Baghdad, Politics, and the UN

[Return to Home] [Return to Reflection Room]

Baghdad, Politics, and the UN
An Essay on the Ultimate Ramifications of the War

Baghdad

Regardless of whether you supported President Bush's position, the coalition forces have surrounded the capital of Baghdad and have captured Saddam International Airport, now Baghdad International Airport. Debate of whether or not there will be war has become irrelevant. Some will continue to try to argue that we shouldn't be there, but the fact remains we are there and have been for 18 days, exorcising the elements of a brutal regime from power. By taking this action, the coalition has taken responsibility for the future of Iraq and is directly responsible for the lives of the Iraqi people. Pulling out is no longer an option. To do so at this stage in light of recent developments would require an amount of unprecedented callousness, ruthless inhumanity, and irresponsibility that no moral person would ever profess to have. The coalition took responsibility for the people of Iraq when it went in and it will have that responsibility until the brutal dictator is removed and a new government put in its place.

Few question at this stage whether or not the coalition forces will eventually win. In just over 2 weeks, the Iraqi regime has lost control of over 80% of the country with military losses in the tens of thousands. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that progress like this could not have been made possible without the assistance of a very large majority of Iraqi citizens. But it has not been a war without a price. Accidents, friendly-fire, and ambushes by Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam's Men of Sacrifice) paramilitary units have resulted in most of the coalition deaths. The free press has lost the talents of David Bloom from NBC and Michael Kelly of The Atlantic Monthly and The Washington Post. In every way this war is more personal than any other war. We feel more directly involved with the soldiers and reporters on the ground than in any other conflict in history.

Like Afghanistan, Iraq is made up of several main ethnic groups- the Kurds in the North, the Suni in central Iraq, and the Shiites in the South. Over 60% of Iraq's population is Shiite Muslim and historically, have never been supporters of Saddam Hussein. This population suffered immensely at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 with the slaughter of over a quarter million people by the hands of Saddam and his sons for declaring themselves independent of the dictator. It was a tragedy of monumental proportions that neither the United Nations nor the world chose to intervene.

A picture is worth a thousand words. The pictures of men, women, and children, in southern Iraq cheering coalition forces, waving to the troops as they drove by- ultimately in the annals of history this will probably be how the war will be remembered, a liberation of an oppressed, brutalized, and terrorized people. It will be interesting to see if twenty years, or even fifty years from now if anyone will even remember the UN resolutions or the debates over international law. War is the tool of politics, but in war the story is ultimately about its people- the leaders, the soldiers and the civilians.

No other war in history has experienced the magnitude of coverage or media access as this war. There is a silent truth to each still and moving picture reported by each member of the press, some embedded with the different coalition units while others are in Baghdad or in the North. Viewers can formulate their own opinion by seeing the pictures for themselves. Though they are only snippets of a considerably larger whole, what they give viewers are visual records at a particular place and time. But what we ultimately see in these records are the faces and emotions of individuals and the true face of what this war is really about- people.

It is about the Iraqi lawyer Mohammed who with his wife helped U.S. Marines rescue PFC Jessica Lynch from her captors.
It is about the Fedayeen Saddam opening fire with machine guns on a bridge filled with civilians trying to flee Basra.
It is about Iraqi citizens telling coalition forces where to find the Fedayeen Saddam paramilitary units and Republican Guard positions.
It is about the scenes of Iraqis civilians playing soccer with British soldiers.
It is about the Iraqi exiles all over the world and their families still in Iraq who have been adamant that this action is the only morally right action.
It is about the torture chambers coalition forces uncovered in hospitals.
It is about the Kurdish soldiers in Northern Iraq fighting side by side with United States special forces.
It is about average Iraqi citizens hired by coalition forces to drive food and water to relieve the food and water shortages.
It is about the Republican Guard who watch over the soldiers in the regular army like the German Nazi SS from WWII, and the regular soldiers themselves who were ill-equipped, mistreated, and starved by the regime, and ultimately shot if they were caught trying to desert.
It is about the hundreds of boxes of unknown white powder and vials of unknown liquid found with chemical weapons manuals, gas masks, and toxin antidotes.
It is about the boxes of human remains from the Iran-Iraq War found in a warehouse in Zubayr in Southern Iraq with pictures of horrible burns, mutilations, and wounds.
It is about the mass panic of food distribution at Umm Qasr and the massive warehouse British troops found in a captured Fedayeen Saddam compound bursting at the seams with hundreds of tons of food that were kept from the citizens of Basra by Saddam's regime.
It is about the thousands of Iraqi soldiers who surrendered or fled their posts, abandoning their uniforms, weapons, and tanks.
It is about the weapon caches found in schools, mosques, and hospitals.
It is about bridges and dams wired with explosives but not detonated.
It is about the individual story of each soldier who lost their life fighting for what they believed in.
It is about the jubilation of civilians in Najaf towards coalition forces and the decision of the freed Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the supreme religious authority for the majority Shiite population in Iraq, to issue a new fatwa instructing the population to remain calm, not interfere with coalition actions, and for Iraqis to stop fighting in or around the Tomb of Ali, a Shia (Shiite) holy shrine.
It is about Shiite Muslims in Southern Iraq on April 6th, praying their way for the first time in decades, free of fear from Saddam.
And it is about the reporter who helped an Iraqi family in Southern Iraq into his foxhole to protect them from members of Fedayeen Saddam shooting at them.

Each story is a thread in a very complex tapestry, often linked with a history that many living in free countries either don't know about or don't think about. They are things like the feeling of betrayal many Iraqis felt when they declared themselves independent from Saddam at the encouragement of outside forces but were left holding the bag and brutalized by Saddam when he terrorized and slaughtered them at the end of the first Gulf War. No one on the outside came to defend them or protect their rights as people. And many still wait to see if the coalition forces will finish the job this time.

Then there were the complaints by organizations of the starvation in Iraq caused by sanctions when they were really inflicted by Saddam's own greed. Coalition forces found warehouses bursting with food and palaces of extreme opulence and waste used by Saddam and his cronies. They were structures lined with thirty foot marble walls, expansive marble floors and sink basins made of gold. Like all greedy dictators, Saddam and his sons embezzled billions from the country's coffers for their own personal use and used terror and murder to maintain power in the tradition of Saddam's hero Joseph Stalin. He apparently held back the food for his people so he could blame their suffering on sanctions.

There is a story attributed to Stalin, Saddam's idol, that may give us insight into the way Saddam has ruled Iraq. In this story, Stalin was on his deathbed and summoned in two likely successors. He presented a bird to each one. The first candidate was so afraid the bird would escape that he squeezed too hard. When he opened his hand, the bird was dead. The second candidate saw the disapproving look on Stalin's face and, afraid to repeat the mistake of his comrade, unfortunately held it too loose and his bird escaped and flew away. Stalin looked at both candidates scornfully and commanded a bird be brought to him. Holding the bird by its legs, Stalin slowly plucked the feathers from the bird's body, one by one, until it lay naked in his palm shivering, and helpless. Then he told them, "You see… and he is even thankful for the human warmth coming from my hand."

Just as there is no uniformity of opinion in the United States and the world, there is not one side or one opinion inside Iraq. There are the regime members and loyalists who will have everything to lose should Saddam fall. There are the Arab fighters in Iraq who came to fight the Americans because they believe the United States and Israel are the enemies of all. There are the Kurds and the Shiite Muslims who have been victimized by Saddam's regime and want to see him removed but are cautious of the coalition since they left them to rot last time. There are the Iraqi exiles, representing all of the ethnic groups in Iraq, individuals who fled the terror and persecution of Saddam Hussein with stories of terror, some so unbelievably brutal that they seem too horrible to possibly be true. Except that in many of the cases there are video and pictures.
In war, truth is traditionally the first casualty. But with pictures what is seen is often enough to enable the viewer to make up his or her own opinion. And that is all they are. Opinions. Including my own.

Politics

International law does not apply to what happens within countries. Let me repeat that. International law does NOT apply to happens WITHIN countries. It is a fact that has kept many dictators and brutal regimes in power. International law applies between nations only if there is a force in existence that can enforce its rules. The conduct of several nations, not only the United States, but France and Russia are also suspect in the realm of International Law. Both France and Russia supplied banned military equipment to Iraq in the form of chemical protection equipment, and GPS technology including GPS jamming technology. In the end, international law provides guidelines for the conduct of more powerful nations but reasons for scrutiny and removal of regimes of less powerful nations. Let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that international law applies equally to everyone or has any kind of credible enforcement value except by the political will of the strongest nations. As members of the strongest nations, we have a responsibility to uphold the ideals of a world and to work together when possible to find solutions.

What happens if the policies of one of the strongest nations in the world is overcome by fear? You get a resolve to eliminate threats that cannot be countered by any disagreeing nation who refuses to negotiate. There may not be sense to the fear, but that is no reason for other nations to not even attempt to negotiate because they disagree. Disagreement will always occur, especially in the realm of international affairs. Question not the diplomat who continues to try to negotiate, but he or she who decides not to. In this scenario it was absolutely essential that other nations (eg. France or Russia) step to the plate to find a compromise or attempt to satisfactorily address the issues of a powerful nation (eg. The United States) to avert the necessity for war. In desiring peace, France and Russia took the uncompromising position of demanding it without discussion or compromise despite the attempts by the United States to quantify the conditions for compliance in a fixed 10 day time frame. Short of maintaining peace, France and Russia expedited a war by remaining stubbornly inflexible.

But politics is rarely so simple. Were France and Russia motivated by their own agendas? As it turned out, it was reported from numerous sources that both France and Russia had made lucrative exclusive oil contracts with Saddam's regime in Iraq, contracts that both nations are allegedly now claiming are still valid no matter who's in charge after Saddam's removal. David M. Shribman from the Boston Globe wrote a wonderful piece about France and Russia's extensive oil and manufacturing interests in Iraq on http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0312france.htm . Naturally the coalition led by the United States and Great Britain are not making any promises. Were France and Russia's political policies towards Iraq in essence bought by Saddam? It may very well turn out that this war happened in the end because of greed over oil and explains the alleged unwillingness of France and Russia to negotiate for fear of losing their oil contracts. Remember that international politics is about ensuring that your goals and interests are met. Policy makers in the government will often overlook a great deal morally and ethically if they can get what they want. Examples of this can be found throughout history- in World War II with the political support of Stalin in Russia against Hitler and in the Cold War when the United States supported dictatorial regimes including but not limited to Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines in return for their support against the threat of Communism.

The word politic is defined as sagacious, prudent and shrewd, artful. In the end, politics is a means via diplomacy to achieving the goals of an individual, side, or country in a larger community. Many of the present policies of the United States were formed during the earliest stages of the cold war by the creation of the so-called Truman Doctrine in 1947. This doctrine affirmed the willingness of the United States to support friendly governments, resist external aggression and what then President Truman characterized as "armed minorities." In 1961, John F. Kennedy very generally reaffirmed this position in his inaugural address when he proclaimed that the United States would "support any friend, oppose any foe." In the year 2003 we have an opportunity to break from this tradition and step up to the plate as one of the world's superpowers by re-examining our policies and decide the direction morally and ethically the policy of United States as it applies to other nations and peoples of the world.

The United Nations

Kofi Annan said it best when he asserted that it is up to the United Nations Security Council to work out their differences, and that their failure to do so will reflect on legitimacy of the entirety of the United Nations. Many parallels can be raised between the United Nations and the failed League of Nations. But unlike the League of Nations that collapsed because of its inability to control the behavior of any of the imperialist nations at the time (Britain, France, Japan, etc), the United Nations had an opportunity for diplomacy and let it slip through its fingers because potentially 2 veto-holding members of the Security Council may have had other interests to protect and therefore did not attempt diplomatic channels to try to establish a fixed timeline with key identifiable goals. Yes, United States is culpable for its own position, however in the international community everything cannot be up to the United States and should not be so. It is my firm belief that had there even been a WILLINGNESS by either France or Russia for a negotiated timeline with key identifiable goals, war would not be necessary and the position of the United Nations would have been strengthened. What is worse is as the pictures come back from Iraq, it is looking more and more like the action against Saddam Hussein was the moral and correct one to take to protect the millions of people who had been terrorized, tortured, and killed by this brutal dictator.

Were UN inspections working?
A case can definitely be made for both, but what we do know now is that preliminary tests now indicate that the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam was not only real, but had produced and taught terrorists how to produce both sarin and botulinum in Sargat, a mountainous region in Northern Iraq near the Iran and Iraq border. The story can be found on MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185_asp.htm . Considering that this base was a terrorist enclave, UN inspectors were probably not going to be invited there anytime soon. What is known from documents and evidence gathered from the Ansar al-Islam base after it was bombed, al-Qaida fighters had also used the base; some possibly from Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. This is not to say the two were necessarily directly connected from the beginning, nor does it connect Saddam's regime with this group. As unlikely as it seems, Saddam may have even simply tolerated this group but not know they were producing chemical weapons.

Has there been a smoking gun linking Saddam's regime to weapons of mass destruction?
As a matter of fact, as of today, April 7th, very possibly. An Iraqi citizen alerted U.S. forces to an agricultural facility 30 miles northeast of Karbala in Iraq after seeing Iraqi military in the area. In the facility, they found barrels of chemicals in a leaf-camouflaged pit. The story by Dana Lewis can be found on MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392_asp.htm . The eleven 25-gallon barrels and three 55-gallon barrels tested positive in a field test for the nerve agents tabun and sarin, and the blister agent lewisite. More careful testing needs to be done, but if the tests are definitive, the coalition has its smoking gun.

The perceived failure of the United Nations to avert what is looking more and more like a moral coalition action will undoubtedly adversely affect the role the United Nations may play in Iraq's reconstruction. Clearly with all the political jockeying for power among nations like Iran, Turkey, Russia, and France there is doubt forming that the United Nations will be capable of allowing Iraq the chance for self-governing. However, this doubt must also be tempered with the knowledge that the United States and Great Britain must behave responsibly towards the Iraqi people. The world is watching what happens and will judge the United States and the United Nations by what happens in Iraq. Ideally the Iraqi people must be given the opportunity to rule themselves and to make whatever decisions they wish to benefit the people of Iraq. It is absolutely crucial that there be an honest legitimacy in the process to give Iraqis a government they can trust. There is indeed the danger of eyeing Iraq's oil or being greedy. It is imperative no coalition member do anything or propose anything that would take advantage of this situation. An excellent opinion piece on this subject was written by NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman and can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/06/nyt.friedman/index.html .

There were many mistakes made in the past that no one will be able to change. Correct or not, the action taken by coalition forces has placed the future of Iraq and her people in our hands. The present gives birth to new opportunities that can lead to a future of not only constructive but mutually beneficial possibilities and a brighter future for the people of Iraq. Let us choose to make the right decisions for the rebuilding of Iraq based on our ideals, and desire for an oppressed people to be free, not only for our children and the children of Iraq, but also for the future of free people everywhere.

-Albert Wang
April 7, 2003

Other Interesting Tidbits:

An interview with Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah of Iran, after the Taliban fell in Afghanistan on the topic of Democracy and the People of Iran.

[Return to Home] [Return to Reflection Room]