One cannot be other than concerned about how things are spiralling out of control in Iraq and beyond. Had the likes of George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard heeded the advice of sound minds and not gone to war on Iraq in 2003 - remember "Shock and Awe" that Bush spoke of so glowingly? - then we are likely not to have ended up with the mess we now have.
"The idea that Islamic State (also known as ISIL) does not represent "real Islam" might be well intentioned. It is also nonsense. There is no such thing as "real Islam". One might just as well say that the Inquisition was not "real Catholicism". All religion is human interpretation. There are clearly people who consider themselves Muslims who support IS.
Differences within religions are often more extreme than differences between them. For example, in the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and Sunni and Shiite.
We are now witnessing a similar sectarian Sunni Shiite rivalry play out in the Middle East. The rivalry already existed but it has been greatly exacerbated by the George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard-led intervention in Iraq in 2003.
The reasons why the US did not press to remove Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War in 1990-91 was because it feared another Lebanon - a failed state torn apart by ethnic and sectarian rivalries. And if the Shiite majority was to prevail in Iraq, extremist Iran would be provided with a sister Shiite republic. This is what has now occurred and it will prove to be the longest lasting and most significant historical legacy that Bush, Blair and Howard have left to the world.
It is not as if they were not warned. There were plenty of commentators warning precisely of these effects, just as there were plenty of commentators who were saying that Saddam's regime did not pose a genuine threat to the West.
Prior to the 2003 invasion Scott Ritter, for five years a senior UN weapons inspector, stated:
"By 1998, the chemical weapons infrastructure [of Iraq] had been completely dismantled or destroyed by UNSCOM or by Iraq in compliance with our mandate. The biological weapons program was gone, all the major facilities eliminated. The nuclear weapons program was completely eliminated. The long-range ballistic missiles program was completely eliminated. If I had to quantify Iraq's threat, I would say [it is] zero."
And even if Bush, Blair and Howard genuinely believed that Saddam had WMD there was never the slightest indication that he would use them against the West. He had the chance. In the first Gulf War he used Scud missiles against Israel. But they had conventional warheads. Saddam knew if he used chemical weapons against the West they would remove him. The harsh fact is that he only used chemical weapons when he knew that the West would tolerate it."
"The idea that Islamic State (also known as ISIL) does not represent "real Islam" might be well intentioned. It is also nonsense. There is no such thing as "real Islam". One might just as well say that the Inquisition was not "real Catholicism". All religion is human interpretation. There are clearly people who consider themselves Muslims who support IS.
Differences within religions are often more extreme than differences between them. For example, in the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and Sunni and Shiite.
We are now witnessing a similar sectarian Sunni Shiite rivalry play out in the Middle East. The rivalry already existed but it has been greatly exacerbated by the George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard-led intervention in Iraq in 2003.
The reasons why the US did not press to remove Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War in 1990-91 was because it feared another Lebanon - a failed state torn apart by ethnic and sectarian rivalries. And if the Shiite majority was to prevail in Iraq, extremist Iran would be provided with a sister Shiite republic. This is what has now occurred and it will prove to be the longest lasting and most significant historical legacy that Bush, Blair and Howard have left to the world.
It is not as if they were not warned. There were plenty of commentators warning precisely of these effects, just as there were plenty of commentators who were saying that Saddam's regime did not pose a genuine threat to the West.
Prior to the 2003 invasion Scott Ritter, for five years a senior UN weapons inspector, stated:
"By 1998, the chemical weapons infrastructure [of Iraq] had been completely dismantled or destroyed by UNSCOM or by Iraq in compliance with our mandate. The biological weapons program was gone, all the major facilities eliminated. The nuclear weapons program was completely eliminated. The long-range ballistic missiles program was completely eliminated. If I had to quantify Iraq's threat, I would say [it is] zero."
And even if Bush, Blair and Howard genuinely believed that Saddam had WMD there was never the slightest indication that he would use them against the West. He had the chance. In the first Gulf War he used Scud missiles against Israel. But they had conventional warheads. Saddam knew if he used chemical weapons against the West they would remove him. The harsh fact is that he only used chemical weapons when he knew that the West would tolerate it."
Comments