Waging foolish war

HAVING precipitately built up a massive military force in the Persian Gulf, US President George Bush is now about to finish what he has started. Realising finally that his quest for United Nations approval would be futile, Bush is on the point of launching his misconceived war to remove Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator whom he accuses of hiding weapons of mass destruction. Hussein flatly denies the charge and, after many weeks of searching in Iraq, the UN inspectors have failed to find convincing evidence that such destructive weapons do in fact exist. In the present circumstances, then, there can only be a presumption that such an arsenal, in truth, lies hidden somewhere in Iraq and that Hussein intends to use it against the US or make it available to terrorists.

But is that presumption enough cause or reason or justification for the overwhelming military assault which Bush is about to launch on the Iraqi nation? Aware of the horrors of war, particularly against the civilian population, we say no to this question a thousand times and the vast majority of the world's population obviously feel the same way as evidenced by the large anti-war demonstations that have taken place in so many countries. Even in Britain where Prime Minister Tony Blair has been Bush's staunchest ally, the British public is firmly against the war by a 70 to 30 percent margin and there are serious rumblings of revolt in Blair's cabinet if the war against Iraq is pursued without UN sanction.

Although our country stands to benefit from this conflict, in terms of zooming oil prices, we remain aghast when we compare the dubious objectives of this war, first to the enormous toll of death and destruction it will inflict on Iraq and its people and, secondly, to the immense and dire fallout it will have on the world economy, particularly on oil importing and tourism-dependent countries and the international aviation industry. The total effect of Bush's war will be a tragedy of incalculable proportions since it will also destroy the prospects for peace in the Middle East, intensify the dislike of Arab nations for the West and strengthen the determination of radical Islamic groups to take violent reprisals against the US and its supporters. Having to meet the monumental cost of this war, the Bush government may also be responsible for pushing the US, already burdened by huge budget deficits, deeper into its present economic mire.

The most immediate victims of Bush's war, however, will be the innocent people of Iraq who face not only a heavy death toll from the onslaught of US military power but also excruciating deprivations from the destruction of the country's infrastructure, its public facilities and amenities. New reports from the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and independent medical experts give a projected death toll ranging from 48,000 up to 260,000. And civilians, the reports say, "are likely to bear the brunt of the damage". The reports predict that as bombs destroy Iraq's transportation system and electricity grids, millions will lose access to basic medicine, adequate food and even potable water. The likely health consequences range from malnutrition and dysentery to deadly outbreaks of measles and meningitis. Experts agree that a US invasion could also trigger a refugee crisis, an economic meltdown and years of civil unrest in Iraq and neighbouring countries.

A decade of economic sanctions has left 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people dependent on food baskets distributed by the Iraqi government. If military combat paralyses that system, some three million mothers and young children will face dire food shortages and relief workers may not be able to reach them at all. Is this what Bush means when he speaks of "freeing the Iraqi people"?