The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: So what are we going to do?

I think Alan Bates argument is a powerful one, although not one which I
personally agree with. 
It is however espoused by a large segment of the media and seen by the
British people as a justification for military action against Iraq. 
Here are a few  of the reasons  why I challenge the need for military

1. The aim of the Gulf war was to get Saddam out of Kuwait and to destroy
his military capacity to do so again. However the best of the world's
fighter planes, bombs and military intelligence failed to achieve the
latter. Several military experts and Gulf war veterans have expressed
doubts and argued that air strikes may not be effective. Therefore one can
not presume that war is the obvious solution to the current crisis.

2. Even if military action is a success, this is no garantee that Saddam
will behave in the future -  one lesson the Gulf war has taught us. If
diplomacy has failed in the past, so has force.

3. The argument that Saddam's weapons are a threat to the stability of the
region is not relevant to the current situation, which is about enforcing
the UN resolutions, not an invasion of or threat to Iraq's neighbours.
Such a threat may indeed materialize in the future, but that can be said
of any country. Israel has been bombing Southern Lebanon since the
invasion of 1982. However bombing Israel has not been considered as a
means of enforcing the Oslo Peace accords and stabilizing the region (nor
should it be).

4. The US has less altruistic interests than is openly admitted. We can
not believe everything that governments wish us to believe. It seems to me
that the British government is currently engaged in a propaganda campaign
to beef up support for attacks on Iraq. For example the "fact" that Iraq
has hiden supplies of "zombie gas". What a lucky co-incidence for George
Robinson that these supplies have just been "discovered". The government
is trying its hardest to legitimize this war and convince us that the
threat is so great that we must go to war whatever the price. I am not so

To sum up, I do not believe that we have to go to war or else we will pay
a heavy price. The success of military action is not garanteed and the
threat Saddam poses to world peace is not as drastic as our government
will have us believe. Military action may have many unforseen consequences
more damaging to peace in the region. The only certainty is that many
innocent people will die. I believe war will do more damage than good.

Selwa Calderbank
Trinity Hall

PS I have not been able to answer all of Alan Bates' arguments here due to
time constrictions but I hope that I have been able to give some weight to
the case against military action.

This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To be removed/added, email, NOT the
whole list. Archived at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]