|
Reflections
on the war in Iraq
by
Alain Pilote Note:
The aim of this article is not to question the sincerity and patriotism
of those who supported the war in Iraq, but to try to find out the real
issues at stake, which were rather passed over in silence under the main
argument of the war on terrorism. There is absolutely nothing wrong in
defending one's country against aggressors
or terrorist attacks — in fact, this is a really noble and heroic task
— but one has to wonder if this was actually what our “boys”
fought for.
Despite the opposition of the United Nations and of almost every country
in the world, U.S. President Bush decided to go ahead and “liberate”
Iraq, under the pretext that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to
the security of the Americans. Following a huge propaganda campaign in
the U.S. news media in favor of military intervention in Iraq, almost
nobody in America dared to question the motives for this war, for fear
of being regarded as unpatriotic. It worked out so well that many
Americans asked themselves, when they heard that the Pope and the
Vatican were strongly opposed to this war, “How
can the Pope be against freeing those people? Doesn't he want to end
terrorism? Doesn't he want to get rid of Saddam Hussein?” The
truth is that the Pope is for peace and for the Commandments of God
(will this surprise anyone?), including the Fifth Commandment, which
says, “You shall not kill.” Moreover,
it would seem that the real motives for military intervention in Iraq
were not the war on terrorism, but oil and money. In other words, the
whole operation was not so much about freeing the Iraqis as freeing
Iraqi oil. The war on terrorism was only used as a clever excuse to make this war
accepted by the American people, who would otherwise have said “no”
to it if they knew that their young people were to fight only for the
financial interest of a few. (Curiously enough, many people from the oil
industry, arms producers — “merchants of death” — and other
companies who can make a buck with this war, have close ties with the
Bush Administration...) The Holy Father knows that peace cannot be brought by wars, which bring
about havoc, hatred, and resentment. Peace is not only the absence of
war, but the presence of just conditions of living. The most effective
way to obtain peace is to eliminate injustices, excessive economic or
social inequalities, which are the primary causes of war, as stated in
the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Peace is also a gift of God, which
requires the conversion of hearts. It can therefore be obtained by
prayer, and not by bombs, cannons, and guns. What is a “just war”? The only time a war can be legitimated, according to this Catechism, is
when a nation is attacked. It then has the right to defend itself, but
under strict specified conditions, the four traditional elements of what
is called the “just war” doctrine: 1.
The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation must be lasting,
grave, and certain; 2. All other means of putting an end to it must have
been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3. There must be serious
prospects of success; 4. The use of arms must not produce evils and
disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern
means of destruction (like nuclear bombs) weighs very heavily in
evaluating this condition. The U.S. Government claims its intervention is a just war because it was
a pre-emptive one, to prevent Iraq from attacking America first, that
Saddam Hussein had tons of weapons of massive destruction which, if not
used by himself, could also be used by terrorists against the U.S.A. The
Bush Administration pretends that not acting now would produce graver
consequences, since it would allow Iraq to arm even more, thus causing
more American casualties in future terrorist attacks than the number of
people that will be killed in the present war.
If
one looks closely at these arguments, they are just bogus, and don't
stand water. First, if you are the first to attack, even if you claim it
is a “pre-emptive” attack, it is not legitimate defense: it is you
who are the aggressor, you are the one who triggers the war. If all the
countries that possess weapons of mass destruction are a possible threat
to the U.S.A., then we are in for an endless series of wars... (Don't
laugh! U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “If we have to
go into 15 or more countries, we ought to do it.”) On this account, North Korea is a more serious threat to the U.S.A. than
Iraq since, contrary to Saddam Hussein, the North Korean leaders admit
they have nuclear weapons, and would not hesitate to use them if they
feel threatened. (What if they use the same logic as President Bush, and
make a “pre-emptive” attack against the U.S.A., before the Americans
destroy their nuclear facilities first?) However, U.S. authorities have
no intention of attacking North Korea any time soon, for the simple
reason that there is no oil to control there. The United Nations did not approve of U.S. military intervention in Iraq,
because it could not be proven that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.A. In
fact, since the first Gulf War in 1991, the Iraqi army has been almost
completely destroyed, the country being bombed almost every day by the
Americans and the British forces for the last twelve years. As for the
weapons of mass destruction, the U.N. inspectors could not find any, but
the Americans could not wait to invade Iraq, because after April, it is
too hot in the desert for the soldiers. As for the claim that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, who did not hesitate to
kill thousands of Iraqis with chemical weapons, it is proven that these
chemical weapons were sold mostly by the Americans, at a time when Iraq
was at war against Iran. The U.S.A. also failed to prove that Saddam
Hussein was linked to Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network; Bin
Laden even said that Saddam Hussein was a traitor to the Moslem cause,
since he did not allow an Islamic State in Iraq. The real motive: oil
Saudi
Arabia is America's largest supplier of imported oil. It has more oil
than any other country — about 250 billion barrels, or one-fourth of
the world's reserves. The Americans want to find an alternative source
if access to Saudi Arabia is curtailed for any reason. The only country
in the world with large enough reserves to compensate for the loss of
Saudi Arabia is Iraq, with at least 112 billion barrels in proven
reserves, and as much as 200-300 billion barrels of potential reserves.
U.S. Defence Secretary Rumsfeld insists on saying that this war “has
nothing to do with oil”, and that once the war is over, Iraq's oil
assets will be used to benefit Iraqis, but the truth is just the
opposite. These people who promote wars for business interests and play
with nations and governments, like pawns in a game, have plenty of
tricks in their hats. For example, they could very well arrange that the
profits from the sale of Iraqi oil will be used to pay U.S. companies
for the rebuilding of Iraq. Another
reason that may explain the “urgency” for the U.S.A. to invade Iraq
is that Saddam Hussein had begun to parcel out concessions to the most
promising oil fields to oil firms in Europe, Russia, and China, with an
estimated potential of 44 billion barrels of oil — an amount equal to
the total reserves of the U.S.A., Canada, and Norway (the number-one
European producer) combined. At rates of about $25 per barrel, that
makes these contracts worth an estimated $1.1 trillion. Here is the
trick: those contracts signed by Saddam will be considered invalid
unless endorsed by the new Iraqi Government... The Wall
Street Journal reported that it has already been decided that Iraq's
State-run oil company will be replaced by a private company headed by
Philip J. Carroll, former CEO of Shell USA. Why the Pope is opposed to this war If the U.S.A. is interested above all in oil, the Vatican is interested
above all in the well-being and security of people. In the beginning of
2003, when U.S. forces started to gather around Iraq, the Pope and the
Vatican started to do everything they could to avoid this war, and until
the last minute, hoped for a peaceful outcome to the crisis. Pope John
Paul II even sent personal representatives — two cardinals — to meet
with Saddam Hussein and George Bush.
The Pope knows that the Iraqis had already suffered from a 12-year
embargo, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people, all
of them children, through lack of medication, and that this new war
would bring about the death of thousands of more innocent people. The
war is over, and one can see a glimpse of its ugly face: a serious lack
of water, medicine, electricity, and basic necessities everywhere. But
what the Pope and the Vatican feared the most was the backlash this U.S.
military intervention in Iraq was to create in the Arabic world, a
backlash that could lead to more terrorism against the U.S.A. and other
Western nations, a backlash that creates so much resentment against the
West that it could turn into an all-out war between Moslems and
Christians. (This is exactly what the promoters of a world government
want to create; it was one of their avowed goals set up a century ago.) The Moslems resent the presence on their soil of American Christians
(whom they call “the unfaithful”, since they are not Moslems). For
example, it is the permanent presence of American soldiers and U.S.
military bases in Saudi Arabia since the 1991 Gulf War that triggered
the creation of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist group. And now, it is
said that the American soldiers will have to stay in Iraq for months (if
not years) in Iraq, before order is restored! This is why Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak said that the U.S.-led war on Iraq will produce
“100 new Bin Ladens”, as fighting fuels anti-Western militancy. Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, number 2 at the Vatican, spoke
his mind about Iraq on January 29 to a pool of journalists invited to
lunch in his honor. Here are the pertinent quotes, which were reported
the following day in the press: “Some
think the Church's representatives are ‘idealists.’
We are – but we're also realists. Is irritating a billion Muslims
worth it?
This
is the question I put to some of my American friends: is it advisable?
Won't you have the hostility of that whole population for decades? If
the Western military presence in the Arabian peninsula produced Bin
Laden, Al Qaeda, and the September 11 attack, what infernal reaction
would the occupation of Iraq produce?” On March 29, Pope John Paul II said to visiting Roman Catholic Bishiops
from Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, that he prayed so
that the tragedy of the war in Iraq will not set Christians and Muslims
against each other and spark a “religious catastrophe”: “Let
us not permit a human tragedy to become a religious catastrophe. War
must never be allowed to divide world religions.” In his speech to the world's ambassadors, on January 13, 2003, the Holy
Father said: “No
to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for
humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States,
the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals
and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of
those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons, and of the
all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers
and sisters in humanity... I will simply add today, faced with the
constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the
solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed
conflict, as if military victories could be the solution.” The Angelus of February 23, 2003: “For
months, the international community has been living in great
apprehension of the danger of war, which could unsettle the entire
Middle East and aggravate the tensions that unfortunately are already
present at the beginning of the third millennium. The believers of all
religions must proclaim that we can never be happy if we are in conflict
with one another; the future of humanity can never be assured by
terrorism and the logic of war.” The
Angelus of March 2, 2003: “Peace,
in fact, is a gift of God that must be invoked with humble and insistent
trust. Without giving up in the face
of difficulties, we must seek out and follow every possible way of
avoiding war, which always results in sorrow and grave consequences for
all.” Early
in the morning of March 20, Pope John Paul II was informed that the
United States had begun the war against Iraq. He went to his chapel and
prayed. Hours later, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls expressed
the Holy See's reaction in a poignant statement: “Whoever
decides that all peaceful means of international law have been exhausted
assumes a grave responsibility before God, before his own conscience,
and before history.” In
the following days, the Pope expressed his “sorrow and pain” that
the search for a peaceful solution had been abandoned. His comments were
measured, being he urged Christians to “pray and fast” for peace in
Iraq, and reassured the Iraqi people of his closeness and solidarity. The
Angelus of April 6, 2003: “My
thoughts go in particular to Iraq and to all those involved in the war
that is being waged there. I am thinking in a special way of the
defenceless civilian population in various cities which is subjected to
a harsh trial... Please God that this conflict ends soon in order to
make way for a new era of forgiveness, love and peace.” Financial
costs You
know when a war begins, but you never know when it ends... Even after
the war is over, the presence of troops is still required. The war in
North Korea ended in 1953, but about 30,000 soldiers are still there 50
years later. The war in Bosnia ended ten years ago, but U.N. forces are
still needed there to keep the peace. The war in Afghanistan is over for
a year, but between 7,000 and 8,000 American troops are still there,
part of a coalition force of around 11,000 to 12,000. It costs billions
of dollars to American taxpayers to support the presence of all these
troops overseas. It
is not likely that U.S. forces will leave Iraq any time soon, despite
Rumsfeld's reassurances that the Americans will leave Iraq once a
democratic government chosen by the Iraqis is installed. There is a
problem: 60% of the Iraqi population is made up of Shiites will never be
happy with any secular government that respects all minorities, but they
rather want an Islamic State, governed by the Koran. (Such a government,
among other things, would forbid the practice of any other religion,
including Chrisitianity.) The U.S. says they will never allow such a
form of government, and will crush any attempt to install it, and the
U.S. occupying force will have to govern in the meantime, fueling the
anger the Islamic extremists. So it is easy to predict some trouble
ahead. U.S.
authorities think that the present war will cost U.S. taxpayers about
$75 billion. But as history shows, the cost of war has often been badly
miscalculated by the authorities. According to a study of Yale
University economist William Nordhaus. Abraham Lincoln's Treasury
secretary estimated the direct cost of the Civil War (1861-1865) to the
North would be $240 million (in 2002 dollars), but it ended up costing
$3.2 billion, about 13 times the original cost. Even as the build-up
occurred during the Vietnam War, the Pentagon in 1967 underestimated the
war's cost by 90 percent; the conflict dragged on until 1973 and cost
between $110 billion to $150 billion. Retired
U.S. General Wesley Clark said in an interview, “What we have to be
prepared for is an indefinite stay in Iraq; at least 100,000 people
there for the first year or two, several billion dollars a month in
costs, continuing frictions, and problems politically as a result of
this.” Does
Syria have chemical weapons? Is it hiding Saddam Hussein? Let's invade
them to find out! Iran wants to interfere with the formation of Iraq's
future government? Let's teach them a lesson! Never mind any Arab
backlash and retaliation with terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. The folly
of the power-hungry knows no limit! The Financiers would be too happy to
lend them all the money needed to finance these wars, but it could
endanger U.S. security by reducing the number of military available at
home, and create larger budget deficits and ruin the U.S. economy.
(Note: The U.S. government has a record budget deficit of over
$450 billion in 2004.) Let
us refuse those wars that only serve the financial interests of a few.
Let us work for peace by establishing just economic conditions for all,
which can be done by the application of the Social Credit philosophy! Alain
Pilote This article was published in the March-April, 2003 issue of “Michael”. |
The
real motive for war in Iraq is a strategic one, which involves a lot of
money: oil. The United States relies on oil to supply about 40% of its
energy requirements, more than any other source. At one time, it relied
almost entirely on domestic oil to supply its needs, but the demand has
grown rapidly, and the U.S. oil fields are rapidly being exhausted.
Today, the U.S.A. now relies on imported oil for 55 percent of its
requirements, and this percentage is expected to rise to 65 percent in
2020, and keep growing thereafter. The Persian Gulf area currently
accounts for 30% of global oil production, but contains two-thirds of
the planet's known reserves, so its access is vital to the Americans.
