I want the United States of America and its allied forces to win the second edition of the Gulf War. I want them to win it fast. This opinion has nothing to do with where I live or what my immigration status is. It has nothing to do with the memories of winning the intra-collegiate debate arguing for the US immediately after (or during?) the first Gulf War. 

In 1992, after the first Gulf War, the United Nations passed resolution 687 that demanded Iraq to provide declarations on all aspects of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs. Since then, disarming Iraq has been a top priority issue and a daunting task for the UN. Over the 12 year period, while the UN passed resolutions after resolutions, the Iraqis have gained and perfected the art of manufacturing Chemical Warfare (CW) bombs, short-range missiles, and artillery rockets. Iraq has unlimited funds going to WMD programs owing to the allegedly illicit selling of the Black Gold. They are reported to have exceeded the UN set range limits of 150 km with the ballistic missiles and started working with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) that allow for a more deadly means to deliver biological and chemical agents. Iraq’s Short-Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM) armory boasts of a number of variants of Scuds with ranges of 650 to 900 km. 

It is reliably reported that a huge amount of production components and relevant data remain cleverly hidden so that Hans Blix’s of our times can’t unearth them. Enough local expertise has been developed and retained to enable Iraq to resume development and production of WMD. The attacks of 9/11 in the United States resulted in a world-wide refocus on terrorism. Terrorism is identified and recognized as a threat with global effects—from development to world peace to human rights. In 2001, the UN established a Policy Working Group (PWG) with the purpose of identifying the long-term implication of terrorism and to formulate recommendations on the steps that the UN might take to address the issue. The enforcement of the UN-sponsored anti-terrorism and anti-WMD programs remained uncertain and unattainable in the wake of Iraq refusing to abide by the UN resolutions.

A recent report (Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction—The assessment of the British Government) submitted to the British Parliament says, “[Iraq] will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up. In today’s inter-dependent world, a major regional conflict does not stay confined to the region in question”. The report continues, “Faced with someone who has shown himself capable of using WMD, the international community has to stand up for itself and ensure its authority is upheld. Unless we face up to the threat, not only do we risk undermining the authority of the UN, but more importantly and in the longer term, we place at risk the lives and prosperity of our people”.

War critics often claim that the military action in Iraq is really about oil. It is up to individuals to make the distinction between the risking human lives for upholding the authority of the United Nations in relation to WMD and to defend human rights versus the economic gains by turning Iraq into a private petrol pump for the US and its allies. The war may be about oil, but on broader terms, it is more about economy. The economic impact of the war has two prominent faces—the impact to the US economy, and impact to the world economy (In a stricter sense you cannot isolate one from the other). “The Americans are underestimating the economic commitments involved in a war with Iraq,” says William Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale University. The Economist suggests that “the estimators differ in the purpose, methodology, and sophistication of their analysis. But, taken together, recent prognoses point to one conclusion: even a short war will prove fairly costly, while a messy one could deal the economy a severe blow.” If you look at the effect of possible increase of oil prices, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that a $10 per barrel rise in the price of oil over a year reduces global gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.6%. The impact varies from 0.8% of GDP in the US, in Europe and in developing countries in Asia—more in major importers like India. On the contrary, after the Iraqi defeat, if we see a reduction in oil prices in the wake of expanding Iraqi production to pay the rebuilding etc. brings about the prospect of a threat to Saudi oil production.

We haven’t discussed the costs of the war yet. Let us put aside the passive costs (costs would occur anyway for maintaining the army and the like) and look only at the “active costs”, which could include medical support to soldiers/civilians, communications, spare parts, and replacement of damaged equipments. In a report submitted to the US Congress by Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Dan Crippen estimated that “the total cost of a military conflict with Iraq and such a conflict's aftermath are highly uncertain.”

Wars always have had mixed economic consequences. Most wars the US was involved tended to stimulate the economy owing to huge government spending on defense. The Gulf War in 1991, however, was followed by recession. The Korean War stimulated growth, but was followed by a short recession. The Vietnam War in the late 1960s contributed to growing government borrowing and inflation along with strong economic growth. For Britain, the Suez War resulted in a Sterling crisis leading to mild recession.

Since the end of the Cold War, and since the US became the “last superpower”, a lot of debate has taken place over the issue of the US “policing the world”. After the Cold War era, more than 35 incidents of wars and conflicts have been recorded including the first Gulf War, Afghanistan Civil War, and armed conflicts in Lebanon, Somali, Northern Ireland, and Kosovo. Even though many efforts to prevent wars and armed conflicts have been taken by the international community, conflicts have been occurring more than before. The Cold War marked the beginning of the reduction in strength of the US and Russian military powers. Sadly, the military power of the developing world (or the Third World) began to strengthen. When pockets of power emerges in the world, wars and armed conflicts aimed to attack, invade, or conquer are bound to happen. Such problems need to be solved amicably based on international understanding, ideally, without the use of military power. Today, armed conflicts do occur, and some countries violate international law, commit crimes against humanity, and indulge in terrorist activities. The UN should prevent or resolve such conflicts. Even though a number of Peace Keeping Operations are going on, a UN police force that establishes and maintains peace does not exist as yet. Making such “rogue countries” obey international law and securing and maintaining international order require a military power to act as a world police force. Many renowned scholars have observed that when a hegemonic system becomes established, the international community becomes stabilized and peaceful and the promotion of economical prosperity and mutual dependence result. Therefore, the US playing out the role of the world police is essential for a harmonious world.

A huge majority of “well-informed” people are forced to believe that this war is all about “American arrogance”. The media around the glob have succeeded in shaping their own story around this war instead of focusing on the job at hand of telling how the international community is going about disarming a perilous country. This war is against terrorism and those who supports it, and not against a particular country or against a religion. This is not about overpowering the week by the strong.

Alright, then what’s the issue?

The US is accused of using a double standard policy when it comes to eliminating terrorism. At the center of this accusation stands Israel. Israel’s aggressive policies have been supported by the US ever since Harry Truman’s support of the birth of the nation in 1948. The US encouraged such policies in the name of a Jewish homeland, which a few of the U.S. politicians stood up to criticize. When Jewish sentiments played out a part in the foreground, something interesting went on in the background— Israel's economy centered around on profits from weapons transfers, and the CIA became dependent on Mossad for intelligence in the Middle East. Israel took advantage of the “global policies” laid out by the US. The Israeli Defense Force stages its own “war on terrorism” throughout the West Bank and Gaza, keeping three million Palestinians under curfew and under control. The US policy on other countries like North Korea is under severe criticism as well. 

Rebuilding Iraq? Let’s trace back the annals of rebuilding history for a moment. The US has an astonishing résumé that boasts of bombing nations, wrecking the communication and transportation networks, reducing cities to debris, and ruining the lives that escaped bombardment. In early 1973, President Nixon declared that the US would contribute to the reconstruction efforts in Vietnam unconditionally. He continued that “the United States contribution to postwar reconstruction will fall in the range of $3.25 billion of grant aid over 5 years.” This reconstruction contribution program never materialized. In 1991, after a month and a half of ruthless bombing that resulted in destruction of power, damage of water and sanitation systems, and devastation of the land, the US has practically done nothing to help rebuild Iraq. Recently, we have seen the very same familiar scene in Sudan in 1998 and in Yugoslavia in 1999. A word about Afghanistan too: in a statement released on April 1 2003 (never mind the date), the State Department Spokesman Philip Reeker told that the US is “a long-term partner in Afghanistan's reconstruction, and we will stay the course there, irrespective of our responsibilities elsewhere." This follows a remarkable pattern of having more propaganda than substance.

Should the US mind its own business, or should it be an “armed wing” of the UN? If so, the US should be enforcing every UN resolutions, irrespective of its political interests, including those against Israel. US Presidential candidate in 2000, Pat Buchanan says, “America's liberty is best protected when she pursues her own interests—and most endangered when she embarks on international crusades divorced from those interests.” The need of world police is clear, the question the US leaders should ask themselves seems to be: “Under what circumstances should the United States not to police the world?”

Everyone who is for or against war should have his or her own reasons. While the UK is for the War on Iraq, France is against it. That doesn’t mean that the entire population of the UK is for the war, and the whole of France is against the war. What are the factors that shape public opinion? People look forward to political leaders or famous personalities of similar thinking pattern before forming their opinion. And some tend follow those who are being presented as “experts” in the media more than the words of their political leaders. The trouble of going along with the voice of a political leader, a famous personality, or the media expert is that either you are a supporter of the war or you are a protester. You simply can’t have a neutral opinion, as you no longer see both sides of the coin. Your political leader has an interest to be a supporter of the war, and your film writer has his interests to be on the opposing side. If war against Iraq is to be supported, did your political leader support Iran back in the 1980s? If war is to be opposed, did your writer celebrity oppose India-Pakistan wars?

The US media coverage of the Gulf War should leave you in a state of suspended disbelief. Many European reporters have stated that the Americans are protected from the harsh realities of war. For a community where military personals are portrayed as nothing less than angels, it would be shocking for them to understand that there is absolutely nothing humane about war. When it become hard to distinguish between the view of the anchor’s or the view of the reporter’s from that of the Government’s, then we have got the problem of powerful media brainwashing a country. For media, war is another business opportunity, a sure shot to more profits, and the best time for hype and hysteria.

We live in a time where truth is conveyed through a series of lies, health is measured in terms of illness, wealth is calculated using our ability to borrow and peace is achieved though war. As long as you are not blinded by the beaming rays of propaganda, stand firm with your eyes open and your judgment unimpaired, I think you will be OK.

(Written on April 7th, 2003)

Read my other e-mails:
I Am an INDIYAN Now!
My Experiments with the Americans
My Experiments with the Americans...3
My Experiments with the Americans...4
The Joy of Six (Plagiarism at Its Best?)
My Experiments with the Americans...5
FOKANA - All In The Game
On E-Mail Hoaxes
I too Got a Ticket