The Flaws in John Howard's Case for War, and the Axis of Double Standard
D. Thomas
March 2003
He has reached the conclusion that doing nothing about Iraq is now more costly than an invasion to disarm Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
But are doing nothing and outright war the only alternatives? With increasingly sophisticated technology, is it not possible to contain Saddam Hussein? He will be dead in a few years, by natural or violent means, so is it not possible to limit his ability to move or deploy weapons until then?
There are three steps in his logic:
- Iraq possesses terrible weapons;
- Terrorists want those weapons;
- If Iraq is not disarmed, those weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists and other rogue states could be encouraged to acquire similar weapons with similar potential consequences.
No links have been proven whereby the weapons possessed by Iraq are likely to be passed to terrorists. He says that if we wait until such links are proven it will be too late and it will be Pearl Harbor again. Pearl Harbor is a red herring designed to play on emotions - that was a government force attacking another government force: no weapons had been obtained by terrorists from a rogue state.
Other countries, including the USA possess terrible weapons that could, by misadventure or criminal act, fall into the hands of terrorists. What is being done to prevent this? Shouldn't disarmament be multinational?
Furthermore, terrorists don't need Iraq's weapons to ply their trade. On September 11 2001, commercial airplanes were commandeered and on October 12 2002, chemicals that can be bought in a hardware store were used.
He points to Saddam Hussein's terrible violence of oppression in Iraq as further reason to invade.
Certainly, Saddam Hussein is a cruel tyrant, but he is not the only one. There is terrible starvation in North Korea and Zimbabwe as a result of the deliberate policy of dictators. Is war, involving the killing of innocent civilians the only way to be rid of these murderers?
He says that terrorists are motivated by detestation of western values.
This is not true. The Fatwa issued by bin Laden on February 23 1998 reads "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Asqua Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Mecca, Saudi Arabia) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all lands of Islam defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." And yet, USA, Britain, and Australia are intending to move into a land of Islam. Invasion and occupation of Iraq can only inflame hatred of America and its allies - for probably decades after Saddam Hussein, John Howard, and George W Bush have left office.
He has called the French international "spoilers" for threatening to use their Security Council veto against war. And he says that no further approval is needed from the UN to go to war anyway.
It is clear that most people in the western world are against going to war with Iraq without further UN agreement. And Security Council backing would be doubtful if a vote was held.
While there is no doubt that strong action against Saddam Hussein is necessary, have all alternatives to war been fully explored?
Will going to war actually reduce the incidence and impact of terrorism? Or will it inflame would-be terrorists and make for more frequent terrorist attacks?
Are we doing enough to understand the causes of terrorism and to develop strategy to counter these causes in the long term?
John W. Howard and George W. Bush are applying a double standard to war on Iraq and greenhouse gas emissions. They have played a "spoiler role" on the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gasses, which all other developed countries have ratified. They complain about other countries unwillingness to vote for war on Iraq after rejecting the world's appeal to join in the first step towards fighting the long-term war on global warming.
They have argued that ratification of the Kyoto protocol could involve an economic cost. This is debatable, certainly in the long term. What is not in dispute, however, is the cost to the global economy of war on Iraq. I have seen an estimate of 2% of global GDP. The war will damage economic growth in many ways:
- Increased cost of oil, which slows consumer spending on discretionary goods and services and increases prices through the increased cost of production and transport.
- Diversion of productive resources and taxes to the making of armaments.
- Discouraging tourism and probably putting more airlines out of business.
- Costs associated with humanitarian aid, refugees, and rebuilding of damage caused in Iraq.
At least Howard is consistent in rejecting the wishes of the majority of his citizens by supporting war that has been unsanctioned by the UN and by inaction on global warming.
The Axis of double standard, USA and Australia, are intent on simplistic, expedient decisions (on both war and global warming) that may have dire long-term implications.