Terrorism And Iraq

Abdulwahab Badrakhan     Al-Hayat     2004/03/22

Demonstrations opposing war on Iraq on its first anniversary express a stance; in the millions or hundreds. The war was rejected; its result (the occupation) is condemned. Saddam Hussein's regime was amazingly abolished; the banned weapons were not found. As for the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which was intended to be a justification for the war, was a link between Al Qaeda and the United States. They entered Iraq together and moved the confrontation between them to its land. This, if we believe the claims that the operations are perpetrated by Al Qaeda. As for Bush, the situation here looks like the situation of Jose Maria Aznar. The latter preferred the bombings of Madrid's trains to be of ETA's doing in order not to be accused that his policy brought a foreign enemy to Spain (Al Qaeda). The former prefers Al Qaeda to be behind the bombs in Iraq rather than to admit the existence of a resistance in Iraq.

When the American President says that the international disagreements that preceded the war "are in the past," he wants to suggest that the world accepts and agrees on what the U.S. had committed. Such statements are a continuation of deception and an expansion of arrogance. It was obvious that Bush wanted to tell the Americans once again, that going to Iraq was to fight terrorism. It is not known to what extent the American public opinion still believe such rhetoric. However, mentioning terrorism seems beneficial in the electoral campaigns, but it is certainly not beneficial in evaluating what happened a year ago.

Bush and his fanatic team are publicizing the Iraqi adventure as a "model" that suits the world. In short, the new international system should determine the necessity of following the American administration's desires and its instincts without objection. However, the war on Iraq remained away from producing the values and concepts, which this international system looks forward to. Over and above, "the war of ideas" that accompanied and followed the Iraqi war showed clearly that the world cannot be abridged in the British Blair, the Spanish Aznar, the Australian Howard, or others. Hence, what was called "Coalition" could not convince anyone that it is an international organization that was built on the ruins of the UN. Moreover, this "Coalition" is betting on a role of the UN.

Although the disagreements "are in the past," however, the ghosts of illegitimate war are still haunting its "victorious" heroes. Each of them will be called to account by his people, and each had mobilized the possible governmental institutions (judiciary, intelligence agencies, and investigative committees) to defend himself and his stance. Each consumed the institutions' prestige to pass the lies with which he deceived his people. All of them are great and advanced countries; however, the circumstances pushed them to cheating and fabricating methods surpassing the poor countries. The most recent inventions of the British Prime Minister's supporters report that they want a change in the international laws hoping to prove that he was right. MPs Ann Clwyd and Clive Soley blame their leader because he concentrates on the issue of the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, which harmed him politically. It would have been better, in their opinion, and this is what they are requesting, to change the laws to allow the use of power to overthrow rulers like Saddam.

Perhaps, these two MPs think that they finally found for Blair the suitable "outlet." He went to war for irreproachable ethical reason. They are suggesting amendments to the British laws of war, but generalization is difficult. First, because it is uncertain whether Britain and its allies contributed in making phenomena like Saddam, and any amendment is supposed to forbid them from supporting dictators. Second, because the countries which consider themselves responsible for overthrowing these phenomena did not prove the presence of any restraints that prevent targeting any country or ruler for its own interests.

The demonstrations remind the Iraqi war's "heroes" that lying does not make policies. What remains from the international disagreements is that the new system cannot be established on the endless American vendetta strategy. Finally, what remains from the American wandering in Iraq is what was previously known: the U.S. alone will not be able to end the war. However, it needs the UN.

<h1>Terrorism And Iraq</h1><h4>Abdulwahab Badrakhan     Al-Hayat     2004/03/22</h4><p><p>Demonstrations opposing war on Iraq on its first anniversary express a stance; in the millions or hundreds. The war was rejected; its result (the occupation) is condemned. Saddam Hussein's regime was amazingly abolished; the banned weapons were not found. As for the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which was intended to be a justification for the war, was a link between Al Qaeda and the United States. They entered Iraq together and moved the confrontation between them to its land. This, if we believe the claims that the operations are perpetrated by Al Qaeda. As for Bush, the situation here looks like the situation of Jose Maria Aznar. The latter preferred the bombings of Madrid's trains to be of ETA's doing in order not to be accused that his policy brought a foreign enemy to Spain (Al Qaeda). The former prefers Al Qaeda to be behind the bombs in Iraq rather than to admit the existence of a resistance in Iraq.</p><p>When the American President says that the international disagreements that preceded the war "are in the past," he wants to suggest that the world accepts and agrees on what the U.S. had committed. Such statements are a continuation of deception and an expansion of arrogance. It was obvious that Bush wanted to tell the Americans once again, that going to Iraq was to fight terrorism. It is not known to what extent the American public opinion still believe such rhetoric. However, mentioning terrorism seems beneficial in the electoral campaigns, but it is certainly not beneficial in evaluating what happened a year ago.</p><p>Bush and his fanatic team are publicizing the Iraqi adventure as a "model" that suits the world. In short, the new international system should determine the necessity of following the American administration's desires and its instincts without objection. However, the war on Iraq remained away from producing the values and concepts, which this international system looks forward to. Over and above, "the war of ideas" that accompanied and followed the Iraqi war showed clearly that the world cannot be abridged in the British Blair, the Spanish Aznar, the Australian Howard, or others. Hence, what was called "Coalition" could not convince anyone that it is an international organization that was built on the ruins of the UN. Moreover, this "Coalition" is betting on a role of the UN.</p><p>Although the disagreements "are in the past," however, the ghosts of illegitimate war are still haunting its "victorious" heroes. Each of them will be called to account by his people, and each had mobilized the possible governmental institutions (judiciary, intelligence agencies, and investigative committees) to defend himself and his stance. Each consumed the institutions' prestige to pass the lies with which he deceived his people. All of them are great and advanced countries; however, the circumstances pushed them to cheating and fabricating methods surpassing the poor countries. The most recent inventions of the British Prime Minister's supporters report that they want a change in the international laws hoping to prove that he was right. MPs Ann Clwyd and Clive Soley blame their leader because he concentrates on the issue of the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, which harmed him politically. It would have been better, in their opinion, and this is what they are requesting, to change the laws to allow the use of power to overthrow rulers like Saddam.</p><p>Perhaps, these two MPs think that they finally found for Blair the suitable "outlet." He went to war for irreproachable ethical reason. They are suggesting amendments to the British laws of war, but generalization is difficult. First, because it is uncertain whether Britain and its allies contributed in making phenomena like Saddam, and any amendment is supposed to forbid them from supporting dictators. Second, because the countries which consider themselves responsible for overthrowing these phenomena did not prove the presence of any restraints that prevent targeting any country or ruler for its own interests.</p><p>The demonstrations remind the Iraqi war's "heroes" that lying does not make policies. What remains from the international disagreements is that the new system cannot be established on the endless American vendetta strategy. Finally, what remains from the American wandering in Iraq is what was previously known: the U.S. alone will not be able to end the war. However, it needs the UN.</p></p>