The War on Iraq: the despair and hope of an anti-war protester.

As the war on Iraq continues, I feel obliged to add a few notes on this war and on the anti-war movement. I do not wish to analyse the causes of the war or the course of the war in any great detail. There are plenty of very good articles analysing the causes of the war, on Znet (1) and other websites. Predictions about the course and possible outcomes of the war also abound. The majority of this information is beamed down onto us from the mainstream media, the BBC, CNN and other such broadcasting networks. And this information contains a few real facts, spattered amongst a multitude of half-truths and untruths. Again, plenty of fine articles exist covering the role of the media in shaping public opinion. Unfortunately, while I also try to make my predictions about this war and try to see through to the future, I feel that events overtake the majority of predictions that it is possible to make in this particular situation. The resistance with which the US and UK forces are faced by the Iraqi people has surprised not only the mainstream media, but also a variety of analysts from alternative media who predicted an instant collapse of the Iraqi regime.

In my need to find some hope during this ongoing war, I came across a fine article by Arundhati Roy (2). I was struck by an argument made by this article, an argument that reminded me of thoughts that I have had regarding the presidency of George W. Bush. "Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I'd like to file a cautious plea for hope: in times of war, one wants one's weakest enemy at the helm of his forces. And President George W Bush is certainly that." (2). This is a statement with which I broadly agree. Bush shows the true unashamed face of imperialism, barely making an effort to conceal his intentions, not even paying the lip service that past US presidents have payed to the global community. Analysts from the left right and centre of the political spectrum suggest that the reason for this is the collapse of the bipolar world that existed during the cold war. This collapse has removed the reasons for the US having to try to strike a balance in its international dealings, and is naturally expanding to fill the void left by the former USSR. A consequence of this is that Bush has "placed on full public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the American empire"1. This is possibly the biggest present that the US has ever given the anti-war movement and the left in general. In my view it has played a key part in the massive protests seen in the western world, as exemplified by the demonstrations of the 15th of February, where tens of millions of people demonstrated against this war.

I would like to add an important note of caution. Bush is not the only president that the US has had since the collapse of the cold war. I would particularly like to draw attention to the presidency of Bill Clinton. During the presidency of Clinton, Yugoslavia was bombed. A country was torn to pieces, thousands of people were killed, and irreparable damage was done to the ecosystem and the health and prosperity of future generations. The bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was done without any mandate from the UN. I have often heard from people who are anti-war that the most worrying thing about this current war on Iraq is that it is setting a very dangerous precedent for the future. Now the US, with a possible opt in by the UK and any other interested parties can attack any country that it wishes to. Well, this precedent was set in 1999, and it was set with a minute response from the international community, both on the level of governments and people on the streets. This lack of global reaction was summed up by the words of Peter Handke, the celebrated Austrian writer: "Thank you NATO. Thanks to a great small writers, from Garcia Marques to Guenter Grass, from Kenzaburo Oe to subcommander Marcos, for things they didn`t write. Thanks to the Pope and Vatican for his white celestial silence." (3). I will never understand why the world did not rise up during this illegal and immoral war. I do rationalise this, along the lines of the reasoning explained above. Bush has exposed the true face of US imperialism. Clinton on the other hand, sweet-talked the world into believing him, and hid behind the veneer of humanitarian intervention. The words "humanitarian intervention" simply cannot be uttered convincingly by Bush. Interestingly, this time Guenter Grass (4), the subcommandante (5) and the Pope have all condemned the war in Iraq.

It is possible that the damage that Bush has done to the image of US imperialism is irreparable. In this case, it is imperative that this is taken advantage of to its fullest. Otherwise, the aggressive face of US imperialism will not only remain in full view, but will become even more aggressive. I am currently extremely saddened by what appears to be a gradual acceptance of this war by the governments of France, Germany and Russia. I believe it is conceivable that these countries will one day give a post hoc justification for this war, as the UN gave a post hoc justification to the war in Afghanistan. I am hoping that the anti-war community of the world will grow further, and influence their governments more. I would also like to warn of another possible outcome of this war. However much I have tried to understand why this war is happening, whether the cause is oil, strategic positioning, revenge or sending a message to the world about who is in charge, I cannot understand why it has been conducted as brazenly as it has. In my view this is a mistake of the planners in the US. They could serve their own interests at least as well by doing all the same things yet at the same time smile at the world, as Clinton did. I believe it is extremely possible that in the disastrous aftermath of this war, the interests influencing the course of US foreign policy will understand this and the aberration that is the Bush administration will be replaced. This does not mean that wars will stop, but the mechanism that drives wars will have undergone a correction.

The people that have been awakened by this war in Iraq and inspired by the anti-war movement must remain vigilant. There is a great need for further planning in the anti-war movement, and for finding the most effective course of action. But until an effective strategy is devised we must continue to make noise. On the 15th of February millions of people raised their voices against this war. Our voices were ignored. We must insist until we can be ignored no longer.

References:

1. Znet:  http://www.zmag.org/
2. Roy, A. 2003. Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates. The Guardian, 2/4/2003. Available from:
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927849,00.html
3. This quote has been widely circulated on the web. One website containing the letter that Peter Handke wrote, dated March 25th, 1999 is:
 http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/kshandke.html
4. Grass, G. 2003. Core Values?!. Los Angeles Times, 7/4/2003.
Also available from:  http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=3402
5. Marcos. 2003. Zapatistas statement on "We work for Peace and Justice". Centro de Informacion Zapatista. 5/4/2003. Available from:  http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3393