Gavin Bell gives us a British perspective:
So, Bush has decided to go to war, Iraqis will die regardless of this decision, whether at Saddam Hussein's hands or by US and UK bombs. I just cannot see how this is meant to improve the world situation, how will this create peace in the world. I can see that this is not about Iraqi oil, as there is a small amount of it, that is available now, and it will cost a lot to double capacity. It is not about the honour of the UN, as they are being ignored, so is it about the desire of the last superpower to declare the world order in to two sides for simplicity and American commercial interests ?
Those of us happy to be in old europe can see that the world is more complex than that. George Bush must understand this too. Otherwise who is next, to militarily overthrow every regime the US disagrees with will result in countless wars on most continents in the world, not a prospect many will relish.
[Bell, Gavin "The Inevitable War", 17 Mar 2003, viewed 20 Mar 2003]
While I don't think things will get quite as extreme as that, that's the feeling and the worry that I've had for quite some time myself. A lot of people feel this way, and I really really think it will come back to haunt us. Just like our superpower actions and regime changes gave us this situation today. We (probably) could not have predicted in 1963 and 1968 that our actions would in very short order set up a dictator we'd have to come back and dethrone - but one hopes that we've learned from this history. As bad as war is, it's probably a good thing that we don't rely on the CIA so much anymore for leadership changes in the badlands.
Quaintly, Gavin Bell gave NetNewsWire 5 Stars in Macworld UK - the excellent program I'm using to post this entry. Kudos, Brent!
An interesting discussion has been taking place this week on my earlier (rather emotional) post "The Stench and the Tension".
Coming into the office this morning, a friend down the hall called me in excitedly. "The shock and awe has started!" Shock and awe, shock and awe. We've been hearing these words as the latest buzzphrase of the current action, and it's built up this great expectation of seeing "cool video" like the video that made it out of the gulf last time around. Pardon me for not getting excited about the mass bombing of a city. If war must happen, it should not be celebrated as though it were a movie. Yeah, "it looks cool and things are blowing up." I doubt it would be as much fun if those bombs were coming our way. Lets hope our actions don't bring similar actions back upon us.
Later in the day, I had basically the same discussion with the guy down the hall as I've in the link mentioned above. And it was pretty open on both sides. Yeah, Saddam is bad. Yeah, this war probably would have to happen sooner or later. But did it have to happen under an administration who has pulled out of so many treaties and agreements? Did it really have to happen right now? Couldn't the anniversary of the September 11th attacks have been used to present a plan to the United Nations that proposed to strengthen the ambiguous "War on Terror" to include new United Nation forces and powers that used international strength (instead of just big meetings), knowledge, and community to curb terrorist organizations worldwide, to disarm despots, to charge and try leaders who bring unnecessary suffering to their people (Mugabe, I'm looking at you here. Rwanda, you too!)? If the UN is "weak", Mr. President, why not propose to strengthen it so that it truely is a "United Nations", and not a "United Nations of American Republics" who stand for our way or the highway?
I recognize that I'm not in a position to make such decisions, and I don't envy those who have to make them (those that aren't driven by mad quests for absolute security and hegemony anyways). But I'm glad to be in a country where I can be cynical of our government in hopes to make them accountable for their actions, and in hopes that their actions will be just, even if I don't agree with them.