Some among those of us who opposed the invasion and subjugation of Iraq have been calling for the United Nations to take over the role of re-establishing civil order in Iraq. I question this. In my view it is the invaders who must take the responsibility. Why should the UN become the clean up agency. The money should come from the coffers of those who invaded. After all, they are getting the contracts for all sorts of reconstruction activities. Why should the rest of the world pay for the damage inflicted by the coalition forces.
All of this conversation about precision warfare has obscured the amount of damage the war has inflicted upon Iraq. I don’t think war has changed all that much, despite the hype. To win in war you have to break a lot of things and hurt lots of people. The damage to the social and technological infrastructure will come out when the issue is long forgotten.
Lets leave aside the weapons of mass destruction. I may be wrong, but I think that they wont find any significant quantities. That is not really the issue anymore, except as a special moment of acute embarrassment to the victors, who invented this pretext, instead of telling the truth to the public.
The real reason is obvious from just one piece of news. Amidst all the chaos and looting in Baghdad, with the plunder of the priceless treasures of human antiquity, with hospitals being looted, the Coalition refused to provide protection for these social institutions until the pressure of publicity breathed down their necks. Yet there was one government agency that was given immediate protection: the Iraqi Oil Ministry.
So is the world a better place with the demolition of the violent and gaudy Baathist regime in Iraq. Well, I am sure there is a certain relief among the citizens of Iraq. Yet there must be a huge amount of trepidation about the future. After generation of violently enforced homogeneity, the Iraqi polity will have to think about what kind of future they want amidst the ruins of their cities.
Removing a political problem by armed force is only one possible option among a number. I don’t agree with those who ran the debate along the lines of ‘just or unjust war’. Trying to reduce the conversation to a question of moral theory is not particularly productive. Once you outline your moral positions the conversation stops. It may be more useful to talk along the lines suggested by Bob Hawke, of wars as necessary or unnecessary.
The only way one can think of this war as necessary would be in the context of the existing relationships and inter-relationships in the international political order. The Baath party dictatorship and its use of high levels of violence to maintain political order is the product of the post World War Two political order in Arab Societies. Polities across the whole Arab world, including, by the way, Israel, are in a state of crises and decay. The renovation of political systems and the creation of new social compromises (i.e. societies are the product of social compromises among interest groups, principally class interests) in Arab polities is essential if advanced capitalist societies are to avoid the scourge of terrorism on civilians. The starting point for renovation is a territorial settlement between Palestinians and Israeli’s. This issue, the failure of a territorial compromise is what is driving significant sections of Arab polities into the arms of theocratic fundamentalists.
The starting point for dealing with political dictatorships is to give support and encouragement to those who are interested in political renovation. An example of this was the provision of territorial autonomy for Kurds.
I don’t have an issue about war itself. War remains an extension of politics. If you look at Iraq from the point of view of someone who has no other concerns about the existing political orders in the Arab world, then the use of military force is the only possible way to resolve the entrenchment of the Baathist party in Iraq. War and oil were a deadly combination for the Iraqi polity. Twenty years of war has wrecked Iraq and broken the political dynamism of its people. Revenue flows from oil, while severely diminished from the sanctions regime, was just enough for the Baath Party to maintain its authority.
I disagreed with the war because it did not, in my view address the wider issues of Arab politics. It was driven by strategic interests in one faction of US policy makers. Yet, one could argue that in ‘meta-strategic’ terms, it is in the interests of US policy makers to address Arab politics in the widest sense. Social planning, which should be an essential component of an Imperium exercising its muscle, was barely an issue for policy makers, the media, and the public.
1:17:25 AM 
|
