The horror of war

THE WORLD now looks with a range of emotions as United States President George Bush unleashes the military might of the world's only remaining superpower against the nation of Iraq, intent on removing Saddam Hussein and his tyrannical regime.

What it may be seeing, in fact, is a real-life Greek tragedy which, in its global repercussions, may well change the course of contemporary history, set back the progress of international co-operation and create more volatility, uncertainty and economic hardship than its objective was intended to remove. History, of course, will eventually deal with all of this, but from our point of view the launching and waging of this misguided and unnecessary war is a truly sad episode since it represents the failure of a so-called civilised superpower to give peace a chance.

More than two months ago, while the United Nations weapons inspectors were still in the early stages of their mission in Iraq, the US President suddenly decided to go to war and, having got the approval of the US Congress, he began a massive build-up of military power in the Persian Gulf. It was a unilateral decision taken by Mr Bush, who was supported by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, taken without any consideration for the views of fellow-members of the UN Security Council and apparently without any intention of allowing the weapons inspectors to complete their task. Mr Bush's argument was that he was fed-up with the Iraqi dictator's evasive tactics over the last 12 years and the time had come to disarm him by force.

The fact that Iraq under Hussein had been effectively contained over this period, under constant surveillance by U2 spy planes and satellite monitoring, and denied a large part of its air space had no influence on Mr Bush. Just so, in his view, Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass destruction became an immediate threat to the US and the world, requiring urgent military action. When his war plans provoked a tidal wave of global protest, Mr Bush attempted to bully a majority of Security Council members into supporting his proposed invasion, but to no avail. The three veto-bearing members, France, Germany and Russia, wanting more time for the inspection process to be completed, refused to go along.

Mr Bush then decided he must do his own thing with whatever outside support he could muster. Much of the world now looks with horror on an unjustified invasion that may turn out to be a prolonged act of terrorism against the Iraqi people. To get rid of the Saddam Hussein regime and a perceived threat, American and British soldiers are launching a massive multi-pronged attack on Iraq that will not only kill thousands of innocent civilians, including women and children, but also destroy much of the country's social infrastructure, creating chaos and misery for those who survive the onslaught. In order to remove some dubious long-term danger to the US that he claims Saddam Hussein represents, Mr Bush is quite prepared to mash up that woe-be-gone Middle East country.

Instead of sending soldiers to do that destructive and bloody job, why not a covert team of assassins from the CIA who could do it far more surgically and with no collateral damage? Remember something like that was attempted against Fidel Castro. Or, instead of spending billions and billions to bribe countries into supporting the war, why not give a small proportion of that money to the opposition movement in Iraq to take out Saddam? Remember the removal of Cheddi Jagan in Guyana? Again, our view is that war is the ultimate act of violence and can only be justified as a last resort, against such dangers as Hitler represented. The war against Iraq is totally unjustified and will create more problems for the world than it may solve.