Wednesday, April 23, 2003

There was no doubt about US eagerness to go to war in Iraq from the very beginning despite the fact that UN weapons inspectors were already on the ground, trying their best to do their job. The US clearly wanted to remove the Saddam Hussein regime, whether he possessed weapons of mass destruction or not.

Chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix criticised the US and Britain for their shaky evidence in "proving" that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. The fact that Saddam did not use these weapons to defend himself and the absence of evidence discovered so far do not help the Coalition's case for war.

If Saddam Hussein had willingly cooperated with the UN and had not left any reason for the world to doubt his sincerity in eliminating WMDs, it would have made it extremely difficult for the US to launch a war against Iraq. It was evident that the Bush administration did not want to end up in this difficult position and had made an effort to intensify the pressure on Iraq. No way was Saddam Hussein going to remain in power. The key objective of the war was to remove Saddam Hussein because his is a rogue regime which could be a threat to the security of the US.

One could argue that Iraq under UN sanctions could never have been that serious a threat, but the US does not want to bet their chances. September 11 represents the kind of disaster that could befall the US again if the dangerous elements of the world are not rooted out early. War in Iraq is an act of prevention and an opportunity to reconfigure the geopolitical forces in the Middle-East.

Perhaps Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is right in saying that this war will spawn another 100 Osama Bin Ladens. Time will tell whether the world has been made safer or more dangerous by the US's actions.

No comments: