As if this situation weren't far enough removed from "peace" we have the ghastly reality of life under a murderous and despotic regime; a regime whose grip on power seems only to have been strengthened by a decade of the measures that anti-war voices are now describing as "sufficient" to "contain" the Saddam polity. Queerly enough, these same voices were decrying the sanctions as "genocidal" just a few months back - but now seem happy to go along with them just so long as they delay or preclude the greater evil of war.

No-one can deny that sanctions have had a catastrophic effect on the ordinary people of Iraq - and yet it's equally difficult to discount the prospect that, were he completely unfettered by economic or military embargos, Saddam would rearm rapidly and with relish.

So: is the status quo something we're willing to march for? Evidently so. Of course, no-one intends to prop up a fascistic regime like Saddam's - but when you're so willing to caricature the aims of those arguing for war, how can you exempt yourself from being caricatured in return?

If I was to sum up why it is that I'm in favour of military action, I could do it in a single line. He's a bad bastard, basically. Practically all else flows from that. When you look at world affairs and you're trying to get some sort of grip on what the fuck's going on anywhere, a single ideal will see you through alright: Take the side of the victim - support their cause.

The victims of the ulcerous Iraqi regime are, incontravertibly, the Iraqi people themselves. While the peace movement claims the "Iraqi people about to be bombed" as its moral trump card, it's unsurprisingly reluctant to field or solicit the views of actual Iraqi's who've fled or defied Saddam's regime. The Iraqi opposition groups in exile won't be going along to the march on Saturday; the use of admirable ideals and slogans in effect to stay the execution of the despotic elite that's destroyed their country over the past 30 years must strike them as both bizarre and depressing.

"Not In My Name"?
"Not In Their Name" you surely mean.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


To address the major point made by Pumpernickel Pickle, the last time we debated all this:

I don't believe anyone can seriously argue that this coming war is about liberating the Iraqi people, or overthrowing the tyrant Saddam. It's about securing the huge Iraqi oil reserves for US business interests. Just ask why is the war being promoted now. Is Saddam any greater threat now than he has been over the last ten years? No. What's happening is that sections of the US administration (e.g. Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz et al) are prosecuting a strategy that they've been promoting since the late 90s; i.e. regime change in Iraq to secure vital US national interests, and they're using the justification of the so-called "War on Terror" to do it.

If oil is the principal motivating factor behind US policy, why aren't the efforts of the military-industrial complex going into securing Venezuelan reserves? Venezuela is much more where the US derives its supplies from than Iraq and it's practically on their doorstep - and surrounded by far weaker players than the wasp's nest that comprises the Middle East.

As for Iraq itself, the major oil interests involved there are France and Russia, who - logic dictates - ought to be well into the driving seat of a coalition to topple Saddam (the better to divvy up the spoils), rather than exerting their current efforts to halt the impending war.

If there's one thing the experience of the past fifty years has taught us, it's that US administrations are far happier to cut deals with despots than fight them; Saddam himself is practically the archetype of the sort of figure that successive American presidents have shaken hands with through most of the past century. If oil really were "the issue" we would have seen a sequence of attempts at detente from 2000 onwards, the influx of "reconstruction" capital from the West and the treading of a far more well-worn path to "accommodation" than the uncertain (both politcally as well as militarily) course currently being pursued.

Oil is an undeniable factor in any strategic consideration of the Middle East and its component parts - but to argue that US "greed for oil" is more of an issue than the destabilising potential of a genocidal, despotic, would-be expansionist regime like that in Iraq would require a good deal more evidence to back it up than the (not terribly surprising) fact that there's a degree of crossover between the upper end of the American political caste and the oil industry - which is actually incredibly nervous about the effect that war will have on global prices.

Of course I have reservations - and I'd feel pretty stupid attempting to introduce them into something as pithy and limiting as a slogan (I'm here! I'm queer! / So subject to a second UN resolution please get rid of Saddam and establish an interim govenment in partnership with the Iraqi oppostion parties along the lines of the current autonomous administration in no-fly-zone northern Iraq pending democratic elections and supported by a massive reconstruction and aid programme / Some time soon this year!) but on balance I'd say the world would be a good deal worse off if the Saddam regime were to continue.

Sure, there are "plenty of others just as bad" - but would you be willing to look an Iraqi in the eye as you made that point?