by Roy Brown<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Roy Brown, IHEU Vice-President, explores the events and attitudes that culminated in the American-led invasion of Iraq, and the broader implications of that action. The war is continuing as we go to press.

Whatever the merits of the war against Iraq – and few would argue that the removal of Saddam Hussein and his evil regime was a bad thing – the damage inflicted on international relations by America’s headlong rush into war has been enormous. The attempt by the US to seek UN approval for the war was at best half-hearted and at worst cynical, and the work of the weapons inspectors was doomed to failure by American pressure and unreasonable deadlines. It was apparent from the outset that the Bush administration wanted war and that its timing would be dictated solely by military considerations.

Lacking as it does the explicit support of the Security Council, the war against Iraq is illegal – a point underlined by the International Commission of Jurists which met in Geneva on 18 March, and confirmed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Earlier Security Council resolutions did not, as claimed by Britain and the United States, authorize military action.

How quickly and carelessly George W. Bush has squandered the sympathy of the world since the terror attacks of September 11th! For a few short weeks then we were all Americans. Now the US, aided and abetted by Britain and with token support from a handful of other nations, has embarked on a war of aggression – a “pre-emptive strike” against an enemy chosen, many believe, because – unlike far greater threats to American security such as North Korea or the elusive international network of Islamist terrorists – Iraq was an easy target, too weak to defend itself.

The Security Council and most of world opinion are opposed to this war, not because of French duplicity or the failure of the international community to face up to its responsibilities, but because the United States failed to persuade the world of the merits of its case. After months of intelligence gathering and weapons inspections no credible evidence was presented that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Nor was the world convinced by Bush’s new-found desire to “liberate” the Iraqi people from tyranny.

Since the fall of communism, America has stood alone as the world’s only remaining superpower and has rarely troubled to disguise its disdain for international agreements or institutions that it doesn’t control. But since September 11th it has also shown a new willingness to use its overwhelming military power and technology in pursuit of its geopolitical goals. America was humiliated that day, and for the first time in their history many knew real fear. The fear and humiliation have left deep scars, and America wants revenge. From now on, no-one messes with America. Never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11th, Saddam Hussein was evil and that was good enough. He was doomed.

A large part of the Islamic world believes that the invasion of Iraq marks the beginning of the “War against Islam”. But despite the peculiar brand of Christian fundamentalism that informs much of US government policy, and President Bush’s ignorant blunder of 12 September, this war is not a Crusade. Nevertheless, many are wondering “Who next?” Many Americans, too, have misgivings. US Senator Robert Byrd, speaking on 19 March 2003, said: “This Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war.”

As America’s reputation has plummeted, so has that of Great Britain. In one catastrophic miscalculation Tony Blair offered his unequivocal support for the Bush administration’s punitive, illegal adventure. By blindly following Bush and his cohorts down the headlong path to war Blair gambled and lost not only his own but Britain’s reputation for legality and fair play. Where now the moral high ground?

Bush may believe that the United States does not need international approval for its actions. But every other nation does, and America will again. The United Nations will recover. But trust and goodwill between nations has been shattered and will take decades to rebuild. The myth of European unity has been exposed as ... a myth. Bush has demonstrated that the checks and balances of international law no longer apply when perceived national interests are at stake. How many lesser nations will now be drawn down the slippery slope into unilateral, violent and illegal action? And who now will be able to gainsay them?

The reaction from the Arab world is likely to be sustained and violent. There is an enormous risk that hatred of America for its one-sided policies – for attacking Iraq while ignoring the growing plight of millions of Palestinians – will grow even stronger. Millions of ordinary Muslims could be drawn into the arms of the fundamentalists as they see the Ayatollahs’ and bin Laden’s view of America vindicated.

A war that was supposed to make the world safer from terror will have done just the opposite. Aided and abetted by the ill-judged response of the Bush administration, Osama bin Laden may have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The world may pay a very heavy price.

21 March 2003