Will President Bush Silence his war drums?

December 11,2007
Will President Bush silence his war drums?
By Kofi Akordor
IN 2002, President George W. Bush took the world by storm with his incessant war drums.
“Saddam must be punished.” “The world must not wait.” “Time is running out.” These were some of his battle cries.
President Bush was then flying on euphoria of public support after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, the Pentagon, America’s defence headquarters, and an aborted one which, according to intelligence report, was heading for the White House.
Not only had the whole of America but a big part of the world as well, with one voice, declared war on terrorism. That was when the American President took advantage of the situation to launch an attack on Afghanistan, which was then under the control of the Talibans, considered to be hardened Islamic fundamentalists.
The justification for the attack on Afghanistan could not still be established, except for the fact that Osama Bin Laden, the person suspected by America to be the brain behind the September 11 attacks, was said to be operating from Afghanistan.
As you read this piece, the war in Afghanistan is still raging, after five years, and there is yet no evidence that Osama, whose capture or death was the motive for the war, has been touched.
While the war on terrorism was receiving support in several places, especially in Europe and the Middle East, President Bush saw another opportunity to start a long-cherished campaign against countries he described as the Axis of Evil. These are Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Iraq was the most vulnerable and so naturally it became the first in the line of fire.
A story had to be created to justify an attack on Iraq. That was when the charge that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction became the rallying message sold to the world. The Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, was painted as a monster who was roasting his compatriots with chemical weapons and the battle cry was that if he was not stopped early, Saddam would annihilate the human race with his weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam denied the accusations by opening all factories, warehouses, laboratories and even residential palaces to weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for scrutiny. The verdict was clear and unambiguous, that there was nothing that came near a weapon of mass destruction, nor were even materials for that purpose found.
President Bush was upbeat in his determination to go to war. He virtually cajoled the whole world into submission and, against all voices of moderation, diplomacy and dissent, President Bush managed to put together a frightening arsenal, with the support of his Western allies, and marched on Iraq in March 2003. Even the late Pope John Paul II could not hide his revulsion at such blatant display of raw power and total disregard for human feeling. He remarked before the start of the war that it would be a great injustice for anyone to attack Iraq under the circumstances.
That wise counsel and numerous others went unheeded. Saddam was finally hanged on December 30, 2006 to end an era during which Saddam was at various times an ally to the West and the East power blocs.
But whether Iraq is a better place now than as Saddam left it is for all to judge. Suffice it to say, the streets of Baghdad have become killing fields where fragmented bodies of men, women and children are removed on a daily basis. One thing is also not in dispute — the war was not to destroy any weapons of mass destruction which did not exist but for a regime change and the realignment of geo-political forces to serve American and Israeli interests.
The Americans thought they could finish the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns quickly to go to the next stage of attacking Iran, another emerging superpower in the Gulf. Things did not work according to plan, as the resistance in both countries was woefully unanticipated. The wars have also brought some diplomatic setbacks to the US, as countries which were hitherto allies are gradually coming under severe domestic pressure to end those senseless wars. The latest casualty in the growing discontent against the war was John Howard, the former Australian Prime Minister and key Bush ally, who lost miserably in his country’s general election two weeks ago. Immediately, the man who vanquished him, Kevin Ruud, has taken certain major decisions, including troop withdrawal from Iraq.
In spite of the mounting opposition to America’s wars of attrition, the political leadership is still looking for an excuse to cause trouble in Iran. This time too, the Bush Administration is using Iran’s nuclear programme as a pretext to canvass for support to carry out its ambition to ensure that only Israel remains a strong military force in the Middle-East and Gulf region.
Despite persistent denials by Iran that it is pursuing a nuclear weapon programme, the US and its allies continue to see differently. They have already managed to force through two resolutions on sanctions against Iran at the UN and were closing in on the crucial third when the jolt came. Two days after the US and the other major allies had met in Paris to discuss a third compromise sanctions resolution, an intelligence report from the unholiest of places – the US – came out to stun President Bush and his advisors.
The report from the National Intelligence Agency of the US concluded that Iran, since 2003, has abandoned its nuclear weapons programme and had since not showed any signs of resuming it.
That bit of information brought welcome relief to Iranians and their allies.
“This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue,” Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, said when he addressed what Iranians considered a victory rally last Wednesday.
The reaction from Russia and China, two permanent members of the UN Security Council, is an indication that the US had to step up another diplomatic effort to achieve its aim. According to the Russian Foreign Minister, the report’s findings undermined Washington’s push for a new set of sanctions against Iran.
The head of the IAEA, Mohammed El-Baradei, said the report had brought a ‘sigh of relief’ because its conclusion agreed with the agency’s own findings.
Iraq was not so lucky.
It is good that the report exonerating Iran came from US sources. Even, then, President Bush is not conceding. The only thing is that there is a change in tune from ‘Iran is developing nuclear weapons’ to ‘It is capable of developing them in future’.
The so-called fight against terrorism has rather made the world unsafe and dangerous. This time you cannot tell whether the handsome passenger sitting by you and wearing a long beard has concealed in his gown a grenade ready to explode. That is why the world should plead with President Bush to hush his war drums a bit and give diplomacy a chance.