar 08, 2004
We clearly disagree with the cause and results of the 1998 engagement...my argument would be that the only reason you are pointing a gun at the police officer is because the police officer did something illegal that you found threatening (ie. created a no-fly zone in your living room).

However, let me make it clear that I have no sadness for the removal of Saddam Hussein, nor do I support the actions of his regime. The only reason I'm discussing the no-fly zone is to point out the faulty logic (in my opinion) that says that 2003 was the time to attack...There was nothing going on in 2003 that wasn't going on in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002...and so forth...so why then? Why all of a sudden was Saddam Hussein the villian de jour who needed immediate removal from office?
on Mar 08, 2004
No, I still feel that the War in Iraq was a good idea, I just dislike having my blood pressure raised because Mr. Bush wants to play general.

Cheers
on Mar 08, 2004
I'm glad the war happened. This is how I see it.

If we want to believe what is said about both sides, the US and its allies went into the war for money. France and its allies were against the war for money. Both wanted money. The US would make money by defeating a cruel regime and installing a democratic government while France would make money by maintaining the despotism and genocide. What would you prefer?

We clearly disagree with the cause and results of the 1998 engagement...my argument would be that the only reason you are pointing a gun at the police officer is because the police officer did something illegal that you found threatening (ie. created a no-fly zone in your living room).


Was it illegal though? If so, then why didn't anybody ever complain about it (except Hussein of course) and why didn't the U.N. censure the U.S. for it?
on Mar 08, 2004
"Was it illegal though?"

That is the debate...there are many that would say that false authority was claimed under Security Council Resolution 688...I am not an international lawyer so I can't, unfortunately, give you a definate answer on the legality of the action, but I would say that it is similar to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which is in violation of numerous UN resolutions, but which no one really does anything about. It is also telling that France backed out and stopped patrolling the "no fly" zones.
on Mar 08, 2004
"It is also telling that France backed out and stopped patrolling the "no fly" zones."


They had also been screaming for the end of sanctions as well, not because Hussein was any more sane, but because they wanted their money . People yap about Cheney and Halliburton, but no one really bothers thinking about TotalFinaElf and others happily making agreements with Hussein, right up until the US invaded. You guys can wag your fingers at the US for helping to make Saddam powerful in the 80's, but anti-war Europe was happily pumping billions into his coffers right up until the war.
on Mar 08, 2004
"You guys can wag your fingers at the US for helping to make Saddam powerful in the 80's, but anti-war Europe was happily pumping billions into his coffers right up until the war."

Just want to clarify the "you guys," as I believe you have mistakenly assumed that I am not American.

Also, on the note of the sanctions: many of those who opposed the sanctions did so because they were extremely detrimental to the average Iraqi, not because they wanted money. The sanctions were doing little harm to Saddam and his inner circle while Iraqi children were living in squalor and poverty. The sanctions were failing to perform, and in the meantime the suffering was escalating.
on Mar 08, 2004
{quote]"many of those who opposed the sanctions did so because they were extremely detrimental to the average Iraqi, not because they wanted money"

Um... yeah. Do you people not see how easily you think the worst of some and the best of others? You can supposedly see right through US concern for Iraq and yet blindly believe the best intentions of anti-war Europe? You have no clue why those people were opposed to sanctions, you just heard what they said. frankly the reasons the santions did no good was because Hussein was alllowed to cheat on them from day one by the UN overseers. The UN opposed the sanctions that didn't work because the UN was doing a dishonest job overseeing them. Irony? Nah, pure, dishonest intent.
on Mar 08, 2004
Once again, my position is not "anti-war Europe." I, along with many other American's I know--some who have even travelled to Iraq to break the sanctions and deliver medicine-- opposed the sanctions because they didn't work. We are arguing the same point here...I said that the sanctions were doing little harm to Saddam and his inner circle, you said it was because he was allowed to cheat on them from day one...you aren't disagreeing with me, rather proving my point...the sanctions were ineffective!

I am, though confused by "the UN opposed the sanctions"...they were UN sanctions, the UN didn't oppose them. Quite the contrary.
on Mar 09, 2004
Brad,

"And that was also not the reason the US went to war. It was one of the many reasons why the US went to war."

It was presented as the casus belli to the international community, as the reason for going to war. This is undeniable, it is a matter of fact.

I agree, WMD was not the reason the US went to war. The US went to war in order to dominate the Middle East militarily, to gain access to Iraqi oil, to re-orient the region in America and Israel's interests etc. This is all spelled out by the Project for a New American century back in the 1990s.

They couldn't sell this nakedly imperialist war to the US public in these terms so they needed a better reason. Hence all the talk of WMD, Iraq helping bin Laden etc. WMD was not the real reason for war but it was PRESENTED as the reason for war. The case for war presented by Bush, Blair et al this time last year lies in tatters.
on Mar 09, 2004
Bakerstreet,
where are you getting your 'anti-war' Europe expression from? Last time I checked the UK and Spain were both part of Europe. Without a doubt France and Germany were attempting to position for post santions financial gain but this does not make Europe anti-war. Nor does this suggest that France and Germany would sit back and allow Saddam to gas Kurds daily. France clearly stated that it WOULD support war if WMD were found when they supported article 1441.
You also could do with being less confrontational. Many of your good points are getting totally lost because of unfounded claims about those you disagree with (such as the UN and France). These claims seldom come from your initial thought out posts but from later (and probably spontaneous) replies. Also stop thinking the worst about other debators. Just because people are suspect of the US's motives does not automtically make them supporters of Saddam, the UN or the French. Just because they disagree with one or two points you make does not make them disagree with everything.

Personally I agree with your points on flowers and bullets, and on the media focus on dissatisfaction. I disagree with your points on anti-war Europe, and UN sanctions busting. Sanctions were working, they were just were designed to punish the country, not necessarily Saddam. The US, Russia, China, UK and France had thought this would cause Saddam to fall. Mistake.

Paul.
on Mar 14, 2004
Excellent article. Sherye predicted it in the first reply. No hawks feel like admitting they are wrong.

Projecting ahead - where does the far-right think we should turn our attention and military might ? Saudi Arabia ? Pesky Pakistan ? North Korea ? (shouldn't been done right the first time!)

I think it is important to know what opportunities lie ahead, so we can effectively fund our military and get them out of Iraq ASAP and on to better things.

Note to USSR - This is how you overthrow a government (points to Afganistan). Yeah baby.
2 Pages1 2