War on Iraq 2003: The Debate

Introduction:
Conventional political debate is all about point scoring and shouting loudest.

This is an attempt to put the balance sheet for the war or campaign planned by George W Bush.

Saddam Hussein is a bad man,

He is indeed, one of many bad men who are in positions of power in the world. We must not forget that the West backed him when he was fighting Iran, just as we trade with and support many other unsavoury regimes. The question is whether it is right to spend billions of pounds, kill thousands (if not hundreds of thousands, if things go badly wrong) of people, maim even more people, tear up political alliances, destroy hopes of a Middle East Peace Settlement, and run the risk of nuclear war, all in order to punish one very bad man?

Is that just and proportional?

he has started wars,

Yes, and remember that April Glaspie, a US diplomat, told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait, the US would regard it as his a domestic Iraqi affair.

used poison gas on his own people

True, and at the time Western Governments gave an extremely muted response to this outrage, because he was fighting Iran, who was the western enemy No 1 at the time,

oppressed, tortured and killed thousands, and is doing ethnic cleansing

true: but if we bombed the country of every dictator who does this, the bombing would never cease. The way to stop oppression and torture is for Governments through the UN to implement standing rules of International Governance, enforced by graduated trade privileges. In Iraq now, we should be sending in teams of human rights inspectors to discover and prevent these actions.

is trying to develop an arsenal of weapons of Mass Destruction

It is utterly hypocritical of states armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons such as the US and UK to complain because Iraq and others are seeking to "defend themselves" with these selfsame weapons. It implies that we are in a different order of humanity from other states. We have the maturity and responsibility to brandish and threaten with these weapons, and brown-skinned rulers do not possess these qualities. These distinctions do not apply. Hussein is probably a psychopath, but Bush probably has a character disorder. Hussein is a dictator, but Bush is an appointee of the US Supreme Court. Neither has won a free and fair election. The differences are of degree, not kind.

in defiance of UN resolutions.

Many countries, including Israel, stand in defiance of various UN resolutions. Israel has defied the UN many more times than Iraq. The UN exists to ensure peace, not to rain death on people because their rulers are disobedient.

Saddam Hussein must be stopped from developing nuclear weapons because he would give them to Osama Bin Laden.

The links with Osama Bin Laden (another ex-client of the CIA) have never been substantiated (in fact, Bush and Bliar admitted this in January 2003) http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm), but the threat of war is driving them closer, on the basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Even in the recording issued on 11.2.03, Bin Laden was backing the Iraqi people, not Hussein, who he sees as an infidel. All the time that UN weapons inspectors are at work, Hussein cannot develop or deploy any WMD that he may hold. We could continue to inspect until Hussein dies of old age. It would still be a cheaper and safer way to control the situation.

The real problem with Osama and nuclear weapons is that he could buy materials for a dirtybomb on the black market. More resources should be put into the effort to prevent this. And we should stop the ridiculous practice of sending shipments of plutonium across the world from Sellafield to Japan.

"It would be immoral to leave Hussein in place to continue his oppression"
(Tony Blair 15 Feb 03)

Yes and no. It would be a humane act to topple Hussein, but how can it possibly be a humane act to use one cruise missile every four minutes for 3 days on Baghdad, which is one plan doing the rounds in the Pentagon?

This is Newspeak: "War is Peace, Widespread Bombing is Humanity".

Conclusion

The case for the war on Iraq is not made. It is not just and proportional to kill a nation in an effort to get rid of one man. The alternative is far more rational: continued inspections, not trade in dual use or weapons technology, no trade in luxuries, and food and medicine fed in by Iraqi Opposition groups.