I’m unashamedly anti-war. I’m not a coward, nor am I disrespectful of the great efforts of those who serve in the military, and I wish those remaining soldiers from the second world war much peace and thanks as they celebrate the 60th anniversary of Victory in the Pacific. But I find the rationale for going to war is often lacking, and I am ashamed of the perversely undemocratic arguments that were used by the US, England and Australia to support the war in Iraq.
Now, as the Iraq war draws to a close, there are strong statements being made about the pseudonymous ‘justice’ of the supposed ‘War on Terror’, which should probably be more accurately called the ‘War on Saddam Hussein and his cronies’. The Washington Post is noting that the whole vision of the Iraq War must, and is being lowered by US officials in order to meet deadlines. All the rationale and process originally deemed vital for the ‘democratic’ ‘liberalisation’ of the nation (read: extremist factionalisation and reduction of liberties amongst traditionally down-trodden sectors – such as women) is being modified now to the simple change of government that comes with capture of the country’s leader. And even the New York Times is begging President Bush to understand that no-one in America believes the rhetoric nor understands the doggedly determinist attitude Bush Jnr is still placing on the military campaign.
War can be necessary. It’s certainly an easy decision when you have governments openly declaring their intention to commit genocide as occurred in Germany during the second world war. But when the only people supporting terrorist activities are extremist pockets of disaffected failures, then the rationale for war is clearly bent. And I challenge anyone to find that citizens of a region battered by war are better off after conflict based on such flimsy theories.