As I write this, CBC Radio is broadcasting a Memorial Day service to honour the Canadian men and women who lost their lives in defense of our country. At the same time, the headlines are filled with the threat of a new war, if and when the Bush administration attacks Iraq.
It does no service to the memories of those who died in past conflicts for governments--especially "democratic" ones--to start wars regardless of the wishes of their citizens, and when such conflicts cannot be justified on any rational or ethical basis.
A US attack on Iraq is neither necessary nor ethical. Moreover, such a war will result in even more suffering by the Iraqi people, and paradoxically, is likely to result in more global terrorism, not less.
Despite rhetoric from President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Iraq is not "six months away from developing" nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which was cited by both Bush and Blair, actually found that Iraqi nuclear capacity "is not any real threat--in the short term or even medium term." Even Iraq's neighbours do not feel threatened.
Iraq's acceptance of the tough new UN program for weapons inspections, which were very successful in the past, would make it virtually impossible for Saddam Hussein to hide any usable weapons of mass destruction. (It should be noted that the previous weapons inspectors were not kicked out of Iraq; they pulled out when it was disclosed that the United States was using the inspections to spy on Iraq.)
Even if Iraq were in possession of weapons of mass destruction, the US has offered no plausible rationale for why Hussein would use them. After all, Saddam Hussein is interested, above all, in staying alive and in power. He knows that any aggressive move would end his power and his life. He is a vicious and murderous thug, but he is not suicidal. He might, however, lash out with whatever weapons he does have if backed into a corner by a US-led attack on his regime.
Regardless, even if Iraq cooperates fully with the UN weapons inspectors, Bush has made it clear that he wants war. According to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, "the UN can meet and discuss, but we don't need their permission" to launch an attack. There is already talk in Washington that, once they "do" Iraq, Iran will be the next target.
The White House also claims that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda terrorists. But the US has presented no proof of this link, and even the CIA doubts that the two have worked together. It is likely, however, that yet another US attack in the Middle East, with perhaps tens of thousands of civilian corpses--"collateral damage"--will convince more people to turn to terrorism. Ironically, that is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants.
A militaristic US policy will likely increase the desire for biological, chemical, or even nuclear weapons among terrorist organizations and other states, hastening the proliferation of such weapons of mass destruction--creating the very problem it is intended to prevent. Such a scenario does little to improve global security in either the medium or long term.
Although the Bush administration is determined to go to war, it is not impossible to avert this catastrophe. Polls consistently show that most US citizens do not want their government to act without the support of their allies and the United Nations. If Iraq cooperates with the UN weapons inspectors and if there is sufficient public pressure, in the US and in allied countries like Canada, there is a chance that the Bush regime might back down (just as Nixon gave up his plan to drop nuclear weapons on Vietnam in the face of massive domestic and international opposition).
Ultimately, as US President Eisenhower once said, only when enough people refuse to tolerate war, will governments will be forced to find peaceful means to settle disputes.
Peter G. Prontzos, a former corporal in the US Marine Corps, lives in White Rock and teaches Political Science at Langara College in Vancouver. He is a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.