Potpouri-2

By Mohammad Asghar


On the eve of the first anniversary of the Iraq war, Secretary of Defense
Rumsfield granted an interview to Fox News Television last night (March 19,
2004). I had the chance to watch and hear him speak about the events, and the
facts that had led the United States’ invasion of Iraq in March of 2003.

Explaining President Bush’s decision to go to war, Defense Secretary highlighted
the following points:

1. All the members of the United Nations’ Security Council were convinced that
Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
2. All Members of the council were convinced that Iraq’s report to the council
was incomplete and that the document did not account for the missing weapons of
mass destruction.
3. American soldiers found a large quantity of gas masks with the Iraqis; this
indicated that Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction.
4. Saddam had gassed the Kurds; hence it proved that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.
5. Saddam was a brutal dictator. Therefore, his forceful removal from power was
justified.

At the time I was listening to the Defense Secretary, I felt the following
thoughts running through my mind:

A. There are five permanent members of the United Nations’ Security Council.
Among them, the United States is the most powerful and also most effective in
collecting intelligence from all parts of the world. Side by side collecting
their own intelligence, all the other permanent members depended on the efficacy
of the United States’ intelligence. Taking for granted what the United States
had told them in 2003, they believed that Iraq was guilty of possessing the
dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

B. Hoping to gain much from the reconstruction efforts of Iraq, other permanent
members of the Security Council supported America’s stand on the “incomplete”
status of the Iraqi document. Subsequently, they concluded that they were not
going to gain out of Iraq as much as they had hoped for. This realization forced
them later to oppose America’s unilateral action against Iraq.

C. Weeks before the beginning of the war, America had warned Iraq that if it
used any chemical weapons on its soldiers, America would retaliate with its own
chemical weapons against its forces. This threat, though conditional, might have
led Iraq to acquire the gas masks for use by its soldiers, fearing America’s use
of chemical weapons for one reason or another.

D. Saddam gassed the Kurds immediately after the conclusion of the Gulf War of
1991. Thereafter, Iraq faced inspections for quite sometime. The inspectors
wanted Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq stalled the
inspectors’ demands for a long time. But when it became clear that it could no
more avoid the demand, it destroyed the weapons. Since the inspectors had
insisted on the destruction of the weapons alone, Iraq might not have documented
their destruction. This, perhaps, was the reason behind Iraq’s failure to
account for the WMD the Security Council thought was missing in the document
Iraq had submitted to it days before the commencement of the war in 2003.

E. Apart from Saddam Hussain, there were other dictators, who had made their
people’s lives extremely unbearable. Mullah Omar of Afghanistan was one of them.
In many ways, his regime was more brutal than Saddam’s; Omar executed many
Afghanis on flimsy grounds; had women shot on the streets of Kabul and other
cities for the reason that they had come out on the streets in search of food
for their hungry children. He forbade girls from acquiring any education other
than of Arabic and of the Quran.

We tolerated him without being too much concerned with his actions. Had the
terrorists not committed the heinous crimes of September 11, probably, Mullah
Omar would most probably still be ruling Afghanistan with his iron hand.

In spite of feeling deeply relieved at Saddam’s removal from power, I, like
millions of other Americans, still remain uncomfortable with the justifications
given to us for our going to war with Iraq. In this war, many American soldiers,
and a large number of Iraqis have lost their lives. Many American soldiers and
ordinary Iraqis would live the rest of their lives with physical disabilities
and psychological scares. Many among them would be having frightening nightmares
for so long as they would live.

Could we have not waited for some more time, while figuring out other options to
remove him from power, considering the fact that the CIA had never claimed that
there was an “imminent” danger from him to the world peace?

In terms of money, the cost of the war is going to be very high. A budget of 150
billion Dollars is already in place; how many more billions would be needed
would be known to us only in future. The question of money becomes pertinent and
very important when we deem the spending in Iraq to be at the cost of the
ordinary Americans.

A lot of Americans have been facing difficulties in meeting their daily needs.
They need help and support of the government to overcome their financial
constraints. Spending a small portion of 150 billion Dollars on them would have
gone a long way in changing their lives. When they would see such a huge amount
of money being spent on their welfare is not in sight; it would need a change in
the thinking process of our leader, who, apart from maintaining our leadership
position in the world, would also come to realize the fact that taking care of
one’s own household is more important than helping the people of a distant land.

* * *
A well educated thinker had once told me: history does not automatically repeat
itself; we humans make it repeat through our deeds and actions. I found support
of this theory in a slogan that has become a part of a huge American
corporation’s advertising campaign. It says: “Don’t let history happen without
you.”

We humans create civilizations, and history. Destruction of a civilization gives
birth to a new history that exists along with the old one. In destroying a
civilization, nature also plays an important role. This has happened in the
past; it would be happening in future as well. The only way we can avoid
nature’s role in the destruction of our civilization is for us to co-exist with
nature, and according to its demands. Anything short of this cannot prevent our
civilization from becoming the part of the past history, for future historians
and scholars to pore over, and to learn through it our mistakes and follies.

Talking about the creation of history by humans revives in my mind some
historical events that had taken place in the last century. Those of them, which
are relevant to my theme are being noted here:

1. America was the pioneer in the invention of the atomic bomb. It used it on
Japan twice in order to force it into surrender at the end of World War11.
Seeing its destructive power, many nations followed America’s lead and they,
too, became the proud owner of this lethal weapon.
2. Because other nations are following America and other nuclear nations’
footsteps, their efforts have become ‘proliferation.’ To prevent this from
happening, all the nuclear powers are now trying their best to prevent
non-nuclear nations from laying their hands on this fearsome weapon.
3. I do not know for sure which country of the world was first to manufacture
the chemical and biological weapons. But I know this for sure that many
countries own them now.
4. When Osama bin Laden was fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the West
gave him its tacit support for the reason that he was doing what the West was
supposed to be doing. In my humble opinion, he owes his creation in some ways to
the United States, a mistake for which we paid a heavy price on September 11, we
are going to pay more, perhaps, in future as well.
5. Saddam Hussain was inherently a brutal person. This aspect of his character
had come to the forefront after he had many of his opponents executed soon after
assuming the office of Iraq’s presidency. His brutality became extreme when none
dared to stand up before him. His neighbors also kept their eyes close to his
nefarious deeds for the reason that almost all of them had come to believe that
he was the only Arab leader who was capable of facing the Israelis. The West
also did not pay much attention to his atrocities, which made him bolder with
each day passing. His murderous instincts got a boost when the West, especially
the United States, supported him on his war against Iran. Taking the West’s
political expediencies as its weakness, his shenanigans became too apparent,
especially for the United States, to be tolerated and lived with.

Eventually, Saddam became the most dangerous man of the world. To cut him to his
size, the United States has not only spent a colossal amount of money, it has
also shed a lot of blood of its young soldiers, and also of a lot of Iraqis.

My questions are: why did we create something (like nuclear weapons) that others
cannot create for their own use? And also, why did we not take steps to contain
Saddam when his madness had become apparent to us?

Can we undo what has already happened to Iraq by criticizing President Bush?
Will our criticism of his so-called “lies” about the WMD in Iraq do any good to
the people of Iraq? If not, what are the actions we can take now to help the
Iraqi people achieve their long suppressed wish and desires?

What is the surety that a country that has a sensible and responsible leader at
its helms today would not have a ‘rogue’ one tomorrow?

* * *
News from Bangladesh reported in its issue of March 21, 2004 that diplomats in
Dhaka met Khaleda Zia’s son to express their concern over attacks on opposition.

Why the diplomats met him, I failed to understand. Is it because of the reason
that he is behind the attacks on the opposition? Or, is he more important and
powerful than his mother, the prime minister of Bangladesh?

I am curious what “Gaindu Chacha’s” reaction is going to be to this astounding
news (Read him in the Weekly Thikana from New York and other major Bengali
newspapers from Bangladesh). I won’t be surprised if he advises the prime
minister to abandon her idea of setting up a dynastic regime in Bangladesh. If
and when his advice comes, it would be better for the PM to heed to it,
otherwise her design of ruling Bangladesh perpetually would produce the same
outcome as Sk. Mujib, the Father of the Nation, and his family had faced.

By the way, what we Bengalis think is the definition of the words “sovereignty”
and self-respect?

March 20, 2004