Re: Consequences of the War against Iraq

[OPE-L Administrator <ope-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Hunt
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences of the War against Iraq


Dear Jerry,
This is a good assessment in part: it brings out the true nature of the
campaign for "regime change" which has gone on for 12 years after
initial US expectations were upset in 1991. I would improve my appraisal
of the morality of the war by taking the implications of my analysis,
that the war was a pretext for completing an ongoing campaign  for
regime change, through to an assessment of that campaign as a whole. So
I would say that the US campaign for regime change has already cost
millions of Iraqi lives, while threatening a further humanitarian
disaster from the effects of war on Iraqi infrastructure.


I don't agree with the conclusion that the result is just total Israeli
hegomony: I would have thought that US  hegemony in the Middle east is
the primary result, from which Israel can expect some capitulations from
Palestinians. Another consequence is that so long as
religiousfundamentalists/chauvinists/terrorists represent the only
resistance to US hegemony in the middle east, there is an increased
prospect of terrorist attacks on the US and its allies. I don't know
that we can conclude that the outcome will be a triumph for the stock
market, though it will represent long term security for US oil supplies.
Finally, there is the quite serious prospect that the Neo-conservative
imperialists now dominant in Washington will capitalize on proganda that
emphasises the one good outcome of the war: the  end of Saddam's fascist
regime, and the end of sanctions, especially since power does wonders
for impressions of support. (Saddam was able to use ruthless suppression
of opposition to present an image of 100% support: similarly the only
Iraqis now on the streets will be those who most welcome Saddam's defeat
and care least about the US role in it - supporters of Saddam's regime,
no doubt more than a completely insignificant minority, will be keeping
their heads low.) They are already making threatening noises about
Syria. The US public must grasp that this is not just a benevolent act
of liberation from a reformed US government that has hitherto propped up
nasty repressive regimes like Saddam's, but  part of an imperial design
on the middle east as a whole. If tey do not, then  fear we are in for
further conflicts, probably much more bloody in terms of US casualities
than this one has been and much more costly in terms of civilian
casualities, especially if the US military finds, as Macbeth did, that
having waded half way into a river of blood it would be better to go on
over than turn back, cheers,
Ian


  Here's an assessment from "Al Jazeerah" online at
  http://www.aljazeerah.us/  :

  "The US, the world's super power, defeats the Third
  World country of Iraq after pounding it for 12 years
  through sanctions.  Casualties: less than 100 soldiers for
  US and about 1.5 million Iraqis. Consequences: Total
  Israeli hegemony over the Middle East, the oil wells are
  secure, the military industry will be thriving for decades,
  and the stock markets are ready to take off."

  Are there aspects of the above assessment that you
  disagree with?  Are there other important consequences
  not mentioned above?

  In solidarity, Jerry



--
Associate Professor Ian Hunt,
Head, Dept  of Philosophy, School of Humanities,
Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy,
Flinders University of SA,
Humanities Building,
Bedford Park, SA, 5042,
Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784

Title: Re: Consequences of the War against Iraq

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ian Hunt

Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:33 PM

Subject: Re: Consequences of the War against Iraq

Dear Jerry,

This is a good assessment in part: it brings out the true nature of the campaign for "regime change" which has gone on for 12 years after initial US expectations were upset in 1991. I would improve my appraisal of the morality of the war by taking the implications of my analysis, that the war was a pretext for completing an ongoing campaign  for regime change, through to an assessment of that campaign as a whole. So I would say that the US campaign for regime change has already cost millions of Iraqi lives, while threatening a further humanitarian disaster from the effects of war on Iraqi infrastructure.

I don't agree with the conclusion that the result is just total Israeli hegomony: I would have thought that US  hegemony in the Middle east is the primary result, from which Israel can expect some capitulations from Palestinians.

Another consequence is that so long as religiousfundamentalists/chauvinists/terrorists represent the only resistance to US hegemony in the middle east, there is an increased prospect of terrorist attacks on the US and its allies.

I don't know that we can conclude that the outcome will be a triumph for the stock market, though it will represent long term security for US oil supplies.

Finally, there is the quite serious prospect that the Neo-conservative imperialists now dominant in Washington will capitalize on proganda that emphasises the one good outcome of the war: the  end of Saddam's fascist regime, and the end of sanctions, especially since power does wonders for impressions of support. (Saddam was able to use ruthless suppression of opposition to present an image of 100% support: similarly the only Iraqis now on the streets will be those who most welcome Saddam's defeat and care least about the US role in it - supporters of Saddam's regime, no doubt more than a completely insignificant minority, will be keeping their heads low.) They are already making threatening noises about Syria. The US public must grasp that this is not just a benevolent act of liberation from a reformed US government that has hitherto propped up nasty repressive regimes like Saddam's, but  part of an imperial design on the middle east as a whole. If tey do not, then  fear we are in for further conflicts, probably much more bloody in terms of US casualities than this one has been and much more costly in terms of civilian casualities, especially if the US military finds, as Macbeth did, that having waded half way into a river of blood it would be better to go on over than turn back,

cheers,

Ian

Here's an assessment from "Al Jazeerah" online at

http://www.aljazeerah.us/  :

 

"The US, the world's super power, defeats the Third

World country of Iraq after pounding it for 12 years

through sanctions.  Casualties: less than 100 soldiers for

US and about 1.5 million Iraqis. Consequences: Total

Israeli hegemony over the Middle East, the oil wells are

secure, the military industry will be thriving for decades,

and the stock markets are ready to take off."

 

Are there aspects of the above assessment that you

disagree with?  Are there other important consequences

not mentioned above?

 

In solidarity, Jerry

 

--
Associate Professor Ian Hunt,
Head, Dept  of Philosophy, School of Humanities,
Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy,
Flinders University of SA,
Humanities Building,
Bedford Park, SA, 5042,
Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784