It’s a wild poker game, this one. The go-to-war-now trio says Osama’s statement proves what they never could – that Saddam and Osama were in cahoots. The anti-war brigade say it reinforces its warning that invading Iraq plays into Osama’s hands, since he wants a war of civilisations, and can use the invasion against the “infidel” Saddam to attract more followers. If that’s true, George Bush has created an alliance link between Saddam and Osama which could give Osama WMD – the exact result he says he’s trying to avoid.
I’m in the latter camp on this one. I’m reminded of the first email I published after September 11, by John Avery in Adelaide (Tragedy). It chilled me then, and it chills me even more now.
It is a reasonable guess that the perpetrators of today’s terrorism in the US are an extreme faction identified with Islam and probably connected to the Taliban. Having said that, it is vital that the actual culprits are identified and punished with narrow particularity, not just for sake of justice but to defeat the purposes of these outrages.
President Bush has said no distinction will be drawn between terrorists and the regimes who support them. But that is the exactly the response these shocking deeds seem calculated to elicit. A key object of extremist factions, such as those competing with more moderate groups among the Taliban, is to prevent moderate groups defecting, to shut the escape hatches.
We have seen this tactic in Afghanistan with the desecration of the Buddhist monuments, the arrest of aid workers for (allegedly) preaching Christianity and the outrageous repression of women in that country. The terrorists believe that more extreme and outrageous the actions, the more reliably will their targets extend revenge to anyone tainted by association with them.
Under common attack, more moderate factions are forced to commit to the extreme hard line, whether they like it or not.
If this is correct, the US response should be to drive a wedge between the perpetrators and to their close supporters, rebarbative as they definitely will turn out to be. This course is unlikely to be followed because the extremity of the terrorists’ outrage is designed to amplify their victims’ hostility and harden their feelings of revenge.
Thus the huge scale of losses inflicted on the US are calculated to induce feelings of revenge that will not be satisfied with the punishment of a mere handful of scruffy tribesmen, even if bin Laden were among them (should his group turn out to be culpable).
The vividness and power of these events, underscored by presumed religiously inspired suicides, make it emotionally difficult for the Americans to resist the terrorists’ overt message that they are primarily engaged in war with the USA or the west.
The war with the diabolical west may turn out to be their platform, but the real purpose of their attacks and their extreme high stake tactics seem to be fame, self-preservation and advancement within a specific regional politics marked by labile factional and ideological commitments to forms of Islam ostensibly opposed to modernity with a western face.
The world will pay a high price if America succumbs to these forceful temptations. President Bush, contrary to what he has declared so far in the heat of the moment, should lend support to the more moderate factions to isolate the extremists, contrary to the extremists’ desire to draw a savage response from the USA, but this is unlikely to happen.
Chilling too, the enthusiastic endorsement of Rupert Murdoch for the war. It would help the world economy – better than a tax cut! Perhaps his compliant editors will now be a little more loathe to pooh-pooh the oil war theory.
Murdoch praises Blair’s ‘courage’
by Julia Day
Wednesday February 12, 2003, The Guardian
Rupert Murdoch has given his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting “morally” and “correctly” and describing Tony Blair as “full of guts” for going out on a limb in his support for an attack on Iraq.
The media tycoon said he was completely behind Mr Bush and Mr Blair as they faced opposition from Germany and France. Much of the world, he said, cannot accept that America is the only superpower.
“I think Tony is being extraordinarily courageous and strong on what his stance is in the Middle East. It’s not easy to do that living in a party which is largely composed of people that have a knee-jerk anti-Americanism and are sort of pacifist,” Mr Murdoch told the Australian news magazine The Bulletin. “But he’s shown great guts, as he did, I think, in Kosovo and over various problems in the old Yugoslavia.”
Mr Murdoch was unequivocal about war with Iraq. “We can’t back down now. I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it.”
He said the price of oil would be one of the war’s main benefits. “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”
Mr Murdoch’s comments come just a week after he told Fortune magazine in the US that war could fuel an economic boom.
“Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long-term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it’s behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else,” he told Fortune.
Mr Murdoch believes there is no doubt that President Bush will be re-elected if he wins the war with Iraq and the US economy remains healthy.
“He will either go down in history as a very great president or he’ll crash and burn. I’m optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of two to one.”
***
Activism
Several readers have suggested sending a Valentine’s Day email to your federal representative.
Lynette Dumble: The Women in Black group holds a silent vigil against war and violence every Thursday at 5.30-6.30pm, Sydney Town Hall. www.womeninblackoz=.com
***
Recommendations:
See US Orders 100,000 body bags and coffins.
Mark Sokacic recommends black humor for the pre war weary at idleworm.
James Woodcock recommends The Guardian’s international guide to peace websites at guardian.
You can thank the Presidents of France, Russia and China for opposing a war in Iraq by going to greenpeace
Paula Abood recommends ‘Vulnerable but ignored: how catastrophe threatens the 12 million children of Iraq’ in independent and ‘YellowTimes.org Shut Down! Stifling the Voice of Reason’ at antiwar
***
One liners
Chris Munson: My question for the day is whether the US has managed to “turn” Hans Blix. They seem to be exerting unseemly pressure (coercing – forcing – bribing?) people and nations to their “Coalition of the willing” or “fellowship of the ring” as Mark Latham calls John, George and Tony. We’ll find out whether Hans is the man we think he is this Friday.
Trevor Kerr: I’d like to see “BAN WARS” banners hanging out of every public building, especially hospitals. If faction-paralysed Labor can’t get up a decent, enduring, visible national campaign, we can predict the size of the next Green vote – bigger!
Rod Lever: All Osama has to do is stick up his head and say “Boo!” and we all fly into a panic and call out the tanks and the army reserves. Who says terrorists are not winning?
Margaret: Thank you for publishing the Ian Macdougall view (Saddam as Stalin: The case for war). As an American I didn’t know what to believe until Mr Macdougall’s presentation of the pro and con of war with Iraq cleared my confusion. I am now totally convinced that we need to get rid of Saddam as quickly as possible.
Peter Woodforde in Canberra: I’m sure Saddam’s Republican Guard must be quaking in their boots. Any minute now, sabres flashing and mounted three-to-a-camel, the crack team of full and frank Miranda Devine (SMH 13 Feb), Young Liberal Student Movement bimbo heart-throb Sophie Panopoulos (ABC Insiders 9 Feb) and gnarled old desert veteran Piers Ackerman (Tele 13 Feb) will be at the gates of Baghdad. Undoubtedly their fierce cries of “Death to the Great Satan Simon Crean and the chattering class elites” will chill the entrails of the Iraqis. There is something immensely comforting in knowing we are protected by the likes of this trio, each of whom has pledged their blood to John Howard in the sands of Mesopotamia.
***
Scott Burchill
This is important. A real mess is brewing.
Exile Group Leaders Fault U.S. Plan for Postwar Iraq
By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, February 12, 2003; Page A01
SULAYMANIYAH, Iraq, Feb. 11 — Iraqi exile leaders complained today that a U.S. plan to install a military governor for up to a year in postwar Iraq, as outlined by U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, risks leaving in place an Iraqi administration dominated by the country’s Sunni Muslim minority and veterans of President Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.
Leaders of the principal exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, said the administration plan, described by Khalilzad last week in Ankara, Turkey, seemed to reflect fears in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt that immediate democracy in Iraq could be destabilizing. The complaints also highlighted concern that the exiles’ role in postwar Iraq could turn out to be less than they anticipated in months of lobbying against Hussein.
“I think it’s a bad policy,” said an Iraqi National Congress official, Kanan Makiya. “I think it’s going to have the opposite effect that they want it to have.” The group, which recently moved here in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq from its base in London, aspires to form a government in exile and exert influence in postwar Baghdad with the support of the United States.
Ahmed Chalabi, the expatriate Iraqi who heads the group, warned that the U.S. plan would leave Hussein’s followers in charge even if Hussein were removed by a U.S. attack. Chalabi, who did not attend the meetings in Ankara but was briefed on them, said the U.S. plan envisions that only the top two officials at each Iraqi ministry would be removed and replaced by U.S. military officers.
“Power is being handed essentially on a platter to the second echelon of the Baath Party and the Iraqi officer corps,” said Makiya, an adjunct professor at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. By leaving in place Hussein’s “structure of power,” Makiya said, the U.S. plan offers a leg up in eventual elections to the Sunni minority that has run Iraq for decades, even though a majority of Iraq’s 23 million inhabitants follow the Shiite branch of Islam.
“I can see Saudi Arabia preferring this option over any other position,” Makiya said, naming the country that regards itself as the protector of Islam’s Sunni branch.
“What concerns us a lot is the perception of the Arab governments and their friends in Washington about the effect the example of Iraq will have on the future of the Arab world,” Chalabi said.
Another opposition leader, speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed. “The Shiites are not going to like this,” he said.
But a Kurdish leader, also part of the anti-Hussein movement, put a softer face on what he acknowledged was a disappointing report from Khalilzad. “I want to keep an open mind about this news,” said Barham Salih of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which controls a section of northern Iraq beyond the authority of Hussein. “The important thing is to get rid of this dictator.”
Khalilzad, in his Ankara discussions, provided new details to the exile leaders of what the Bush administration has in mind for Iraq after the removal of Hussein. A U.S. military governor would rule the country for up to a year with the advice of an appointed “consultative council,” they said they were told, while a judiciary committee would prepare a draft constitution and elections for a constituent assembly, which would debate, amend and adopt it.
The prospect of a U.S. military government presiding over Iraq’s predominantly Muslim population has fueled concern among exiles and other critics. They point to the appeal of such voices as Osama bin Laden’s in portraying the war as a campaign against Islam as opposed to President Bush’s characterization of it as a war on terrorism. In addition, they complain, the emerging details of the U.S. plan raise questions about the extent of Washington’s commitment to bringing Western-style democracy to Iraq as soon as Hussein is removed.
Administration regard for Iraqi opposition groups has declined markedly since U.S. officials publicly courted the fractious organizations as an alternative to Hussein’s rule. Opposition officials acknowledged the sting of their dip in status. But the groups that claim to represent distinct constituencies — Kurds on one side of the country and Shiites on the other — have taken solace in the prospect of eventually asserting their power at the ballot box.
The groups include two Kurdish political bodies that have governed the rugged northern reaches of the country since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when U.S. and British warplanes began enforcing a “no-fly” zone that kept Hussein’s forces at bay. Their militias, once considered a possible auxiliary to a U.S. invasion force, have more recently been regarded as a possible problem.
Turkey, a key U.S. ally with a sizable Kurdish population, fears that a war in neighboring Iraq would kindle Kurdish nationalism within its own borders. To help win permission to base U.S. ground forces and warplanes in Turkey, the Bush administration has told the Kurds to stand down when Turkey sends thousands of troops into Iraq, officially to seal the border against a refugee flow and provide humanitarian assistance.
Details of the planned Turkish incursion were spelled out in the Ankara meeting, the exile leaders here said. At the same time, they said, U.S. officials warned about Kurdish ambitions for establishing a federal-style postwar government, which Turkey openly opposes.
“They told the Kurds to be very, very careful and very realistic about federalism,” Chalabi said.
In Iraq’s southern third, a Shiite militia also poses a challenge to Pentagon planners. The force numbers perhaps 10,000 Iranian-backed irregulars loyal to Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
In an interview last week in Tehran, the Iranian capital, where the group is headquartered, the ayatollah complained that U.S. reluctance to share war plans has fed anxiety among Iraq’s Shiite majority. Many Shiites answered a U.S. call to rise up against Hussein after the Gulf War only to be slaughtered by his forces.
“The people are suspecting the Americans’ role because in 1991 they supported the Iraqi regime when it was killing nearly half a million in front of the Americans’ eyes,” Hakim said.
While the U.S. officials were explaining their postwar plan in Ankara, Chalabi was drumming up support among other exile groups for a provisional government that would draw on exiles and democrats who emerge within Iraq. He pitched the plan to Hakim in Tehran before traveling to Sulaymaniyah last week to confer with Kurdish leaders in preparation for an opposition conference scheduled for this month.
The conference, postponed three times, is to take place inside the Kurdish-controlled zone, but only miles from Hussein’s forces. Officials expect Khalilzad to head the U.S. delegation, but Chalabi’s group said the Bush administration has been reluctant to encourage the provisional government idea for fear it would complicate war planning.
***
OSAMA’S VOICE
Mike Lyvers in Queensland
I fear Bush and Blair are playing right into bin Laden’s hands. His plan is to eliminate all infidels from the Middle East, including Saddam. A war of the West against Saddam would help him fulfil at least part of his dream by pitting the hated infidels against each other.
And I wouldn’t count on democratisation working very well in Iraq, even if this could be achieved by force. The conservative forms of Islam widely practiced in that region (unlike the more benign Sufism practiced in Indonesia) are incompatible with western concepts such as democracy, religious tolerance or universal human rights.
Successive US governments have long quietly debated the issue of whether they should push for democratisation of their erstwhile ally Saudi Arabia, but the sad conclusion of many foreign policy experts is that if the Saudis were given the vote, they would probably elect an even more repressive theocratic regime than the current one. Likewise, if Iraq became another Islamic theocracy, even a (one-off) democratically elected one, this would hardly be an improvement over Saddam.
What to do? Spray the region with MDMA (Ecstasy) perhaps?
***
Nadim Joukhadar
How pathetic is the US Administration going to get? Even in translated form the alleged tape from bin Laden shows what he thinks of Saddam and his cronies. Bin Laden clearly calls them “apostates”, meaning they are also enemies of Islam. does that sound to you like a terrorist link? Somehow the US hawks think so.
Quite frankly this tape sums up the Arab view of Saddam. He is despised globally. What it therefore proves is there is NO link between the War on Terror and the Invasion of Iraq. It would be nice to see one media editor make that statement or provide the story the way it is.
***
Nick Emeljanow in Bicton, Western Australia
It seems that as the US are unable to find or capture the real, obvious, elf confessed global terrorist, it has decided to go hellbent in another direction, and likely to cause a massive humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq.
Unable as the US are to prove a link between the secular Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda, the quintessential irony is that based on the latest rhetoric from Osama Bin Laden, this would be a boon to Al Qaeda in their quest for radicalised Muslims.
Why would the US as the only superpower choose to threaten a former ally, and now a conventional enemy like Saddam Hussein, who has been adequately contained since the end of the Gulf War by the United Nations sanctions process? It seems to me that it’s because it is easier than fighting the phantoms of Al Qaeda.
This is all about seeming to do something and being re-elected. If you don’t believe me, think about the fridge magnets being delivered on behalf of John Howard.
VIEW FROM THE REGION
P Shasi
Like many others, I have been keeping myself updated on the news. I am an Asian (of Indian origin) with a residency in Australia (a choice I made) currently working overseas.
Much of my feelings for Australia has now been called into question, as Howard as done much to decimate my once proud opinion of Australia, its government and its role in Asia. Since I am overseas, much of my knowledge of Australian opinion is that of the government’s standpoint (based on the media’s take on Australia’s stand on the issue).
Had I not been keeping in touch (of late) with Australian current affairs via smh-online, I would have treated the government’s stand as that of the nation’s popular public opinion. It is my belief that Howard has clearly segregated Australia from the rest of Asia.
I am certain, much of Asia (Singapore being the exception) views Australia in much the same way, and will unlikely change their opinion for a long time. It certainly will not end for as long as Howard remains Prime Minister (capable as his government may be).
I believe, Howard has no choice now but to stand by Bush regardless of public opinion. He has already alienated his neighbours. He cannot afford to alienate his friends too.
CONVERSATIONS
M Mullaney in the USA
I find your simplistic assessment of world events and your hostilities towards the US extremely disconcerting. The world was fighting long before George Bush and will continue to do so long after. We here in the US have resolved ourselves to the facts that there will be another attack on civilian targets and most of our long term allies do not care – in fact, many, like the writers in your column, believe we deserve it. How hypocritical is it to oppose an American war against Iraq while subtly condoning terrorist attacks against the US as an understandable response to American arrogance.
***
Tony Powers
Why is it you keep claiming to be a small “L” liberal when all evidence points to the contrary? One only has to refer to Rolling Your Own to see that you are obviously a Big “L” Leftie.
George Bush HAS NOT confirmed that Australia has committed to joining a unilateral strike by the US on Iraq without UN sanction. It does you no credit at all to perpetuate this myth being peddled by the Labour Party, A myth supported only by selective quoting of the US President.
George Bush, in responding to a question as to wether he counted Australia as a member of the Coalition of the Willing answered “Yes I Do, but what that means is up to John to decide”. It is rather informative to note that when quoting the President, Simon Crean neglects to mention the last part of the answer, presumably because it qualifies the first part of the answer and weakens Mr Crean’s argument. Quiet clearly if the PM had already committed to a multilateral strike without UN approval there would have been no need for the President to qualify his response to the question.
As I read the President’s remarks, what he’s saying is that he sees Australia as being committed to the Coalition of the Willing in trying to rid Saddam Hussein of WMD and in trying to get the UN to stick to it’s stated “serious consequences” for non-compliance with resolution 1441. However the second part of the answer “…what this means is up to John” shows that the President respects our sovereign right to make our own decisions about how far that commitment goes. As the PM has frequently stated there is no Australian commitment yet to supporting a multilateral strike without UN approval, and it is this non-decision that the President is referring to in the last part of his answer.
In other words Australia is a member of the “Coalition of the Willing” but we and only we decide how far our commitment to that Coalition goes. This has been the PM’s position for some time now and, in spite of the Labour conspiracy theories, supported more by innuendo and misinformation than any solid evidence or facts, it clearly remains his position.
Margo: Australia has agreed to slot into the US invasion plan (see the Herald story Forces to follow US plan of attack, cited in George Bush: Australia’s war leader, which it saw months ago, defence force chief General Cosgrove said yesterday. It is inconceivable that having agreed to do certain things during the attack, we then pulled out. That would not be the action of an ally, but an enemy, as it would upset the invasion strategy. It would be far worse than Canada’s decision not to deploy troops unless and until the UN sanctions an attack. As to George Bush’s comments, the Coalition of the Willing is by definition the allies who have agreed to join an invasion ordered by the United States. That’s what it means. If Australia hadn’t agreed, it wouldn’t be in the Coalition of the Willing, we’d be in the coalition of the maybes or the no ways. Bush’s remarks after confirming our membership of this select group could have referred to the fact that the terms of engagement – who gives the orders to our soldiers etc – have not yet been signed off, according to defence minister Hill on Lateline last night.
***
Enrico Perrotta, letter to his friend Harry Heidelberg
Dear Harry,
I’ve just read your article attacking Carmen Lawrence (Anti-war nostalgia: Baby boomers strike again). I cannot believe what I’m reading there. Are you serious? Harry, you are a victim.
The US government claims that a terrorist attack is imminent. I don’t know whether it’s imminent or not – I do not trust to an intelligence that hasn’t foreseen September 11 – but I agree with the conclusion that other attacks are likely. Of course they will, do you think that Al Qaeda has disappeared with a bit of bombing over Afghanistan?
But what has Saddam to do with all that? Harry, explain that to me! British intelligence – shall I trust them more? – has confirmed last week that there is no link between the Baath party in Iraq and Al Qaeda. Iraq’s regime is not religious, is not driven by fundamentalism. There is no connection. Full stop. Period. End.
I know what you are saying now: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and will sell them to terrorists. Therefore, it’s a threat to the world community. I respond to you as follows: Most military experts affirm that Iraq might have some mass destruction weapons (biological), but only in residual amounts. They are not a threat to world security. Full stop. Period. End.
The US is concerned about homeland security. What kinds of weapons were used on the occasion of the biggest attack in US? Knives. Aircrafts. Brains. No Anthrax. No biological weapons at all. Brains, ideology, fanaticism – these were the weapons. We have to fight against them, not against Saddam Hussein.
Harry, you are a victim. A victim of a conspiracy initiated by Bush administration. If you make a survey today in the US and ask who is responsible for September 11 at least one third will say Saddam Hussein. You are all victims. You fear Saddam Hussein instead of being afraid of the real threats.
THE AUSTRALIAN WAY
Paul Walter in Adelaide
What is wrong with you press people? I sat down last night to watch on SBS the most bizarre, disturbing story I have yet seen on a news paper page or TV screen and the issue appears to have been embargoed, censored or just plain ignored out of the media completely.
I speak of the bizarre and horrific decision by the federal government to repatriate 1400 Timorese back to the third world slum we help create for them; after having them in this country for so long that they are now thoroughly “acculturated” to a western lifestyle and possibly unable to settle into a society like East Timor. Talk about a ship of fools; circa 1938!!
You will probably cavil, saying, “Well, he didn’t support the arrival of the boat-people”; why should I care?”.
But consider the differences that make this significant:
1. These people are a known quantity and have shown top citizenship requisites over nearly a decade, now.
2. This country has had a hand in the downfall of East Timor over a period of thirty years.We are not faced with being forced to assume another country’s responsibility; we are responsible in a tangible sense here.
3.We have “acculturated” them to our way of life.To dump these people back in Timor after this length of time must represent a direct threat to their well-being BY US that relates to our embrace of them within our society over a long length of time. Kittens and puppies abandoned after Christmas are treated better than this.
What, or where, are the “liberal values”guiding the thinking processes behind this travesty???? I have never been so affected as I was when 3 young students; young lasses who any Australian would be proud to call “daughter” talked in Aussie accents of their apprehension as to the future, given the government’s unrelenting attitude.
I can’t understand, or forgive Phil Ruddock. No wonder his daughter doesn’t want to know him! The time of emergency, given a possible flood of unknown-quantity “illegals” is long over, if it ever really existed in the first place.Time to “let up”!
I can’t forgive sections of the press and media either. I think of the rubbish that people like Miranda Devine, let alone a swag of unprincipled creatures from the Australian instead employ their print-space for, and I feel such anger, at times.