(August 2004) The Chalabi saga Few people have been so instrumental in terminating Saddam Hussein's dictatorship
as Ahmed Chalabi. He spent most of his life fighting Saddam's regime, risking his life and committing his fortune.
He looked for allies wherever he could find them, and was intelligent enough to realize that only the USA has the power
and the will to put its army where its words are. He found the right man in George W Bush, a USA president eager to finish
the job in Iraq. Chalabi took advantage of anyone who was willing or naive to listen to him, and eventually achieved
what many considered impossible: Saddam was out after just three weeks of fighting, and Chalabi himself was installed
in Baghdad as the most influential USA ally. Since then things have turned sour on all fronts. The USA (mainly Paul
Bremer) have distanced themselves from Chalabi. The CIA has implicated Chalabi in spying operations by arch-enemy Iran.
And now an Iraqi judge has issued arrest warrants against him and against his nephem Salem (who was in charge of the
trial against Saddam Hussein). Since Chalabi is Saddam's main nemesis, this all sounds like Saddam's revenge. Saddam
must be delighted to hear this. But Saddam and his followers are unlikely to be relevant anymore (even the guerrilla
actions appear to be carried out by Islamic fundamentalist, foreign fighters, anti-American nationalists and assorted
criminals, rather than from the old Baath party). Chalabi seems to be the victim of new priorities. His biggest political
mistake may have been to start and head the investigation into a scandal that involves the United Nations: the "oil for
food program". In theory, Saddam Hussein was allowed to sell oil to buy food and medicines for the Iraqi people. In
practice, most of that money may have disappeared with the complicity of corrupt United Nations officials and shady
foreign organizations. That investigation has been largely delayed and is being carefully silenced. Initially, it
sounded like a good idea to embarrass the United Nations and, most likely, France. The oil for food program of the United
Nations was a case of massive corruption that involved the very same people and countries that opposed the removal
of Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately for Chalabi, the continuing unrest in Iraq has led the president of the USA to rethink
his strategy and decide that he does need, after all, the United Nations and the Europeans. The investigation in the "oil
for food" scandal is now an embarrassment to the USA, because the USA is trying to win over the United Nations not to
offend it. The USA needs the United Nations to legitimize the new Iraqi government and needs the United Nations to
run the first democratic elections. Both goals are so important that the USA has no more use for the investigation
into the scandal. Chalabi found himself with no friends: the people who opposed the war hate him, and the people whom
he convinced to start the war have no more use for him. As for the accusations themselves, it is hard to take them
seriously because Moqtada al Sadr, the leader of the rebellious Islamic militia, is wanted on charges of murder and
noone has ever tried to arrest him. Why be so zealous with Chalabi when Sadr, a suspected murdered, is left free to
run an entire army and to preach openly in mosques?
(June 2004) Islam is still the real enemy. There is no question that an unwanted consequence of the removal of Saddam
Hussein by the USA was to draw jihadists from all over the Arab world to Iraq. But it is unfair to claim that the removal
of Saddam Hussein was wrong because it caused Islamic terrorism to move to Iraq: Islamic terrorism will react to anything
(anything) the USA does or doesn't do. Saying that the removal of Saddam Hussein caused Islamic terrorism is like
saying that walking into a certain room caused someone to catch the flue: she would have caught the flue anyway, in another
room or in a bus. The flue is not caused by this person walking into a certain room. The flue is caused by a virus that
is determined to attack humans, here or there, today or tomorrow. Removing Saddam Hussein was an excellent idea (the
implementation was far from perfect, but that's another story). It would be an equally excellent idea to remove the
other Arab dictators, who routinely oppress, torture and exterminate their own people. Just like it would be a great
idea to provide jobs for the indios of the Andes or eradicate polio from India. These are simply good deeds, and they
have nothing to do with religion. But the Islamic terrorists are out to fight whatever the USA does, right or wrong.
Their cause is not about judging the USA. Their cause is about destroying the USA. In fact, the Islamic terrorists are
likely to be more upset by the good deeds of the USA than by its mistakes. The Islamic terrorists do not want democracy,
prosperity and peace in Iraq: that would be a disaster for Islam. It would prove that the USA is superior to Islam.
It would turn millions of Iraqis into decadent westerners. Let us not kid ourselves: the wrath of the Islamic terrorists
will always be greater when we try to help the Muslim people, because the biggest danger of all for Islam is that
the west proves to be a better system than Islam. That is precisely the reason why the West must be destroyed: because
its very existence is proof that Islam has created terrible systems. Remove the West (and its influence on other continents)
from the planet, and Islam will look like a passable system. Islamic terrorists will attack the USA no matter what
it does, but especially when it tries to improve the lives of Muslims. Islamic terrorists want to create hell on Earth,
just like they did in Afghanistan, not paradise on Earth. The USA is a paradise that the Islamic terrorists need to
cripple and destroy. In a sense, the Islamic terrorists are simply the personification of the Biblical devil. The
complicity of the Arab regimes and the Arab media should not be neglected. The Arab regimes are still condoning the countless
madrasa that brainwash children to fight the infidels. The Arab media (such as Al Jazeera) routinely justify terrorism
as the inevitable consequence of western oppression of the Muslims (without mentioning that billions of people equally
"oppressed" by the West in South America, black Africa, China, India, etc etc do not resort to terrorism. In fact,
many of them have developed rich and dynamic societies that compete with the old western oppressors). The removal of
Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with the fact that the Islamic terrorists want to fight the USA everywhere and all the
time, just like catching a flue has nothing to do with walking into a certain room. It's the virus, not the room. Back
to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(May
2004) The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, or how the Iraqi people betrayed the USA... The average
American has no interest in invading other countries. In fact, from World War II to Vietnam, the president of the
USA has always struggled to convince the nation to go to war. Unlike the old European powers, who were proud whenever
they managed to expand their borders, the Americans do not want to expand their borders: they want to stay home. The
USA is fundamentally an isolationist country. (That might be its biggest problem: it acts only when it is forced to act,
as opposed to Rome, Mongols, Arabs, France and Britain, which invaded everything they could invade just for the sake
of invading). The American people accepted to invade Iraq because a) the president convinced a few of them (very few)
that Saddam was a danger to the USA, and b) they were aware that Saddam was a psychopath who killed hundreds of thousands
of his own people. Then the same American people accepted to pay billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq: Americans,
like all people of the world, are not terribly happy to pay taxes so that their government can spend it in another country,
but, again, they accepted the moral principle that something had to be done for the Iraqi people. Basically, the American
people accepted to give blood and money to help the Iraqi people. There was good will towards the Iraqi people. This
was supposed to be a brother helping another brother, bypassing religious and ethnic divisions. Instead, the Iraqi
people did not fight side by side with the Americans. That was already strange: if you want to get rid of your dictator,
how can you simply watch someone else do it for you? We excuse them because in 1991 we betrayed them: we withdrew, and
we let Saddam kill all the ones who rose up against him. So, in a sense, it was our fault that this time the Iraqi
people did not do anything: we assumed that they were afraid of being betrayed again (that we may withdraw and leave
Saddam in power again). But now it is fairly clear that Saddam is not coming back. Ever. Nonetheless, the Iraqi people
are still absolutely nothing to help the Americans. The Americans are giving blood and money to the Iraqis, but the
Iraqis are giving nothing back. Not even a "thank you". The most visible mood in Iraq is one of indifference. A growing
number of Iraqis calls for an immediate USA pull-out (as if they, the Iraqi people, had deserved the right to rule
their own country, had proven the ability to do it, and knew how to do it). This is not only stupid (it only helps
the Osamas and the Al Jazeeras of the world, the enemies of democracy and peace), but also ungrateful. The Americans
gave their blood and money to the Iraqis, and the Iraqis are spitting in their face. The Iraqis had the historical
opportunity to become friends of the USA: as the adage goes, the Arabs never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
They are missing the historical opportunity to bridge the cultural gap and become brothers of the Americans. It
will take a long time before the USA will help another country, no matter how cruel its dictator. Many Americans are concluding
that it is just not worth it. The USA did not do anything to save the lives of 900,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994: nobody
complained. Now it has done something (something big) to rescue the Iraqis from Saddam, and everybody is complaining.
Unfortunately, both ordinary Americans and their leaders will draw the obvious conclusion.
(April 2004) The battle of Falluja is not necessarily bad news. Contrary to what Al Jazeera and the other fascist-leaning
media initially reported, there was no popular rebellion in Falluja. There are only a thousand people fighting against
the USA. The vast majority of the population wants no part in it. In fact, there are more and more frequent reports
that the civilians of Falluja wants the USA to dislodge the fighters as soon as possible. The best news, though, is
what is not happening: there has been no rebellion in Tikrit (Saddam's home town), in Mosul, in Baghdad itself. The
Sunnis are mostly quiet. They mostly welcomed the regime change, and they mostly feel that life is better now. They have
no motivation to fight against the USA. Another good news, from a military viewpoint, is that the people cornered
in Falluja probably represent the creme de la creme of the Baathists and of the terrorists. Kill or arrest them, and the
USA will have removed a major obstacle towards democracy. The bad news, on the other hand, begin with the attitude
of ordinary Iraqis. Whether because they are afraid the USA will abandon them or because they are confused as to what
is going on, ordinary Iraqis are not helping at all. They carry on their lives, mostly indifferent towards the battle.
It should be pretty obvious to them that, should the USA lose the battle, a new ruthless dictatorship would take Saddam's
place. How is it possible that they are not rooting for the USA and they are not helping the USA? Do they really want
these thugs of Falluja to prevail and rule their country? The second bad news is more of the same. The average Iraqi
is very good at complaining about just everything (from jobs to electricity to security) but has done and is doing
very little to deserve any of those things. Shouldn't the Iraqi people be in the front line to defend and rebuild
their country? Instead, they seem mostly interested in criticizing whatever the USA does or does not do. This is an
old Arab attitude: criticize both X and the opposite of X, and do absolutely nothing, so you can criticize the others
without criticizing yourself. One would hope that the first Arab country to enjoy freedom of speech, movement and
action would free itself also of this childish attitude. But the worst news is definitely the way that these 25 million
of Iraqis seem incapable to defend themselves from the first thugs (whether the Falluja rebels or the Islamic militias)
that grab some arms and start shooting. In the rest of the world, a group of dangerous people intimidating the population
is considered a gang of criminals. The police arrest them. In the Arab world, they have a good chance to become the
new leaders. That is precisely how all the Arab leaders, from Qaddafi to Saddam, from the various kings to the various
sheiks, became the rulers of their countries. One would hope that the Iraqis would seize the opportunity they have to
be ruled by peaceful politicians, not by murderous thugs. Back to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(March
2004) Problems we didn't foresee before the war in Iraq: A lightning victory is not necessarily good news, because it doesn't
give the victors enough time to organize the peace, nor to bond with the people who are being liberated. The USA
convinced thousands of Iraqi soldiers to abandon their uniforms and stop fighting, and thus won the war very quickly,
but this strategy left behind thousands of potential anti-American insurgents. Iraq shares with Vietnam the fact
that bordering countries sympathize with the ousted regime. Either one takes on all the "sympathetic" countries at
the same time (in this case, Syria and Iran) or one makes sure the border is immediately sealed. In this case, the USA
let Syria and Iran free to create what is now a gigantic problem: the infiltration of hundreds of foreign fighters. The
tendency of Arabs to blame others for their problems can only increase when they are being occupied by a non-Arab power.
Even if the USA restores order, even if the economy booms, even if democracy succeeds, the Iraqis will keep blaming
the USA for whatever problems occur in the next years and decades. A rapid transition to democracy is much easier when
a strong man gains strong popular support. The USA were lucky to find such a man, Karzai, in Afghanistan. In Iraq,
so far, there is no Karzai in sight. The transition to democracy feels like a lottery. The tendency of Arabs to believe
rumours, any rumours. Whenevere something happens in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, rumours start
spreading and they spread very quickly, even if the media don't help. Many Arabs are still convinced that it was Jews,
not Arabs, who blew up the World Trade Center. Many Arabs are still convinced that all the videos and messages from
Osam Bin Laden were manufactured in Hollywood. Many Arabs are so confused by all the rumours that they simply don't
believe anything anymore. The way to win the hearts and minds of an Arab country is to control the rumours. It is
taking too long for the USA to channel its version of the facts to reliable media and to educate Iraqis not to believe
rumours for the sake of believing in rumours. Rumours are the main anti-American propaganda in Iraq. There is, basically,
no other anti-American propaganda (Al Jazeera has been widely discredited during the war). Basically, we didn't
foresee that, for a number of reasons, the Iraqis will not help build their own democracy. The Arabs are very good
at complaining against anything that the USA does, but are absolutely useless to defend their own country from those (old
fans of Saddam Hussein or Islamic terrorists) who would like to create another dictatorship or would like to start
a civil war. The Iraqi population is, in fact, more a problem than a solution: its continuous complaints is simply
hampering the USA's fight against the remnants of the regime. While they all say that they are happy that Saddam Hussein
is gone, the Iraqis have not done anything and are still not doing anything to destroy his organization. The Iraqis are
very good at marching against anything the USA does, but they never marched once against Saddam, against the foreign
terrorists, against their own Islamic fundamentalists. Of course, one of the reasons is that they would be killed
if they marched against those violent groups, whereas the USA does not kill them if they march and shout "death to
America". But then makes it an even worse kind of cowardice. Israel remains the single most important factors that determines
anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein was a
cruel tyrant (and a coward) and that the Iraqi people were happy to be liberated, the Islamic world is still strongly
opposed to the deposition of Saddam Hussein. The main reason is Israel: as long as the USA does not demand from Israel
what it demands from Islamic countries (for example, the surrender of all weapons of mass destruction), anti-American
sentiment will be so pervasive that any USA action will be condemned, no matter what it is. Eventually the USA has to
decide whether to take a stand against Israel or to attack the entire Islamic world. As Bush said, "you're either
with us or against us". That's precisely the way one billion Muslims feel about Israel. Competence matters. People
like Bush, Cheney and Rumslefd proved to be spectacularly incompetent in managing the diplomacy, the military campaign
and the reconstruction of Iraq. They all sounded rather improvised and lacking basic knowledge of both international affairs
and specific Iraqi conditions. Their predictions were almost entirely wrong, from the existence of weapons of mass
destruction to the millions of oppressed Iraqis who were supposed to join the liberation. The problems that arose,
from the lack of water and electricity to the generalized looting to the massive increase in crime to the anti-American
insurgency, were mostly unforeseen by the USA "experts". This generalize incompetence of the American leaders has
cost hundreds of American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives and severely jeopardized the post-war scenario.
(August 2003) What is happening in Iraq. Anti-Americans, particularly in Europe and in the Arab world (an ideological
alliance that Europeans should NOT be proud of) tend to characterize USA foreign policy as a greedy search for oil.
Besides insulting the intelligence of the American public, these anti-Americans forget that the USA has no need for
additional oil (it already controls the vast majority of oil reserves in the world and, unlike oil-less continental Europe,
it extracts domestically more than 50% of the oil it needs). The invasion of Iraq has far more important reasons than
oil. The USA policy in Iraq is, mainly, one of "educational imperialism". The USA wants to create a bastion of western-style
democracy and capitalism right in the heart of the most anti-American region in the world, the Middle East. Iran did
not work as such a bastion: it was not democratic at all, and it was eventually overthrown in an Islamic revolution
that created an even bigger problem than the shah of Iran was supposed to solve. Israel has not worked as a bastion for
western-style values for the simple reason that Israel is a Jewish state and the Muslims of the Middle East refuse
to be inspired by a non-Muslim state. Iraq could be the long-sought solution: an Arab, Muslim state that becomes a
role model for the entire region: wealthy, democratic, progressive, educated. This is a scary prospect for both the
Arab regimes and the oil-less European "powers". The Arab regimes have nothing to gain from a wealthy, democratic
Iraq, that would expose the mismanagement and tyranny of all the existing Arab regimes. Basically, a democratic Iraq
would be a death sentence for the rest of the Arab dictators. Why should they help the USA carry out this plan? That is
precisely the reason that not a single Arab state has helped remove Saddam Hussein (all Arab states still recognize
Saddam Hussein as the legitimate ruler of Iraq). That is precisely the reason why no Arab state is helping reconstruct
or police Iraq. That is precisely the reason why Arab states and Iran are indirectly helping foreign fighters to destabilize
Iraq. Arab states have a vested interest in the failure of the USA policy of democratizing Iraq. The European "powers"
that have no oil of their own (mainly France and Germany) have no interest either in a democratic Iraq: what are the
odds that a democratic government would favor France and Germany the same way that Saddam Hussein used to? What are the
odds that a democratic Iraqi government would forget that Chirac was a "dear, close friend" (Chirac's own words) of
Saddam Hussein? France and Germany are willing to help police and rebuild Iraq only if the USA accepts that the new
government of Iraq will NOT be democratic, but will be controlled by the old powers. But this would run counter to the
very goal of "educational imperialism", would turn Iraq into a puppet state despised by the entire Middle East. The
United Nations has become the only place in the world where France can voice its concerns. Nobody in the world would listen
to France's opinion if France did not have veto power at the United Nations. Unfortunately, the unwanted consequence
is the entire world is held hostage by the whims of the French president. The USA should avoid recognizing the authority
of such an organization over any matter of the world. First, let's restructure the United Nations (see What is wrong
with the United Nations), removing veto privileges or assigning veto priviliges to the new large powers (India, Brazil,
Japan, Nigeria) not to the old small ones (France, Britain). This is no longer a European world, but the United Nations
are still very much biased towards Europe (3 out of 5 veto privileges are for European countries, only one for the
entire Asia, only one for the entire America and none at all for Africa). There is a de-facto aliance between Chirac's
France, the Arab totalitarian regimes, Islamic fundamentalists and Saddam loyalists: they are all afraid (very afraid)
that Iraq will become a democracy, because this would have a dramatic effect on the entire Middle East and possibly
the entire world. France, Arab dictators, Islamic fundamentalists and Saddam loyalists stand to lose a lot from the democratization
of Iraq. People who draw parallels between post-war Iraq and post-war Europe of 1946 forget one important factor: in
1946, the Anglosaxon coalition was controlling the whole of Western Europe, and it was easy for them to root out terrorism
(especially in Germany) and to impose democracy. Today, the coalition controls only Iraq within the Middle East, and
Iraq is surrounded by regimes that have no interest in cooperating. It is, by definition, a much more difficult task.
If the USA invaded the whole of the Middle East, then it would be in the same situation it was in Western Europe in
1946. Right now, it is in a fundamentally different situation. Of course, it is not true what the anti-Americans are
saying: that the USA has turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists, that Islamic fighters are flocking from all over
the world, etc (these are the same anti-Americans who warned about one million refugees, who warned about an Islamic
world-war, who claimed 170thousand items had been stolen from the museum, and so forth). This is a wild exaggeration:
mostly, it is Saddam loyalists who are fighting the coalition forces. But it is true that both the Arabs and Chirac's
regime have a vested interest in creating as much trouble as possible, and then presenting the trouble as "the USA's
invasion backfired against the civilized world". The USA should stay the course and continue its policy of "educational
imperialism": eradicate Saddam's regime, fight foreign terrorism that is tacitly sponsored by other tyrannical regimes,
and keep the oil-less Europeans (France and Germany) out of Iraq. This might imply another military intervention (against
one or more of the countries that are trying to destabilize Iraq) and more tensions with France (as long as imperial
Chirac remains in power). It is a price worth paying. The 21st century should leave behind the remnants of the old
European imperialism (the new centers of power are China, India, the Far East, Russia, and the fastest developing areas
are Eastern Europe, Africa and parts of South America) and the USA should not accept the old logic that the Islamic
world is for dictators only (and Muslim dictators only). The USA should focus on what is good for the Iraqi people:
removing Saddam was good for the Iraqi people; providing security and basic services (water, electricity) is good
for the Iraqi people; moving towards democracy is good for the Iraqi people. These should be the USA goals in Iraq. If
the goal is a more peaceful world, the USA is doing the right thing in Iraq. That said, it would certainly be better
(for the Iraqi people in the first place) that the occupation force be multinational (which was Bush's own goal at
the beginning when he begged even France to join) and, ultimately, not under USA command (otherwise the world would keep
suspecting that the USA wants to steal the oil). Paul Bremer is not an appealing alternative to Saddam for the Iraqis.
A United Nations official would be a much more appealing alternative. So Chirac is finally right about something,
although it would have been easier if he had been on the right side from the beginning, not only at the end. Back
to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(July
2003) Iraq: a farce of lies. Europacifists and assorted anti-Americans predicted a number of consequences of the war in
Iraq: A lengthy battle that would kill up to 500,000 civilians. The truth: Iraq was liberated in less than a month.
The battle of Baghdad, that was supposed to last months if not years, lasted three days. Amnesty International estimates
20,000 people died, including militias, Baathists and soldiers. One million refugees. The United Nations was urged
to build a huge refugee camp in Jordan to avoid a humanitarian disaster. The humanitarian disaster never happened.
In fact, only a few hundred Iraqis left the country. They returned to their homes after a few days abroad. A United
Nations document ("Integrated Humanitarian Contingency Plan for Iraq and Neighbouring Countries", Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs, 7 January 2003) predicted that 30% of children under 5 in Iraq, or 1.26 million children, "would be at risk
of death from malnutrition" during an American invasion of Iraq. The disintegration of the country. The various Iraqi
factions were supposed to begin a Lebanese-style civil war and lead to the breakdown of Iraq. The truth: not even
the Kurds have asked for a separate state. A world-wide Islamic war. This was the real specter: USA intervention in
the holy land would cause a billion Muslims to rise up in a holy war against the infidels. The truth: the rest of the
Islamic world is now demanding more democracy for their leaders, because they see Iraq becoming more democratic. Students
are marching in the streets of Iran. Jordan has allowed for parliamentary elections. Palestinians and Israelis are
talking peace. Syria is collaborating with the USA. Saudi Arabia has fired one thousands fundamentalists. The main cleric
of Islam (the Islamic equivalent of the Pope) has condemned suicide bombing. The Middle East has never had a better
chance for progress and democracy. A race to build weapons of mass destruction. Instead, in a matter of a few months
all Arab countries have publicly renounced weapons of mass destruction. (In december 2003, Libya even accepted to destroy
its entire arsenal). Terrorist attacks in the USA. Not a single terrorist attack has occurred in the USA or against
USA targets around the world. Add the widely reported looting of the Baghdad museum: European media reported that 170,000
artifacts had been stolen from the Baghdad museum. Well, the CIA must have done a good job of reproducing them very
quickly with accurate fakes, because the museum reopened with all 170,000 artifacts intact. In fact, for the first time
some rare exhibits were shown (Saddam had hidden them in a bank, possibly to steal them). About 30 small pieces are
missing, true, but most likely they were destroyed by the mob after the fall of Saddam. No major piece is missing. Even
the optimistic forecasts did not come true: the anti-Americans said that the USA had invaded Iraq to get cheap oil, and,
instead, the price of oil has been climbing steadily to record levels. The Anti-Americans accused the USA of wanting
to push the dollar up, and instead the dollar has collapsed to record lows. It would be nice if the politicians who
made those predictions (mostly in Europe), which obviously turned out to be completely inaccurate, resigned or, at
least, stopped making predictions. Back to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(June
2003) Why the ayatollah is right and Bush is wrong. On june 30, ayatollah Ali Sistani has called for general elections
in the country to choose representatives of the Iraqi people. The plan advanced by ayatollah Sistani is quite simple:
the Iraqi people should elect their own representatives to a council that would draw the new Iraqi constitution, and
then the Iraqi people should approve the new constitution in a referendum. Does it sound like USA-style democracy? Of
course. Did Bush oppose it? Of course. Bush, a president who was not elected by the people (52% of American voters
cast their vote against him), does not seem to desire any USA-style democracy in Iraq, just like he has not allowed
for democratic elections (or women's rights) in Afghanistan, and just like he has weakened the democracy of the USA itself.
(In July 2003, USA-controlled Kuwait allowed "free" parliamentary elections, but only 15% of the country's male citizens
and 0% of the female citizens were eligible to vote, and the result was a devastating blow to the democratic movement). Paul
Bremer, the little dictator appointed by Bush to transform Iraq from an Arab dictatorship into a banana republic, wants
to create a hand-picked political council that would name "key advisors" to government ministries. Does it sound like
China's communist system? You shouldn't be surprised: China's communist system is Bush's dream: a one-party system
in which the most powerful man makes all the decisions, his friends pocket all the money and dissidents "disappear"
in prison.
March 2003) Reasons not to go to war. There is an obvious reason why Saddam must go (he is a dictator). There is
an obvious reason why France does not want to remove that dictator ( the real problem is Chirac, not Saddam), which
is not too different from the reason of the Europacifists at large ( The Europacifists' desperate struggle to save
Saddam Hussein). But there are also reasons why the USA should think twice before invading Iraq, that have little to do
with Chirac's prescription for a "peaceful" (i.e., tyrannical) world: Saddam Hussein may be tempted to use his weapons
of mass destruction against his own people, if (as likely) the Iraqis will rise up against him. Saddam Hussein
may be tempted to use his weapons of mass destruction against Israel. The real enemy of the USA is not this or that
dictator: the real enemy was and remains Islam. Islam has declared a holy war against the USA. Islamic fundamentalists
around the world will interpret a war against Iraq as a stage in this holy war between the USA and Islam. This will
certainly help Islamic fundamentalists promote the notion that the holy war was not started by Islam but by the USA, and
this notion may recruit even moderate Muslims. Nothing hurts more the reputation of the USA than its double standards.
The USA claims that it is legitimate to invade Iraq because Iraq is in breach of several United Nations resolutions. True.
But so is Israel, which has never complied with 85 resolutions of the United Nations, for example resolutions 181 (establishment
of a Palestinian state), 237 (return of the 1967 Palestinian refugees), 252 (renounce Jerusalem as capital of Israel),
452 (halt Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas), 497 (return the Golan Heights to Syria). Is the USA planning to
invade Israel too? Why does the same law apply to Iraq and not to Israel? The enemy of your enemy is your friend. Despite
Powell's accusations that Saddam may some day help Osama bin Laden, the truth is exactly the opposite: Saddam Hussein
is the kind of secular, socialist traitor that Osama fights against. Given a choice, Osama would kill Saddam before
Bush. Osama's goal is to create a universal Islamic state, and Saddam Hussein (who would persecute any Islamic fundamentalist)
is a bigger obstacle than George Bush (who will do business with anyone) to Osama's dream. By attacking Saddam now, we
are removing an enemy of our enemy, i.e. we are helping the real enemy that has declared war on the USA (Islam). North
Korea and Al Qaeda may take advantage of the war in Iraq to stage a spectacular attack (against South Korea and against
the USA itself). Any military expert knows that first you remove the potential obstacles to your military campaign,
and then you launch your troops. North Korea and Al Qaeda have not been removed at all. There is no serious plan for
the future of Iraq. What happens after Saddam Hussein is removed? The idea that an American general can run an Arab
country is simply ridiculous. On the other hand, there is no credible Iraqi leader to lead a new Iraqi government. The
USA has a military presence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, that border on Iran. Turkey (northeastern border of Iran)
has always been a USA ally. If the USA wins the war against Saddam, it will also gain Iraq, i.e. the eastern border
of Iran. Iran will be surrounded by the USA. There is a serious chance that Iran will help Iraq, not because it likes
Saddam Hussein but because they don't want to get surrounded by the enemy. The Bush administration has not explained
how it plans to cope with either of these very likely scenarios. As much as we enjoy the idea of Saddam arrested and
tried for crimes against humankind, the Bush administration had not provided a rationale for dealing with those issues. Back
to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(February
2003) The facts about Iraq. Whatever the intention, the effect of what France and the "pacifists" are doing is to keep
Saddam in power. Every argument against the war has the effect of keeping him in power. If the whole world told Saddam
that there is going to be war, most likely Saddam would have already left the country. Whatever the declarations, it
is self-evident that France and the "pacifists" do not care for the Iraqi people. First of all, they never even dreamed
of asking the Iraqi people what they want: millions of pacifists marched against the war, but how many marched to
demand democratic elections in Iraq? Second, what the "pacifists" prescribe for the immediate future (and probably till
the death of Saddam) is the same old dictatorship. Third, the "pacifists" are very worried about the American bombs
(that will kill very few innocents) but are not worried at all about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, which could
kill a lot more civilians if, as it is very likely, the Iraqi people rise up against him and join the marines (the
same way they did during the first invasion, in 1991). The USA certainly does not need the Iraqi oil. The USA can already
count on oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf emirates and, soon, on the oil from Central Asia that will flow through
the pipeline that is being built through Afghanistan. Russia, Britain and China have their own oil. There is only
one world power that does not have any oil: France. That is also the one country that has already signed huge contracts
with Saddam Hussein. That is also the one country that is strongly opposed to removing Saddam Hussein from power. It is
about oil, as the pacifists claim, but not for the USA. Iraq's air force is made of Mirage (French) and MIG (Soviet).
Iraq's missiles are SCUDS (Soviet). Iraq's radars are Chinese. Iraq's tanks are Russian. Iraq's nuclear technology
is French and Russian. There is not a single gun that is made in the USA. Contrary to what many pacifists claim, the
USA has not armed Saddam Hussein. France and Russia did. Every inspector knows that Saddam had manufactured huge amounts
of biological and chemical weapons that have never been found. Millions of Iraqi civilians could be killed by these
weapons that the pacifists claim "do not exist" or "do not constitute a threat" (two of the most frequent claims in
pacifist rallies). These weapons do not constitute a threat for the pacifists, but they do constitute a serious threat
for the Iraqi people and neighboring peoples. The other Arab regimes are relatively indifferent. Most Arab leaders take
the public view that war is inevitable (Mubarak went as far as to blame Saddam for it, Qaddafi suggested an exile for
Saddam). The fact is that the Arab regimes are not doing anything to prevent it. Of course, they blame it on the USA.
But the truth is that they are not doing 1/10th of what France is doing to stop the war. Unlike France, that can only
talk, the Arab regimes could blackmail the USA with the oil. Being the neighbors of Saddam, they could stage massive protests
at the United Nations. The truth is that they are not doing anything to stop the USA. This front of "indifferent" regimes
even includes Iran, which, in theory, is an enemy of the USA, and which has been unusually silent about this war.
Again, France has been more outspoken in its opposition to the USA than Iran itself. It is a fact that all of Iraq's
neighbors seem to prefer a USA invasion of Iraq to a prolonged Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Saudi Arabia has already
announced that, once Iraq is liberated, it will request that the USA withdraw their troops from Saudi Arabia. Those
troops were stationed there in 1991, and are the very reason that Osama bin Laden started his anti-American terrorist
campaign. Those American troops on Saudi land are an embarrassment for the Saudi regime and a prime motive for anti-American
terrorism. It is in the interest of both Saudi Arabia and the USA that they are removed as soon as possible. While
the USA would never publicly admit that is giving in to Osama's requests, it is possible that one serious reason to
remove Saddam Hussein is the urgency to withdraw the troops from Saudi Arabia. Those troops are there only because of
Saddam Hussein: there is no other enemy in the area. Bush's plan is to remove Saddam and install a U.S. military governor,
leaving the ruling Baath party largely intact and granting an amnesty to all the ministers and generals who helped
Saddam over the years. The "pacifists" are completely missing the point when they focus their energies on stopping
the war (i.e., keeping Saddam in power) instead of focusing on what should replace Saddam. Installing an American
governor and leaving the same ruthless party in power does not justify war. Installing, for example, a United Nations
governor and introducing multi-party democracy does justify a war. But "pacifists" do not care for the Iraqi people,
so it is not surprising that they argue on everything except the future of the Iraqi people. The real issue should
be what to do next with Iraq. Once we remove Saddam Hussein (who has been dictator 24 years too many), who rules over
Iraq? The last thing that the world, Iraq or even the USA needs is an American general ruling over Iraq. On the other
hand, Iraq is not Timor or Afghanistan (where the opposition had powerful, charismatic leaders and even an army).
Iraq has no opposition government on the ground (the one in exile is totally unknown to the Iraqi people and has not
even been inside Iraq for years) and no opposition army. The United Nations could provide a transitional government
and an international police force, like it did in Kosovo, and gradually introduce multi-party democracy. It would be an
insult to the Iraqi people if we left the Baath party in power, and simply replaced a dictator with another dictator. However,
there are at least two problems. The Kurds have now formed their own government, and, in fact, are doing quite well, better
than ever in modern history. It is not clear what we will do with them: do we hand them over again to the Arabs that
will inevitably rule over Iraq? The Kurds are not too keen to be ruled again from Baghdad. Also, it is not clear how
well the Sunnis will accept a democratic Iraq, that is likely to become a Shiite country (Saddam and all previous
rulers were Sunnis, but the majority of Iraqis are Shiites). The largest Shiite country is its neighbor, Iran, which is
not a friend to the Arab regimes of the Gulf. Will the Iraqi Sunnis accept a Shiite majority, and will the neighboring
Sunni regimes (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan) accept it? Restoring the Iraqi economy will be easier than making
sense of a country that is one more irrational legacy from the era of European colonies.
(October 2002) Why Bush would never allow for democracy in Iraq. In 1991 the USA led a coalition to free Kuwait of
the Iraqi invaders. The USA then wanted to prove that it was worth defending Kuwait from Iraq and ordered the Kuwaiti
dictator to introduce democracy. Ten years later, women still cannot vote, and the Kuwaiti parliament can vote only
on negligible issues. Power is still held by the ruling family, and no election has ever been scheduled to let the people
decide if they like that family or not. In nearby Saudi Arabia, a country that the USA protects with thousands
of soldiers, it is not only women who cannot vote: men also cannot vote. If nothing else, the royal Saudi family does
not pretend to have democracy. Saudi Arabia was only one of the few countries to fund and recognize the Taliban. Saudi
Arabia is, of course, also the homeland of Osama Bin Laden and most of the September 11 terrorists. Neither the king
of Kuwait nor the royal Saudi family (nor any other Arab dictator) would welcome an Arab democracy in Iraq. It would set
a dangerous example throughout the Arab world. The Arab world has never had any democracy. Arab people grow up thinking
that democracy is a fiction of the West, a meaningless word, an excuse for America to fight Islam. If one Arab country
became a democracy, it would contradict centuries of Arab history. Furthermore, Iraq is now ruled by Sunni Arabs (like
Saddam) but Sunnis constitute only 16% of the population. The vast majority of Iraqis (about 60%) are Shiites. Most
of the Arab world is Sunni. The only major Shiite country is Iran, whose supreme ayatollah Khameini is a sworn enemy
of the USA. Thus, the USA itself has no interest in installing a democratic regime in Iraq that would most likely be friendly
to its arch-enemy Iran. Bush is interested in a regime change, but not necessarily a democratic one. It takes a different
kind of president to promote democracy in Iraq: it takes a president who is willing to admit America's guilt towards
the Iranian people (Iran's shah was supported by America before it was deposed by a popular revolution) and it takes
a president who is willing to remove brutal dictatorships (that support international terrorism) from all the Arab states
(including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco) and not only from Iraq. Back to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(October
2002) Did the USA give Saddam the bacteriological weapons? Alas, for many decades, everybody gave everybody else biological
material that should have been kept guarded. The USA and every other democracy in the world did not have a national
policy on what to do with germs. Research centers were free to sent germs to other research centers, anywhere in the
world. Companies were free to sell germs to other companies, anywhere in the world. The only countries that tightly
controlled the export of germs were the totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union, Eastern Germany and Cuba. The USA did
not have a national policy. Each USA research center was dealing with whichever research centers in the world it deemed
appropriate for medical research. There were very few exceptions (for example, smallpox, see below). Records show
that in 1986, the University of Baghdad requested and obtained anthrax and botulinum, besides more innocuous germs (probably
used to prove that the germs were needed for legitimate medical research). In 1988, the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence
Center at Fort Detrick reported that Iraq was building a bacteriological arsenal (particularly, botulinum and anthrax)
disguised as medical research. The report deatailed how Iraqi scientists were purchasing germs from the American Type
Culture Collection, which served scientists of all over the world. Getting the authorization to export those germs
was a mere formality. Sale of those germs was legal not only to Iraqi research centers but to research centers of
any country in the world that was not under USA sanctions (basically, anybody except Iran, Libya and CUba). It was
later discovered that, between 1985 and 1989, there was a stream of purchases by Iraqi research centers from USA-based
companies, purchases that included, again, anthrax and botulinum. At the same time, Iraq was purchasing material for
weapons of mass destruction from many other countries. A study published on the German magazine "Die Tageszeitung"
revealed that German companies sold more of such material to Iraq than to any other country in the world. Unfortunately,
in the 1980s authorization for such transactions was easy to obtain. It was much more difficult to export a microchip
than a germ. Companies based in the USA, Germany, France and Britain supplied Iraqi organizations (and every other
research center in the world) with germs. It was normal procedure, just like exchanging astronomical pictures or geological
data. (So did the Soviet Union, Eastern Germany and Cuba, but in their case it was explicitly approved by the regime). In
the 1980s any research facility in the world could have obtained USA germs, simply by asking. Some of the Iraqi research
centers that obtained germs from the USA were recognized by the UNESCO (a United Nations department) as legitimate
medical research centers. Iraq was not the only country to take advantage of western naivete and pursue such a program.
In 1971, Syria created the Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC). That center has acquired nuclear, chemical
and biological technologies from all over the world. In 1992, the German government ordered German research centers and
companies to suspend any cooperation with the SSRC because it was discovered that it reports directly to the Syrian
military. Israeli and CIa intelligence agree that the SSRC has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and is actively
trying to build a nuclear bomb. Export of germs to Iraq became illegal in the USA on 23 february 1989, when the Commerce
Department was ordered by the Bush administration to ban sales of bacteriological material to Iraq, Iran, Libya and
Syria. While USA companies and universities helped Iraq in good faith, the Soviet Union (and possibly France) deliberately
helped Iraq develop bacteriological weapons. Iraq probably obtained a strain of smallpox from Nelja Maltseva, a Russian
virologist who worked at the Research Institute for Viral Preparations in Moscow (the institute that used to house
the largest collection of smallpox in the world, now housed in Vector). She is known to have traveled to Iraq frequently
in the 1970s. Russia denies that she ever was in Iraq, but records by the World Health Organization show that she
was in Iraq at least in 1972 and 1973 (besides, of all places, Iran and Syria). Iraq has admitted that its biological
weapons program started in 1974. The Iraqi bio-weapon program is tightly related to the secret Soviet program. In 1971,
an outbreak of smallpox in Aralsk (Kazakstan), caused by an experiment of biological weapons, killed dozens of Soviet
citizens. Interviews with survivors of that incident seem to indicate that the Soviet Union conducted open-air tests on
Vozrozhdeniye Island in the Aral Sea. That island is still infested with anthrax and other dangerous germs. Apparently,
that incident convinced the Soviet authorities to invest more resources into biological warfare. It also convinced
nearby countries that biological weapons were easier, cheaper and "better" than nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union
signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1972, but Russia now admits that it continued the world's most
ambitious germ-weapons program (the USA had already halted its program in 1969). In 1973, the Soviet Politburo created
"Biopreparat", a secret research project for biological weapons that employed between 50,000 and 100,000 people. By
1988, the Soviet Union had produced a few hundred tons of plague, anthrax, smallpox, and other germs, enough to exterminate
the entire population of the USA. Ironically, when it collapsed, the Soviet Union "was" the real super-power in the
world, because the USA could never have competed in terms of biological weapons. The defections in 1989 of Vladimir Pasechnik,
director of one of the main laboratories, and in 1992 of Kanadjan Alibekov, deputy director of Biopreparat, provided the
most vivid account of the bio-weapon research undertaken by the Soviet Union after 1972. To this day, Russia has opposed
any suggestion to allow international inspectors into its laboratories. There is no evidence of continued cooperation
between Russia and Iraq during the 1980s, but Iraq's bio-weapon program certainly picked up speed after 1987, when
the Al-Muthanna research center was transferred to the Al-Salman facility, and 1988, when the Al-Hakam Factory was
inaugurated. By 1990, Iraq was capable of weaponizing the biological agents (on SCUD missiles provided by the Soviet Union).
The United Nations inspectors believe that 380,000 liters of Botulinum toxin and 84,250 liters of anthrax spores were
manufactured during these years. Iraq denied having produced any smallpox, but in 1995 the inspectors found a container
labeled "smallpox". In 1997, the inspectors also found a document about the vaccines that were prescribed for the
Iraqi army, and the third on the list was smallpox. The speed at which these projects were carried out makes it unlikely
that Iraq worked on them alone.
(October 2002) The Iraqi nuclear program. In 1971 Saddam Hussein created the Iraqi program to build a nuclear weapon,
which will remain to this day under his personal control. Iraqi scientist Khidhir Abdul Abas Hamza defected to the
United States in 1994, and described the details of Iraq's nuclear program. The program was a grotesque failure: by
1987 all that Iraq had built was the gas centrifuge designed in the 1940s by Jessie Beams, a classic of nuclear engineering
but so inefficient that the USA has made them public (the designs can be found on the Internet). The breakthrough came
in 1989, when German scientist Karl-Heinz Schaab sold German uranium-enrichment technology to Iraq. Schaab used to
work for MAN Technologien AG, a subcontractor of Urenco, which specializes in nuclear technology. Schaab sold Saddam the
design of the TC-11, a gas centrifuge, for about $350,000. This was a clandestine operation, for which Schaab will
be convicted in a German tribunal in 1992, captured in 1996 and finally jailed in 1999. But Schaab has told a different
story. He has declared to Der Spiegel: "In such difficult times, our company needed a rich customer." Which implies
that he was working for his company, not on his own. Another former Urenco employee, Bruno Stemmler, helped Iraqi engineers
on the design of the centrifuge. Again, Germany claims it was the action of an individual acting on his own, outside
the law. Ditto for Walter Busse, the third Urenco employee arrested for this crime. They all spent weeks in Rashdiya
(north of Baghdad), the center of Iraq's nuclear-weapons research. But at the same time (throughout the year 1989)
the German company Interatom GmbH (which belongs to the Siemens group, the largest industrial group in Germany) sold
Iraq equipment and training. Interatom was the supplier of MAN and Urenco. By its own admission, Iraq acquired more
know-how legally from Interatom than illegally from Schaab. Siemens always denied that this dealings ever occurred until
United Nations inspectors found Siemens (Interatom) material all over the Iraqi nuclear research facilities in 1995. Siemens
now claims that it did not know the Iraqis were nuclear engineers: Siemens thought they were welders. At the same
time, Iraq and Libya were offering huge amounts of money to India for its nuclear technology (as revealed by Jasjit Singh
on 30 August 1998). India never accepted a penny, and never sold any technology, showing a much higher moral standard
than Germany. United Nations inspector Scott Ritter, who eventually resigned in disgust, has repeatedly stated that
Iraq has manufactured and is hiding at least three 20-kiloton nuclear bombs. The bombs only lack the uranium cores.
Ritter claims that in 1998 the United Nations knew exactly where the bombs were kept by Iraq, but refused to order an
inspection of the site. Therefore Saddam had time to move the bombs elsewhere. At the same time that Ritter was
discovering the three nuclear bombs in Iraq, two countries, Russia and France, were repeatedly asking the United Nations
to suspend any further investigation of Iraq's nuclear program. It is not known if Russia's and France's insistence was
due to complicity with Saddam or to sheer stupidity. We can speculate that Russia had something to hide and France
simply wanted the oil that Saddam was willing to pay in return for the favor, which case one was a criminal and the
other one was a prostitute. By this time, Saddam had changed his focus. He had come to realize that nuclear weapons
are difficult to build, protect and use. Chemical and biological weapons are much easier to build, store and use.
Again, Saddam approached Germany, namely the Water Engineering Trading Company. This German company claims that it only
helped build a factory for pesticides. This led to the investigation of 56 German companies, directly or indirectly
involved in the business of selling dangerous materials to Saddam. All of them were probably aware of what the purpose
was, but only six have been eventually sent to jail. In most cases it was impossible to prove the case, although it was
obvious to an idiot that Saddam was try to make huge quantities of "pesticides". As a German official said, "Judging
by the flow of materials, Iraq must have a huge problem with insects". Last but not least, Germany supplied Saddam
with his own bunker. It was built by a Dusseldorf company and furnished by a Munich firm. It was provided with all
the comforts in case the temperature above ground reaches deadly levels (in other words, in case the USA drops a nuclear
bomb on Baghdad). If well-paid German engineers were so willing to sell Saddam these dangerous secrets, can you imagine
how tempted the poorly-paid Russian engineers must be to do the same? What are the odds that at least one Russian
or Kazak or Ukraine engineer has sold Saddam the nuclear core that he needed? Very high. And, yet, in october 2002
a familiar pattern is repeating itself: France and Russia are slowing down the United Nations resolution that would
send inspectors into Iraq. What are they hiding in Iraq? See a timeline of the Middle East German exports of nuclear
technology to Iraq German cooperation with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction Iraq's nuclear programme Back to the
world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(October
2002) Why Saddam must go. Saddam must go not because he is a threat to other countries, but because he has been, is and
will always be a threat to his own people. He has been dictator of Iraq for a quarter of a century. He has obviously
never contemplated retiring, even after losing two wars (Iran and Kuwait). It is a shame that the international community
has agreed to disarm Iraq, but not to remove Saddam. Disarming Iraq is plainly unfair: why should the Iraqi people
be left with no weapons, when their neighbors are allowed to keep their arms? Why should the Iraqis destroy weapons that
they have legally purchased with their oil? Those weapons belong to the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people should be allowed
to decide what to do with them. Is anyone telling Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, or, for that matter, France which weapons
it is allowed to keep? Disarming Iraq is just unfair. Removing Saddam, on the other hand, and dissolving the Baath
party, is a humanitarian act. The Iraqi people deserve a better government. Hopefully, an American invasion of Iraq
will remove Saddam and let the Iraqi people rebuild their country. Hopefully, this will result in the first Arab democracy
in history. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a new era for the entire Arab world and the entire Middle East. The
people who don't want an American invasion of Iraq are simply hypocritical. They know exactly what Saddam has done, and
they know exactly what he would do again. They simply want to avoid another American triumph, and they are willing
to sacrifice the entire population of Iraq, if necessary, to keep America from annihilating another dictatorship. The
war in Afghanistan has been a terrible blow to anti-Americans world-wide. They expected the Afghani population to rise
against the Americans like they did against the Soviet Union twenty years ago. Surprise: the Afghanis actually welcomed
the British and the Americans who were liberating Kabul, and they actually shaved their beards and they started watching
tv and listening to the radio. In other words, they very much enjoy the freedom given to them by the Americans and
the British. Karzai, the US-appointed new leader of Afghanistan, is by far the most popular leader in Asia, the only one
who is supported by a huge popular consensus. After opposing the invasion of Afghanistan and screaming "jihad jihad"
against America, the European Pacifists and the Arabs (the main anti-American groups in the world) are changing the
subject. It is fairly obvious that the Afghani people are happier now than they ever were over the last 30 years.
One thing that is now fairly obvious is that Afghanis hate Arabs and Pakistanis, considering them the invaders (not America).
It was the Arab countries (led by Saudi Arabia) and Pakistan that engineered the invasion of Afghanistan by the Taliban.
Even the Russians have been forgiven. The Arabs and the Pakistanis have not been forgiven yet. They are seen as ready
to destabilize the country again at the first opportunity. The horror for Euro-pacifists and Arabs is that an invasion
of Iraq could end up the same way: millions of Iraqis celebrating the fall of Saddam, a very popular US-appointed
leader, and Iraqi hatred for the other Arab countries that helped Saddam stay in power. That is the main reason to
oppose an American invasion of Iraq. The other reasons that Euro-pacifists (Saddam's strongest friends) and Arabs mention
are obviously false: an invasion would kill fewer people than Saddam would kill in a year. The Euro-pacifists can hardly
pretend to care for the Iraqi people, since they never said a word against Saddam's atrocities and they did not complain
when the USA shamelessly fled Iraq in 1992 leaving Saddam free to massacre shiites and kurds. The Euro-pacifists care
for many things (mainly gasoline) but certainly not for the Iraqi people. And, yes, the Iraqi people do want an invasion:
there are about one million Iraqis who managed to escape, and who now live in other countries, and the vast majority
is in favor of an invasion even if their own relatives could be harmed. The Kurds who live in the north of Iraq have formed
their own parliament and are living a very civilized life, afraid only that the USA may pull out and Saddam may return.
The Euro-pacifists never ask the people what they want, because the goal of the Euro-pacifists is not to give the
people what the people want but to give them what they, the Euro-pacifists, want. The people of Iraq (shiites, kurds and
ordinary sunnis) want a regime change, and they will get help from anyone who offers to help. Alas, only the USA and Britain
are offering that kind of help. So it's only the Euro-pacifists and the other Arab dictators who don't want an
American invasion of Iraq. And the reason is that they don't want another American triumph. Period. We, on the other
hand, think that there can be only one end to the Iraqi problem: 1. removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and 2. trial
of Saddam Hussein by an Iraqi court. Period. Anything else is a disgusting compromise for the sake of oil. This is
a serial killer who has personally assassinated relatives and dissidents. This is a demented tyrant who tried to exterminate
entire towns. This is a megalomaniac bent on invading the entire world. He must be removed, and he must be tried.
No, it is not enough to disarm Iraq: we do care for the safety of the people of Iraq, not just for our own safety. We
want Saddam removed. And we want Saddam tried, so that other Arab dictators will think twice about repeating those
horrors. (Ideally we would also love to see the Euro-pacifists pay a price for defending Saddam, and maybe condemned
to visit the families of all the innocents massacred by Saddam over the years). No doubt that Bush has done a lot to
boost the case of the Euro-pacifists. He is a most unpleasant solution to the problem of removing Saddam. But you
don't look at the teeth of the horse when the horse is a gift. We swallow our pride and put the interest of the Iraqi
people first: if Bush is the way that Saddam can be removed, let Bush be. (It would help, though, if Bush shut up and
let Powell deal with the world's public opinion). "It's the oil", as the Euro-pacifists say; but it's "their" oil that
they are talking about. It's the Euro-pacifists who want to keep Saddam in power so that he can sell his oil to their
countries, and they can keep driving to the discos while he slaughters the Iraqi population. That is what the Euro-pacifists
have been doing since Saddam came to power: enjoy the ride and ignore the crimes that make that ride possible. "It's
the oil" that, for example, keeps France and Russia from agreeing to an invasion. "It's the oil" that keeps us from
doing what we have done in Serbia and Afghanistan. And please dismantle the United Nations if that institution exists
only to defend the interests of mad dictators. See a timeline of the Middle East
(October 2002) The world on the war against Iraq Most Americans are in favor of military intervention against Iraq
but only want to disarm Iraq so that Iraq cannot pose a threat to America George W Bush also wants to remove Saddam,
not only disarm Iraq The only other world leader who wants to remove Saddam is Tony Blair of Britain Most British
are opposed to the war, although by a narrow margin Most Europeans are opposed to any military action, no matter what,
by a large margin Most nations are opposed to military action unless Iraq provokes the United Nations. All Arab
countries are opposed to a war against Iraq. Most Arabs are strongly opposed to a war against Iraq (not because they
love Saddam, but because they perceive a double standard in America's behavior towards Iraq and towards Israel). The
Iraqis hate the USA more than they hate Saddam (the sanctions have punished the Iraqi people but obviously not Saddam
Hussein, who is still in power) The Kurds in the north of Iraq do not want to be part of Iraq and have assembled
their own parliament The Iraqi government in exile (in London) has plans to grant autonomy to ethnic minorities Nobody
seems too worried about the 4,000-year old monuments of Mesopotamia (the oldest in the world), which happen to be in today's
Iraq
See a timeline of the Middle East Back to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(March
2002) What it takes to take on Saddam. As the American build-up in the Gulf continues day and night (whether acknowledged
or not by the Bush administration) and it appears ever more likely that a strike will happen before the November elections
(the only thing that really drives US foreign policy), a number of factor has to fall in place for the operation to
be successful: Some sort of peace agreement must have been reached in Palestine. That is the purpose of the sudden
American determination in stopping Sharon's bloody massacres of Palestinians. Those massacres have further deteriorated
the mood in the Arab world, where America is largely seen as the defender of an injustice: Israel's occupation of Palestine.
America has never done a good job of explaining why Israel has entitled to occupy those territories (has any Arab country
ever surrendered what it conquered in a war?) and has never done any effort to explain to the Arab masses that life
is much better under Israel than under any of the dictators of the Arab world (millions of Arabs have been killed
by their dictators, relatively few have been killed by Israel). America now pays those decades of indifference: the
Arab world is convinced that an injustice has been committed, that America is biased towards Israel (hard to deny) and
that America lies all the time. Without peace between Israel and Palestine, nobody in the Arab world will support
a war against Saddam Hussein: hatred for Israel is far stronger than despise for Saddam. There must be an alternative
to Saddam. Nobody (not Turkey, not Israel, not Saudi Arabia) wants the disintegration of Iraq in a number of smaller
states (as in Yugoslavia). This is probably the biggest problem, as there is no single person in Iraq or outside who has
the charisma to take over the country. Last but not least, a pretext must be found. Saddam is dumb enough to keep challenging
the United Nations inspectors: the United Nations has had a valid excuse to attack Iraq since 1991. However, Saddam could
get smart and allow the inspectors in. At that point, a US strike would become impossible. Bush has to fabricate an international
incident (as Johnson did in Vietnam) or find a link between Saddam and Osama (but they have been trying for six months
and could not come up with anything). Bush needs this war and a victory. He has obviously lost the war against
Osama: Osama achieved what he wanted (terror in the USA, destruction of the World Trade Center) and is still alive. Only
a couple of his most dangerous associates have been arrested: the others are still free, address unknown, ready to
strike. This would be hardly reassuring for the American people, if only American people read the news. Sooner or
later they will. Bush needs to win one, a big one, before Americans begin wondering what has truly been won in Afghanistan.
Saddam is the obvious target. He is hated by everybody, even by those who defend him. He has his hands tied behind his
back. Nobody will go to war to help him. See a timeline of the Middle East Back to the world news | Top of this
page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(October 2001) Saddam's biological
weapons Richard Butler, the chief United Nations arms inspector, has pointed out some interesting facts about Iraq's
opposition to inspections of its military facilities (see UNSCOM's reports). Iraq won a psychological and propaganda war
against the USA and Britain: while the winning countries wanted to continue United Nations inspections of weapons
of mass destruction, Iraq wanted them to stop, claiming there was nothing more to inspect. First Russia and then France
agreed that enough was enough, and the inspectors were sent home without having finished their job. Therefore, Saddam
Hussein is free to continue building weapons of mass destruction undisturbed. Butler points out that Iraq opposed all
kinds of inspections and did everything it could to hamper the work of the inspectors, but Butler points out that
there was relatively little opposition to inspections of nuclear facilities compared with chemical and especially biological
facilities. We know that Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981 and Israel's intelligence is usually very
reliable. So we know that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Israel may have stopped him just in
time and the US bombing of 1991 may have finished that job. Besides, let's face it: nuclear weapons are too complicated
to manufacture, complicated to store and complicated to shoot. The enemy knows who sent them and may retaliate massively
(Israel certainly would). What are they good for? Only for Saddam Hussein's image (he was dreaming of becoming the
first Arab leader with a nuclear weapon). Iraq used chemical weapons both during the 1980s in the war against Iran
and in 1988 against its own rebellious Kurdish population. So we know Iraq had chemical weapons. There is no doubt that
Iraq has produced huge amounts of VX nerve gas. Iraq itself has admitted producing 4 tons of VX nerve gas, but United
Nations inspectors estimate that at least 200 tons of VX nerve gas could have been produced before the war (one kg
of VX is enough to kill thousands of people, one ton is enough to kill everybody in a city as big as New York). Iraq
tried to hid its missile warheads, but the United Nations inspectors found a few of them and they tested positive for
VX nerve gas: Iraq was busy arming its missiles with chemical weapons (something that Israel had claimed all along
but nobody listened). During his "experiments" with the Iranians and the Kurds, Saddam Hussein came to appreciate
the power of chemical weapons but he also realized that you can't win a war with chemical weapons (in fact, he lost
against Iran). Again, the main problem is that it is not very easy to kill with chemical weapons without being noticed:
the enemy gets really mad at you and can easily defend itself from your chemical weapons. Biological weapons are,
instead, beautiful, because the enemy does not realize it has been struck until it's too late; and it may not even
know who struck it. If your population starts dying of anthrax, how can you tell if the anthrax came from Iraq or Iran
or Korea? Nuclear weapons are the weapons of choice for any world power because they cause immediate and direct destruction.
They are the most effective deterrent. But biological weapons are actually the weapon of choice for any kind of guerrilla-like
or terroristic activity: they don't require a missile (any human being can be a carrier of a biological weapon, as
long as s/he is willing to die with it), they are hard to detect, they are easy to carry. Iraq's suspicious resistance
to any inspection of its biological facilities is coupled with a chronic level of lying that would look pathetic if
it wasn't so blatant. At the end of the Gulf war, Iraq initially admitted that it had produced 650 litres of anthrax.
As inspectors found more and more anthrax, Iraq kept admitting higher and higher figures. By the time the inspectors
had to leave, the figure stood at 8,400 litres... and counting. Saddam claimed that the vast Al Hakam factory complex
produced agricultural products: the inspectors found clear traces that huge quantities of anthrax (about 50,000 litres
of anthrax and botulinum) had been produced there. The latest estimate is that Iraq had produced 19,000 litres of botulinum,
8,400 litres of anthrax, 2,000 litres of aflatoxin and clostridium. These are all deadly agents that can cause painful
deaths. There is evidence that Iraq had armed ballistic missiles with botulinum, anthrax and aflatoxin. Iraq has
also been known to court former Soviet biologists who worked on biological weapons programs for the old Soviet Union.
Between 1945 and 1992, the Soviet Union produced the largest stockpile of biological weapons in the world, about ten
times more than the USA. We now know that 60,000 Soviet scientists worked on biological weapons, as opposed to 3,400
American scientists (see this table). It is unknown what happened to that huge stockpile of biological weapons and
what happened to those 60,000 Soviet scientists (A brief history of the Soviet biological weapons program). Unfortunately,
the United Nations inspections basically stopped at the end of 1998, because of Russian and French pressure (Russia still
thinks in cold-war terms, and France is eager to do business with Iraq). We don't know how much more Iraq has produced
since then, where it has hidden it and who it has given it to. The USA is largely to blame for this. First of all,
the USA refused to pay its dues to the United Nations for several years: this weakened the USA position within the
United Nations and eventually even allies like France reacted with a "hey, if you don't believe in the United Nations,
why should the United Nations work for you?". Second and most important, in august 1995 two of Saddam Hussein's sons
in law (general Hussein Kamel al-Majid, who oversaw Iraq's program of weapons of mass destruction, and colonel Saddam
Kamel al-Majid, head of Saddam's bodyguards) fled to Jordan with a bounty of information about those very weapons
of mass destruction that the inspectors had not been able to find. Their defection was the single most important breakthrough
in the war against terrorism ever. For six months they waited patiently in Jordan for the USA to rescue them. The
USA was too busy with sex scandals and let them languish there, where they could be killed any day by Saddam's agents.
Eventually, they made a deal with Saddam to be allowed to return to Iraq. In february 1996 they returned to Iraq and
one week later they were both shot dead in an "incident" with guards led by Saddam's eldest son, Uday, the rising
star of Iraqi politics (their mother was then brutally killed in 2000). There will never be a defector again: the
USA has proven to the Iraqi people how it treats heroes who risk their lives to help the USA against Saddam. Ironically,
the very reason that Iraq (and anyone else) could develop its biological weapons goes back to a decision taken by the
USA in 1991 (George Bush senior) to oppose verification of the Biological Weapons Convention (the USA was joined by
Iran and Iraq). On July 25, 2001, due to the opposition of the Senate, the USA announced that it would not ratify
the protocol for verification of the Biological Weapons Convention (one of the many international agreements that the
George W Bush administration has refused to sign). How ironic that, only two months later, terrorists attacked the
USA and people started dying of anthrax (See this paper). See a timeline of the Middle East Back to the world news
| Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(October 2001)
Did America kill the Iraqi children? Arabs routinely accuse America of having caused terrible sufferings to the Iraqi
people by enforcing sanctions that hurt the civilians, not Saddam. In particular, a recurring mantra is that hundreds
of thousands of children have died in Iraq because Iraq cannot buy medicines or food. Even some Americans admit that
thousands of Iraqi children have suffered and died because of the sanctions imposed by the United Nations on Iraq.
Was this slaughter of innocents justified? (See also How many Iraqi civilians are killed by the sanctions?) First of
all, one wonders why the Iraqi children are so precious. Nobody did much to save the thousands of children who were killed
in Rwanda by the hutus, in Timor by Indonesia, in Afghanistan by the Taliban, in Hama by Syria, and, lo and behold,
by Saddam Hussein in northern and southern Iraq (even using chemical weapons). Nobody seems too concerned that every
day thousands of children die of hunger in Africa. It seems that the only children that really matter are those born
in Iraq. Second, before believing dictators one should always make sure of what the facts really are. Saddam and a
whole bunch of terrorists claim that up to one million children died over the last ten years because of the United
Nations sanctions against Iraq. But that is way too many because of the population of Iraq: it would mean that almost
every child is sick and that a large percentage die, which is not consistent with the image of well-nourished children
we have seen in Bagdad and it is not consistent with the children we can count in the areas that are not ruled by
Saddam (kurdish and shiite areas, which happen to be the poorest areas). Some Americans estimate that half a million
children died over ten years. That figure is also not realistic. By all accounts, Sudan has a far more devastating
situation (apparently, neither Arab countries nor westerners care much about the lives of Sudanese children) because
of the drought and the civil war. Humanitarian organizations estimate that about 20,000 children die every year in Sudan
because of lack of food and medicines. That would make 200,000 in ten years. But there is no comparison: half the
population of Sudan is starving, whereas nobody is starving in Iraq. Sudan is in the middle of a devastating civil
war, whereas in Iraq all infrastructures are working (albeit not as well as before the war). So it is hard to believe
that more Iraqi children die than Sudanese children, unless somebody proves that the Iraqis are genetically inferior to
the Sudanese. By comparison with Sudan, we can estimate that possibly between 10,000 and 100,000 children have died
in Iraq over the last ten years. That is a more realistic number. This is also consistent with the numbers provided
by Iraqi dissidents in exile. Nobody ever asks Iraqi dissidents what they think. It seems that Saddam Hussein is the
only reliable source of information on Iraq. Whatever he says, it immediately becomes news for Arabs and westerners
alike. Whatever the dissidents say, it is completely ignored by everybody. Somehow, we have decided that dictators like
Saddam Hussein are more credible than freedom fighters like his opponents. Now: how many people did Saddam kill
before the sanctions were imposed? We don't know for sure, because Iraq does not have the free press that America
has, but most estimates by Iraqi dissidents put the figure at between 100,000 and one million people, mostly in the shiite
south and in the kurdish north of the country (lots of them were children, but Westerners are not very interested in children
killed before 1991). Plus Saddam caused the death of about one million Iranians when he attacked Iran (this was before
the invasion of Kuwait, but nobody cared for the lives of Iranian children the way they now care for the lives of
Iraqi children). Saddam used chemical weapons against both Iran and Kurds. We can estimate that at least one million
total died because of Saddam Hussein before the war in Kuwait. There is no evidence that Saddam has suddenly become
a saint, so we can expect that he would use the same chemical weapons and kill the same number of people if he only
could. Grand total. By enforcing the current control of Iraq, America has saved the lives of about one million people
and caused the death of about 100,000 children. The problem is that the children are Iraqi, and they seem to count
a lot more than the Iranian, Kurdish and Shiite children. Now, what killed those 100,000 Iraqi children? Iraq has been
receiving plenty of food and medicines in exchange for oil. Why do children still die? What do they die of? This is
not clear. All accounts are vague about the causes of those deaths. In many cases it is surgeries that are not possible
because hospitals do not have the appropriate equipment. Excuse us, but about 150 countries of the world are in the
same situation: why do we worry only about the hospitals of Iraq and not about the hospitals of Laos or Ghana or Guyana?
Are Iraqis a superior race? Ditto for the other medicines. In most if not all cases, the medicines that Iraq does not
have are the very same medicines that no other developing country has. Children die in all of those countries: why
do we count only the children killed in Iraq? who killed them? Saddam Now, who killed those 100,000 Iraqi children?
Saddam says that America did. But the truth is that America would be more than happy to flood the Iraqi market with
American made medicines. The reason America does not send medicines to Iraq is that Saddam takes the medicines for
his own entourage, his army, his government, and even sells some of them abroad to buy arms on the black market. Sending
medicines to Iraq is a way to help Saddam. If Saddam really wants to save those 100,000 children, why can't he just
resign? After all, nobody elected him and we suspect that many Iraqis would be very happy to see him go. Why doesn't Saddam
resign and save those 100,000 children? Arabs tend to forgive Arab dictators and place the blame for everything
on the West. They would have a better chance to improve their part of the world (by far the highest density of dictatorships
on the planet) if they faced the fact that most of their problems are due to their dictators, not to the western democracies. Saddam
Hussein has killed one million dissidents, one million Iranians and 100,000 Iraqis children. That is the truth. America
has committed only one "crime": it has been too nice to Saddam Hussein. In the old days, the loser of the war would
be dead or in exile. Saddam Hussein lost a war and is still in power. That is what is killing the Iraqi children. See
a timeline of the Middle East Back to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(December
1999) Iraq commands and France obeys. See a timeline of the Middle East Back to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(December
1999) (Ocotber 1999) Iraq: the hidden war. While the world is looking at Kosovo and Indonesia, a war is still underway
in Iraq. UK and US warplanes keep pounding Iraqi positions in the south: they have flown 16,000 sorties, dropped more
than 600 bombs, fired more than 1,000 missiles in the first nine months of 1999 alone. This is almost exactly the
number of bombs and missiles used against Serbia during the Kosovo war. Note: this is in the south as well in the north.
This is not to defend the kurds. The official version is that the Iraqis fire to US and UK planes and they fire
back. No explanation is given as to why the Iraqis would attack vastly superior air forces and be glad to receive such
damaging punishment. The facts say that Iraq has won the political conflict: while the US and UK insisted that
Iraq accepted the periodic NATO controls over weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has expelled all of the NATO experts
and has unmasked a few of them as US spies. This has embarassed the US and weakened the argument in favor of international
isolation of Iraq. France and Russia have de facto already broken that isolation and are ready to reopen business
routes with Iraq. Most Arab countries would be in favor of letting Iraq resume selling oil, now that oil prices are
high enough. So the US and UK are left alone to struggle with Saddam's political victory. Their only consolation is
that every day that goes by they destroy another little bit of Saddam's powerful war machine. Bottom line: Iraq has
won politically, while it is losing militarily. Back to the world news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(November
1998) Iraq is cheating, but the West is hypocrite . There are no doubts that Iraq has been cheating and will be cheating
on the United Nations' inspections. Saddam's power and prestige rests on Iraq's most precious possessions: its weapons
of mass destruction, which are most likely just chemical weapons. At the end of the war, Iraq claimed that it didn't
have a single chemical weapon. Since the, the United Nations inspections have destroyed some 38,500 chemical weapons.
At the end of the war, Iraq claimed that it didn't have a single nuclear weapon. True, but the United Nations inspections
found clandestine caches of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, enough to build more nuclear weapons than China
has. It would be comic if it weren't tragic. Whatever else Iraq has managed to hide from the inspectors (mainly thanks
to tips from the French and the Russians) is likely to constitute a considerable arsenal. Otherwise Saddam would not
have lost 120 billion dollars in oil revenues over the last seven years. If the West really wants to disarm Iraq, the
only option is to get rid of Saddam Hussein. No Western country seems to be willing to do that, but sooner or later
there will be a showdown. Cornered, Saddam will have no choice but to use the chemical weapons that he treasures.
Most likely, he will use them against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (bombing Israel would call for devastating retaliation,
bombing Iran would be unpopular across the Muslim world). The Western world must be ready to decide whether it is
prepared to go to war against a country that will be desperate enough to use chemical weapons. Back to the world
news | Top of this page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(March
1998) Why is America so obsessed with Saddam Hussein? . The official answer is "because he constitutes a threat to its
neighbors". Lie: none of Iraq's neighbors is willing to go to war against Iraq and all refuse to let the Americans
conduct a war from their territory. A secondary answer is "because he is a brutal dictator". True, but so are the
Chinese leaders, whom America has never even threatened to bomb. Third reason: "because he may invade Kuwait again".
Well, China is still occupying Tibet and nobody seems ready to even vaguely condemn that. And Kuwait is not exactly a
reputable democracy that is worth defending. The funny thing is that Saddam has never threatened the West. He has
attacked only Muslim countries, first Iran and second Kuwait. He never used chemical or nuclear weapons against western
or Israeli soldiers, not even during the Gulf War. He has used weapons of mass destructions only against Iran. When
has he threatened the West? A fourth reason would be that he poses a threat to Israel. Well, first of all it is not
clear why America has this duty of always siding with Israel, especially since recently Israel has done precious little
to deserve any sympathy. Second, Israel possesses far more powerful weapons of mass destruction than Iraq (enough that
the West should be concerned about Israel's weapon program, not Iraq's), therefore Saddam is unlikely to ever drop
a single microbe on Israel. Third, Saddam's natural enemies are the other Muslim leaders (especially Syria's, Iran's
and Saudi Arabia's), not Israel. Finally, the vast majority of countries in the United Nations would vote against a
strike, and a majority is in favor or abandoning the embargo. America is right in trying to limit the spread of those
weapons, but America is likely to have more influence on Iraq if it approached Saddam as a customer of its oil industry.
Probably, just offering him a nuclear umbrella against Iran would convince Saddam to curtail his investment in weapons
of mass destruction. Saddam is in power because neither Iraq's people nor Iraq's neighbors are willing to get rid
of him. Why should America bother? Let us not forget that Saddam has been a far better ruler to his people than most
arab dictators. Before the Gulf War, the Iraqi people did enjoy a good life. Saddam did invest in roads, hospitals and
schools. Iraqis are far better educated than most Arabs. Let us not forget that the U.S. itself sided with Saddam during
his war against Khomeini's Iran. Iraq was a friend (if not an ally) of the West. Iraq sold oil to the West for as
long as the West wanted to buy it. Iraq never represented a threat to western interests in the Gulf. Saddam informed
the U.S. ambassador and a delegation of U.S. senators (led by Bob Dole) of his claims over Kuwait, and he misunderstood
their silence as a sign of non-interference. Most likely, he had no intention of hurting western interests, and would
have been happy to continue normal relationships with the West, if nothing else to counterbalance Iran's threat to
the east. The real issue is the buildup of weapons of mass destruction, in particular in the Middle East. That issue
will not be resolved after Saddam is gone or disarmed. That issue will remain for as long as 1. Israel is at war (whether
formally or ideologically) with the Arabs; and 2. Israel is allowed to keep its nuclear and chemical arsenals. It
is a little unfair to expect that all Arab countries disarm when Israel has a huge and unchecked arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction. Let's not forget that the first country to ever use nuclear weapons was the United States and
the first country to ever use chemical weapons was again the United States, and in both instances they killed many
thousand civilians. The United States now rules the world. It is hard to explain to any developing country that weapons
of mass destruction don't pay off. Today, Iraq is a secular country. If Saddam is removed from power, there is
a strong chance that it will become (yet another) fundamental islamist country. It is not clear what interest the West
has in destabilizing Iraq's current regime.
|