JP "Cassandra"

My 'Cassandra' letter to The Independent, 10 Sept. 2002:-

The Independent (London), Sep 10, 2002    Letter from John Pedler

Sir: Isn't a US attack on Iraq just what Osama bin Laden's flagging plan requires? After 11 September it was widely suspected that al-Qa'ida's plan was to provoke a massive ill-directed, unilateral, anti-Muslim retaliation from the United States. This would release extremist Islamic forces, destabilising the already precarious Middle East and compromising the West's oil supply. That in turn would create economic and political havoc in the developed world. When the dust eventually settled a new extremist Islam would face a debilitated West.

With political skill and military luck the Bush administration avoided such a scenario with a measured, internationally accepted response in Afghanistan. Now though, the President is squandering the world's good will in a series of unilateral actions. He declines to ensure stability in Afghanistan, and refuses his vital support in settling the Israel/Palestine problem on the lines now acceptable to all interested nations.

In these circumstances a war in Iraq, followed by some questionable nation-building, makes 11 September look like a gamble al-Qa'ida might yet win.

JOHN PEDLER

Volosko, Croatia

[Six months before the invasion was launched in March 2003 we had identified (thanks to the work of experts with a variety of expertise) and passed on to correspondents on 4 September 2002  - see below - some 10 major (and mostly quite evident) reasons to oppose an invasion of Iraq. See our paper of 8 Nov 2003, and others on this site, which expand on our initial assessment. The latest is of 3 August 2008 - "A Blunder that Vote for "Iraq".]

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here is our 4 September 2002 analysis prepared in consultation with one of Al Gore's former National Security Advisers:-

Ten reasons why Iraq must not be invaded without UN approval:

Collecting the views of experts in the various fields who are not involved in supporting the present U.S. administration or the U.K. government, we find the following principal objections to an invasion of Iraq without Security Council approval (which is unlikely to be obtainable):-

i) Afghanistan: it could well undermine success in Afghanistan. It would be folly to start a second, elective, war before Afghanistan has been secured, a new government has won general support, warlords are tamed, and reconstruction is safely underway. Aghanistan would lose its top priority to Iraq both for manpower, finance, and other resources - e.g. expertise on Islam and terrorism. Without prompt definitive success in stabilising Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the Taliban could once again return to use it.

ii) Worldwide backing: it risks losing the quite remarkable worldwide support, both political and financial, which President G W Bush has enjoyed for the occupation of Afghanistan since Al Qaeda's  "9/11" attacks on the US..This support is essential to uprooting al Qaeda style international terrorism.

iii) Culture clash: the invasion of a second Muslim country must surely further Al Qaeda's major aim with its "9/11" attacks of provoking the profound clash of cultures it needs if it is to win wide Muslim support. Such a clash must be avoided if Al Qaeda is to be isolated within the Muslim world.  

iv) Al Qaeda's home turf: Saddam Hussein has kept Al Qaeda out of Iraq. With Saddam gone it would surely strive to get in and cause mayhem. Once in Iraq Al Qaeda would be back on its Arabic Middle Eastern homeground only one frontier away from Saudi Arabia, its prime target for destabilisation.

v) Splitting allies: without UN approval, an invasion would all but certainly split NATO, Europe and the largely united Western presence in the UN. This would not only affect the outcome of the occupation in Afghanistan, but the standing and influence of the West in the Middle East and indeed, throughout the world.  

vi) No nuclear threat: it would be folly to invade Iraq (which virtually all experts agree has no nuclear weapons) in order to prevent nuclear proliferation, instead of focussing, with the riparian states, on reversing  the nuclear programme of North Korea which is well on the way to possessing a nuclear bomb.

vii) Iraq is fissiparous: If Saddam Hussein is removed Sunnis (now dominant), majority Shi'as (repressed), Kurds (who would prefer independence) and other disgruntled groups, would all seek to protect and forward their interests risking grave civil disturbance, even iternecine strife - should any invasion not be accompanied by a carefully prepared transfer of power and swift departure. But it appears that the UK (whose participation the U.S. seeks) is still far from satisfied that post-invasion policy has been meticulously and wisely planned.

viii) American hegemony: such an invasion would be seen by many (notably Russia and China) as an American attempt to dominate the Middle East and thus secure US world hegemony in the 21st century. (The "neo-conservative movement" calls itself The Project for A New American Century. Vice-President Cheney and several other "neo-conservatives" are in key positions in the G W Bush administration). Such a U.S. move for world dominance would be counter-productive. It is not the way for the US  - the remaining superpower - to lead the world towards the international cooperation so essential in the post-Cold War era.       

ix) Iran, the Arabs & Israel: putting American forces to the west as well as to the east of Iran must lead to conflict with Iran for influence in Iraq and strain - or end - the nascent cooperation between the US & Iran with the overthrow of the Taliban, the common enemy. Saddam's Sunni secular Iraq (backed by the West) waged war on Iran for 8 years with tremendous World War I style losses. Iran will be be out to exercise all possible influence over any new regime in Iraq, and Shias in the Sunni states. This would cause tension between Shia revolutionary Iran and Iraq's Sunni neighbours as well as with the U.S. There is a grave risk of destabilising the entire Middle East - which would gravely undermine Israel's security - and of course the Christian minorities in the Middle East.

x) Climate change, etc: The international disruption to be expected from such an invasion of Iraq would distract world attention from the existential threats that humanity now faces, including Human Rights - all of which require world cooperation. 

Conclusion: These ten objections alone make an "unapproved" invasion far too high risk to be acceptable. This could change if a) continued world support - military and financial - demonstrates that the reconstruction and stabilisation of Afghanistan is on the way to irreversible success, and if b) the main recruiting source for al Qaeda - worldwide Muslim bitterness at Palestinian woes - is removed by an Israel/Palestine agreement which should now be the top priority for the Middle East. "9/11" plus the successful occupation of Afghanistan with such worldwide backing makes an Israeli/Palestine settlement far more possible than it has ever been before....

All these ten reasons for not now invading Iraq are clearly valid and there for all to see. It is deeply disturbing that our leaders so far appear either blind to them, or are determined on an Iraq invasion regardless of the unacceptable risk.