Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Serious consequences
The Sunday Telegraph ^ | March 23, 2003

Posted on 03/22/2003 7:12:12 PM PST by MadIvan

The fog of war is never thicker than at the beginning of a conflict: it was so in the early stages of the first Gulf War 12 years ago, when catastrophe was widely predicted. Last week, Operation Iraqi Freedom began with an assassination attempt which not even President Bush had expected until a few hours before its execution. As Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said with commendable candour on BBC's Newsnight on Friday, the allied plans for the first few days of war had been observed - although "not necessarily always in the same order".

It appears that Saddam Hussein was injured in the attack but, alas, not fatally so. So his regime is now subject to a shockingly powerful assault from the skies. Yet nothing is so shocking as the Iraqi dictator's evident hatred for the country he has ruled by terror for so many years. The war into which Iraq has been dragged by his refusal to disarm will be his final, grotesque monument: a chilling reflection of his readiness to subject his own people to terrible risk in order to cling to power for a few days longer.

Like Stalin, Saddam is a tyrant driven by contempt for his subjects. Whether or not the assassination attempt in the early hours of Thursday was successful, it sent precisely the right message. This is a war against Saddam and his lieutenants rather than against the Iraqi people. It also signalled to the dictator that there are people extremely close to him who are in contact with the Americans.

The paradox of this war is that the military coalition is showing greater concern for the wellbeing of the Iraqi people than Saddam himself. There have, of course, been civilian casualties in the attacks of the last three days, and that is always a horrible thing to contemplate. But, whereas allied targeters are taking extraordinary pains to avoid civilians, Saddam is doing his best to put them in the line of fire. There are signs, furthermore, that he is also using the same "scorched earth" tactics that marked his retreat from Kuwait in 1991 - with the difference that it is his own country he now seems bent upon mutilating. Saddam's mentality is that of a psychopathic toddler: if he can't have Iraq, then nobody will.

The coalition is engaged in two equally important forms of psychological operations. The first is aimed at the Iraqis and their gangster-like rulers, and intended to draw a sharp distinction between the two. This is why the speeches made by the President and the Prime Minister in the past week addressed so directly the fate of Saddam's subjects, and were simultaneously translated and beamed into Iraq. "I hope the Iraqi people hear this message," said Mr Blair in his television address on Thursday night. "We are with you. Our enemy is not you, but your barbarous rulers."

The second psychological operation is directed at the peoples of the West, who are understandably squeamish about the potential human cost of this war of liberation. More than in any previous conflict, we are being fed, 24 hours a day, with live coverage from the battlefield, and a flow of rumour and counter-rumour streaming across our screens. The public can watch the war live in "real-time" - that is, as it actually happens.

If the conflict is protracted, this will present Mr Blair with his most difficult political task: persuading the British public that the number of civilian casualties is justified by the objectives of the war. The last Gulf War showed what a skilled and unscrupulous manipulator of public opinion Saddam is: in this he has been abetted in the past 12 years by Left-wing commentators such as John Pilger who have lost no opportunity to blame the Iraqis' suffering on the West rather than on the dictator who has deliberately put his own people in the line of fire and denied them essential medical supplies.

Before the first shot was fired, this war - or rather the attitude of certain nations to it - had inflicted terrible damage upon the post-war structure of international alliances. Had Iain Duncan Smith not taken a principled decision not to score party political points in last week's Commons debate on Iraq, he might have pointed out that the predictions he made as shadow defence secretary about the feasibility of a common EU defence policy have been completely vindicated. If the annexes of the Nice Treaty were in force, it is questionable whether Britain would have enjoyed the freedom to join the coalition which is now in the process of disarming Saddam. Mr Blair was an early and passionate advocate of a new European army: his plans now lie in tatters.

Nato has suffered a grievous body blow, too, first because of German intransigence and then the behaviour of the Turks. The assistance that Turkey, bartering cynically for American aid, has given has been grudging, unsatisfactory, and may make the eventual encirclement of Baghdad more difficult than it ought to be: indeed, the coalition to remove Saddam has probably been better (if more discreetly) served by Saudi Arabia.

As for the United Nations: the ego of Jacques Chirac, the antics of the French and their apparent determination now to act as if Resolution 1441 never happened must cast doubt over the role that the UN can plausibly play in the reconstruction of Iraq once Saddam is deposed. The effective co-operation of more than 30 countries in the present coalition shows that sovereign nations can act together perfectly well outside these structures: it is for those who still believe in the old alphabet soup of international organisations to prove that it still has a role in the new geopolitical context.

In a few short days, the round-the-clock media coverage of this war has already shown graphically the awesome technological capabilities and military might of America. It has warned of the fate that ultimately awaits other nations - and their leaders - which develop weapons of mass destruction in defiance of repeated warnings, diplomatic entreaties and patient requests. This is what was meant, in Resolution 1441, by "serious consequences". This a pre-emptive war. But that does not mean that it should herald many more like it. One of the campaign's prime purposes, in fact, is to do precisely the opposite: to deter other rogue states from making the same mistakes as Saddam.

That, however, is a debate for another day. For now, the joyful faces of liberated Iraqis on our screens are justification enough for what has been done already, and what remains to be done. These are the people who have lived for too long under oppressive rule while the West has dithered. In their name, and for the sake of all the others who have suffered at the hands of this vicious tyrant, it is time to finish the job.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: blair; bush; iraq; saddam; uk; us; war; warlist
Thus sayeth the greatest newspaper in the world.

Regards, Ivan


1 posted on 03/22/2003 7:12:12 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii; JenB; SJackson; TigerLikesRooster; AZLadyhawke; Southflanknorthpawsis; meema; ...
Bump!
2 posted on 03/22/2003 7:12:28 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
For now, the joyful faces of liberated Iraqis on our screens are justification enough for what has been done already, and what remains to be done.

Right on.
3 posted on 03/22/2003 7:19:26 PM PST by dyed_in_the_wool (What do liberals have against a liberated Iraq?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Great read ...

bump

snooker
4 posted on 03/22/2003 7:20:21 PM PST by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
the coalition to remove Saddam has probably been better (if more discreetly) served by Saudi Arabia.

That's only one of the shocking outcomes of this war. But it's true.

5 posted on 03/22/2003 7:25:11 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I agree with 99.9% of this article. I really wish journalists and others would stop calling this a pre-emptive war. It is NOT pre-emptive, rather it comes on the heels of 12 years of Saddam totally ignoring the directives and resolutions put forth by the UN. It is the consequences brought on by the actions of Saddam - NOT a pre-emptive strike!

Meanwhile, I REALLY hope Bush and Blair tell the UN to shut it, withdraw from the UN and go about their business in the reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq. Cheers to Blair and Hoon from the US.....I will say I was just in your lovely country a couple of weeks ago for the first time in 20 years - and I'm still as much in love with Britain as ever....
6 posted on 03/22/2003 7:29:16 PM PST by greencow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
BUMP
7 posted on 03/22/2003 7:32:54 PM PST by RippleFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Bttt
8 posted on 03/22/2003 7:33:00 PM PST by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
GREAT article! Thanks for posting it!
9 posted on 03/22/2003 7:35:26 PM PST by Bump in the night (There is no spoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan; *war_list; W.O.T.; 11th_VA; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA; knak; PhiKapMom; ...
OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
10 posted on 03/22/2003 7:44:51 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Where is Saddam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Had Iain Duncan Smith [Conservative/Opposition leader in Commons] not taken a principled decision not to score party political points in last week's Commons debate on Iraq, he might have pointed out that... Mr Blair was an early and passionate advocate of a new European army...

By his principled behavior, Mr. Smith has shown himself to be a Statesman. He has twice saved Mr. Blair, first from the loss of British sovereignty to a European Army, and then from the kind of carping opposition that Blair endured from his own Liberal backbenchers. Without Smith's support, Blair might well have lost his Prime Ministership at a critical time for Britain and the Atlantic alliance. I doubt that Mr. Blair or the Queen will ever forget Mr. Smith's unheralded service.

Would that President Bush enjoyed such wartime support from Democrat minority leaders...

11 posted on 03/22/2003 7:54:11 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
BTTT
12 posted on 03/22/2003 8:00:29 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Wonderful piece!
13 posted on 03/22/2003 8:01:06 PM PST by Rocky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greencow
I agree this is not a pre-emtive war. Only I see it as continuing where we left off, the same Gulf War. Sodumb did not honor the cease-fire agreement, so we resume fire. PERIOD.
14 posted on 03/22/2003 8:14:02 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian (regular American who supports the war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: greencow
I really wish journalists and others would stop calling this a pre-emptive war.

In addition, it is a response to the attacks of September 11. This is simply another battle in the War on Terror, in which the United States is taking out another regime that provides funding and sanctuary to terrorists. As in all wars, we are hitting the enemy on their turf to deny them aid and comfort. Wars are not won by a hands-off approach to enemy strongholds.

The United States was attacked. This is part of the response. There is nothing pre-emptive about it.

15 posted on 03/22/2003 9:55:21 PM PST by EvilOverlord (Body armor goes well with ANY outfit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Bump from a night worker.
16 posted on 03/22/2003 10:00:24 PM PST by SeeRushToldU_So ( Something witty, etc, etc....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
"the coalition to remove Saddam has probably been better (if more discreetly) served by Saudi Arabia."

They are most discrete, especially in funding Al Quaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al.

Very helpful.

--Boris

17 posted on 03/22/2003 11:51:13 PM PST by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
"Had Iain Duncan Smith [Conservative/Opposition leader in Commons] not taken a principled decision not to score party political points in last week's Commons debate on Iraq, he might have pointed out that... Mr Blair was an early and passionate advocate of a new European army..."

BBC was really giving him the "he's an empty suit"-treatment last week. I thought he was perfectly well-spoken and decent. God I hate the BBC.

18 posted on 03/23/2003 8:06:09 AM PST by bucephalus (Saddam Sleeps With Satan - according to South Park)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson