Waiting for the invasion of Iraq

Arab News ^ | 20 September 2002 | Rasheed Abou-Alsamh, Arab News Staff

[Imal]

Waiting for the invasion of Iraq
By Rasheed Abou-Alsamh, Arab News Staff

Despite all the diplomatic maneuvering by the Bush administration at the United Nations in New York, and by the regime of Saddam Hussein, it now seems quite clear that the United States will be invading Iraq to institute a change of regime. It’s not a question of "if"; it’s a question of "when?"

President George W. Bush has been insisting that a regime change is needed in Iraq because Saddam is a menace to the world and especially to his neighbors because of the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that he has. The US also claims that he is merely months away from building an atomic bomb. Most of these accusations are based on possibly outdated knowledge of Iraq’s stockpile of weapons compiled by UN inspectors before they were thrown out of Iraq in 1998.

Many cynical observers have noted that it is Iraq’s huge oil and gas reserves that the Bush administration is really after. American rhetoric about wanting to establish a democratic government in Iraq is not given much credence by these international cynics, who have heard this rhetoric all too often. Unfortunately, the United States does not have a stellar record in supporting democratically elected governments, often supporting dictators and overthrowing popular governments whenever it suited US interests. In the case of Iraq, though, any new government would be an improvement over the repressive and thuggish regime of Saddam Hussein.

As some Muslim commentators have been eager to point out, most notably the Iranian-born Amir Taheri writing this past week in both the Jerusalem Post and National Review, Saddam does not have widespread support either with Arab regimes or the Arab street. Having killed many Islamists and Nasserites, Saddam is not liked by Al-Qaeda supporters or the Arab left. Taheri predicts that the Arab street will not erupt into fury if Saddam is overthrown, which is probably true. The irony is that although most of the Muslim world will probably welcome regime change in Iraq, it will also probably resent the fact that it was the Americans who did it.

Since US foreign policy is often driven by its economic interests, for once here in the case of Iraq, I think most of the world is willing to overlook this fact since the invasion of Iraq will be bringing a regime change and future economic prosperity for Iraqis who have suffered under more than ten years of UN economic sanctions.

Despite all the good that may come from a regime change, the Bush administration should still proceed cautiously. International support is extremely important so that it doesn’t seem like the US is doing this alone. Once the invasion is on, the US should take utmost care to minimize the deaths of American soldiers and of Iraqi civilians.

Iraq is a historically rich nation of 29 million people. The cradle of civilization, the country has a large middle class that is very well educated. As US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said last Sunday on US television, the Bush administration is not worried too much about the price tag attached to the upcoming military operation and the subsequent reconstruction of Iraq. With its vast oil reserves, Iraq is capable of paying for much of its own reconstruction, unlike Afghanistan, which is desperately relying on foreign aid to get by.

* * * *

Sitting thousands of miles away in Washington may lull US military planners into a false sense of security, but those of us sitting here on the frontlines with Iraq, know all too well the dangers that Saddam could pose to us if attacked.

During the Gulf War Saddam did not hesitate to launch Scud missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel, hitting targets in the Eastern Province, Riyadh and Tel Aviv. The US at the time deployed Patriot missiles to protect us from the incoming Scud missiles, but the Patriots did not prove to be very accurate. The Israelis have been busy developing their own anti-missile weapon, the Sparrow, while we here in the Kingdom will have to rely once again on the Patriot missiles, which the Americans claim have become much more accurate. Let’s hope they’re right!

* * * *

Why ‘Ano Ka, Hilo?’ should be axed

[This portion of the article, about a "dangerous" Philipine game show, has been omitted. See the original artcile if you're interested. -Imal]

[Imal]

Yet another Saudi perspective from the Arab News staff.