----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences of the War against Iraq
Dear Jerry,
This is a good assessment in part: it brings out the true nature of the
campaign for "regime change" which has gone on for 12 years after initial US
expectations were upset in 1991. I would improve my appraisal of the morality of
the war by taking the implications of my analysis, that the war was a pretext
for completing an ongoing campaign for regime change, through to an
assessment of that campaign as a whole. So I would say that the US campaign for
regime change has already cost millions of Iraqi lives, while threatening a
further humanitarian disaster from the effects of war on Iraqi
infrastructure.
I don't agree with the conclusion that the result is just total Israeli
hegomony: I would have thought that US hegemony in the Middle east is the
primary result, from which Israel can expect some capitulations from
Palestinians.
Another consequence is that so long as
religiousfundamentalists/chauvinists/terrorists represent the only resistance to
US hegemony in the middle east, there is an increased prospect of terrorist
attacks on the US and its allies.
I don't know that we can conclude that the outcome will be a triumph for
the stock market, though it will represent long term security for US oil
supplies.
Finally, there is the quite serious prospect that the Neo-conservative
imperialists now dominant in Washington will capitalize on proganda that
emphasises the one good outcome of the war: the end of Saddam's fascist
regime, and the end of sanctions, especially since power does wonders for
impressions of support. (Saddam was able to use ruthless suppression of
opposition to present an image of 100% support: similarly the only Iraqis now on
the streets will be those who most welcome Saddam's defeat and care least about
the US role in it - supporters of Saddam's regime, no doubt more than a
completely insignificant minority, will be keeping their heads low.) They are
already making threatening noises about Syria. The US public must grasp that
this is not just a benevolent act of liberation from a reformed US government
that has hitherto propped up nasty repressive regimes like Saddam's, but
part of an imperial design on the middle east as a whole. If tey do not,
then fear we are in for further conflicts, probably much more bloody in
terms of US casualities than this one has been and much more costly in terms of
civilian casualities, especially if the US military finds, as Macbeth did, that
having waded half way into a river of blood it would be better to go on over
than turn back,
cheers,
Ian
Here's an assessment from "Al Jazeerah" online at
http://www.aljazeerah.us/ :
"The US,
the world's super power, defeats the Third
World country
of Iraq after pounding it for 12
years
through
sanctions. Casualties: less
than 100 soldiers for
US and about 1.5 million
Iraqis. Consequences: Total
Israeli hegemony over the
Middle East, the oil wells are
secure, the military
industry will be thriving for decades,
and the stock markets are
ready to take off."
Are there aspects of the above
assessment that you
disagree with? Are there
other important consequences
not mentioned
above?
In solidarity,
Jerry
--
Associate Professor Ian Hunt,
Head, Dept of Philosophy,
School of Humanities,
Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy,
Flinders
University of SA,
Humanities Building,
Bedford Park, SA, 5042,
Ph: (08)
8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784