Comment

By: A Persian In America, New York
U.S.A. vs IRAQ -- POLITICS

Dear Editor,

I too would like to express my opinion regarding the topic that has recently been the subject of intense discussion and debate around the world, namely the likely forthcoming military action by the United States against Iraq. Reading the views expressed on this issue in the Comments Section of Khorsheed magazine is so interesting as it reflects the varying perspectives of your various readers on the subject. Here is yet another varied view that I hope you will add to your list.

As I look at the issue from different angles I can not help but to conclude that military action against Iraq by the United States could have serious outcomes for the world. At the same time judging by the views expressed by some of your readers, it seems that nationalistic sentiments tend to play a major role in justifying the pro-war feelings of some of us Persians in this regard. Saddam Hussein is the terrible dictator who is responsible for death and destruction in our country as well as his own therefore we Persians of all the people should welcome the American Administration’s decision to go to war with Iraq. This manner of thinking is tempting but does it stand the test of logic?

There are a number of issues that need attention when evaluating this dilemma. Firstly, the issue of Saddam Hossein himself, the dictator that he is and the danger that his presence poses to the Iraqi people and others in the world. The second is the issue of Bush’s resolve to invade Iraq. Whose interests will he safeguard by conquering that country? The third issue is that of the implications of such a war for the rest of the world and in particular for the neighboring countries. Last, but by no means least, is the issue of our own grudge as Persians for a man who has done terrible wrongs to our country and people the effects of which are going to be with us for a long time to come.

On the first issue, Saddam Hussein the monster is to some large extent the creation of the United States and other imperialist powers of the world. The United States empowered this man to attack our country killing hundreds of thousands of our countrymen. As long as this monster was on the side of the imperialist powers and the result of his actions benefited them his monstrous acts went totally unnoticed. Once his behavior could no longer be directly linked to protecting or promoting their interests his ugly face became apparent to them. When Saddam was at the height of his power at the time when he was most dangerous to world peace and to his own people the United States and Britain supported him financially and militarily. He was regarded as an ally of the United States Administration during the presidency of George Bush the First when he was committing some his most outrageous atrocities against humanity. Both Britain and the United States were providing him with advanced nuclear technology for use in development of weapons of mass destruction and financial aid up to or even beyond the day he invaded Kuwait. At that point in time he had already committed some of his most hideous crimes. Near a decade of war with our country that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of our people and the destruction of our country and also indiscriminate slaughter of the Kurds in the late 1980s.

Shortly before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Senator Bob Dole met with him conveying President Bush’s assurances of support. During those times and even for sometime after the Persian Gulf War opposition factions in and outside of Iraq were in a position to overthrow Saddam had it not been for the support he received from the West. The justification given by the then administration for not having so-to-speak finished the job of the Persian Gulf War by dismantling Saddam's regime was seemingly the concern they had for ‘stability’ in the region in which Saddam played an important part! In other words we needed a dictator like Saddam in the region because, according to their logic, there were other dictators in that part of the world and somehow having more than one bloodthirsty dictator would be good for the stability of the region! A rather misplaced application of the concept of separation of powers, which is a trademark of democratic societies. I think the kind of stability they were referring to was one in which rival forces would destroy each other completely. I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said ‘it is a shame that both sides could not lose the war’ or something to that effect when commenting on the outcome of Iran Iraq war. The fact of the matter is that Saddam is far less of a danger to world peace and security today than when he had the support of the United States and Britain a few years ago. Then the question that needs to be answered is ‘why all the sudden this stanch friend of the West in the Middle East has turned into its worst nightmare’. This brings me to the second issue I have raised in my analysis.

Who is going to benefit from a war with Iraq and whose interests will really be served by such an action? Is the American Administration really concerned about the safety of ordinary people like you and me? Or, are there other interests that need to be protected which by themselves do not provide a justifiable basis for going to war? My logic dictates that the former does not really seem to be the reason for such an intense eagerness for military action. If ordinary people and their interests were the focus of attention, then why did the West allow the slaughter of so many innocent people by Saddam for all those years? Why was this monster, so wholeheartedly supported in the years before and up to the Persian Gulf War? Why didn’t the killing of hundreds of thousands of Persians in the eight years of the Iraqi imposed war alert anyone in the West of the danger Saddam posed to humanity? Why didn’t the torture and slaughter of thousands and thousands of Kurds by Saddam’s regime invoke the concern of the West for innocent lives lost? Why didn’t even the scores of American lives that perished in the attack by Saddam’s terror squads on the US naval vessel, the USS Stark register in the minds of the West that this dictator is a menace to humanity? Now, think in terms of how Corporate America could benefit from the war. The process of the war will benefit the defense contractors as demand for their products and services will increase sharply, and the aftermath of the war in a geopolitical sense will benefit the multinational oil companies by giving them access to Iraqi oil reserves. It is no secrete that the main constituents of the present American Administration are exactly these very corporate concerns that would benefit from the war. As long as Saddam protected the interests of the Corporate America he was an ally regardless of his brutal treatment of innocent ordinary people. Once he decided not to be the caretaker of corporate interests in the region he was classified as an enemy. Therefore his disregard for human lives is conveniently being used by the imperialists to win support for action against him.

Some supporters of the war argue that the war could be beneficial to the United States economy especially in these difficult times. The idea is that war could give the defense and related industries a boost, which could ripple throughout the whole economy and revitalize it. It is true that the basis of the American economy is rooted in war industries, however now that the economical infrastructure of this country has become heavily service oriented, the concept of economical advantage vis-à-vis defense industry is becoming exceedingly irrelevant. Most American weapon manufacturers and those in the war business are now producing a huge bulk of their products and raw materials in other parts of the world thanks to NAFTA and the likes of which. In this context the war could boost the economy of say Mexico by increasing work for poorly paid local workers which in turn would tend to increase profitability for the American defense companies, but benefiting ordinary American people is not going to be a likely outcome of it. Thus, the implications of the war tend to be at best bleak both internationally and domestically.

One other issue that needs to be kept in mind is the fact that America is now suffering from a very poor performing economy as manifested by high unemployment rates and unstable market conditions as well as inability of millions of people to deal with fast rising cost of basic essentials. To deal with these domestic problems and issues requires investment of resources in public programs which, signifies a policy in total contradiction with the philosophy of the Republican Party. The conspired preoccupation of the country by the corporate owned media system redirects attention from the real problems of the people by focusing it on the prospects of war with Iraq. If the war actually materializes which now seems likely, it will provide the perfect setting for the Administration to pump the tax dollars into the accounts of privately-owned defense companies and out of the coffers of the public. The third issue I have raised is that of the implications of such a war.

Both in terms of their global and internal dimensions. It is not hard to imagine what a madman like Saddam is capable of doing when trapped in a tight corner. If he indeed does have weapons of mass destruction what is there to stop him from using them when his defeat seems imminent? He may not be able to use his weapons against America and Britain but could he not use them against his neighbors especially our country? The grudge resulting from his defeat in the Persian Gulf War made him blow up hundreds of oil fields in Kuwait and inflict irreversible damage to the environment in the Persian Gulf and its surroundings. Now can you imagine what the prospects of certain demise could tempt him to do?

My final issue deals with the Persian Iraqi relations and our nationalistic sentiments in the context of years of border dispute with Iraq and a devastating war that caused us so much grief and hardship because of the flawed ambitions of Saddam’s deranged mind. If you think about the issue hard enough you can not help but to conclude that there are really no issues between Persians and Iraqis that would require any kind of conflict to resolve. It is known to all that we in the Middle East have for centuries been victimized by super powers and imperialist forces for our resources, particularly our oil. In fact it is a trademark of imperialist brutality to habitually create friction and conflict among unsuspecting nations to create regional chaos and instability. Instability facilitates greater freedom and access for these forces to usurp our resources. The history of the East is just full of such examples. We will do a lot better if we realize that in almost all of the Middle Eastern countries governments are not true representatives of their people and they are usually forced upon their populations by those whose interests these puppet governments will serve.

What a mighty democratic force the people of the Middle East would form if they were to set aside their fabricated differences, do away with their quisling governments, respect the interests and sovereignty of each-other and once and for all remove imperialist forces from their lives. The people of Iraq are victims of the brutality of their unrepresentative government as are the people of Iran of their government. It is not for the United States or the National Security Council to force a change in government on any country. Such an action is so undemocratic in essence that makes a laughing stock out of anyone who claims democracy should be brought to Iraq through military action.

The above comment is a reader's opinion, and therefore, may or may not reflect that of our organization, Khorsheed. Posting of this particular comment in this section is due to inadequate space in our Readers Comment database.