The moral myth

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1092487,00.html

Superpowers act out of self-interest, not morality, and the US in Iraq is no different

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 25, 2003
The Guardian

It is no use telling the hawks that bombing a country in which al-Qaida was not operating was unlikely to rid the world of al-Qaida. It is no use arguing that had the billions spent on the war with Iraq been used instead for intelligence and security, atrocities such as last week's attacks in Istanbul may have been prevented. As soon as one argument for the invasion and occupation of Iraq collapses, they switch to another. Over the past month, almost all the warriors - Bush, Blair and the belligerents in both the conservative and the liberal press - have fallen back on the last line of defence, the argument we know as "the moral case for war".

Challenged in the Commons by Scottish Nationalist MP Pete Wishart last Wednesday over those devilishly uncooperative weapons of mass destruction, for example, Tony Blair dodged the question. "What everyone should realise is that if people like the honourable gentleman had had their way, Saddam Hussein, his sons and his henchmen would still be terrorising people in Iraq. I find it quite extraordinary that he thinks that that would be a preferable state of affairs."

I do believe that there was a moral case for deposing Saddam - who was one of the world's most revolting tyrants - by violent means. I also believe that there was a moral case for not doing so, and that this case was the stronger. That Saddam is no longer president of Iraq is, without question, a good thing. But against this we must weigh the killing or mutilation of thousands of people; the possibility of civil war in Iraq; the anger and resentment the invasion has generated throughout the Muslim world and the creation, as a result, of a more hospitable environment in which terrorists can operate; the reassertion of imperial power; and the vitiation of international law. It seems to me that these costs outweigh the undoubted benefit.

But the key point, overlooked by all those who have made the moral case for war, is this: that a moral case is not the same as a moral reason. Whatever the argument for toppling Saddam on humanitarian grounds may have been, this is not why Bush and Blair went to war.

more

[Martin Eden]

1. kick

I thought Monbiot made some excellent points.

[teryang]

2. Good article raises interesting points

The completely amoral BFEE regime is Machiavellian through and through. The idea that American military force is any more welcome or acceptable in Baghdad then it is in Saudi Arabia is nonsense. If Wolfowitz really thought this he is even more ignorant than I thought. The truth is that the Administration didn't care what happened in Iraq, it had to have continuous war to solidify and shield its cobbled together domestic political core. This would be the defense industry, the pro-Israel lobby (also a defense industry), the oil industry, the corporate rich and fundi right wingers. It is war for war's sake. There is no deep seated "realpolitik" behind it. It is an opportunistic irrational policy pursuing its own meandering and bloody course.

The fraudulent war was created to continue to keep the domestic political opposition in thrall while a fascist agenda was rammed down the throats of the American people on behalf of the corporate rich.

Iraq's strategic significance is as a tarpit. No one could have really believed our strategic posture would be improved by embarking on this falsely represented adventure. Nor could anyone have really believed we would be welcomed as conquerors with a history of abusing Iraq.

Our limited ground forces are stretched to breaking point and subjected to attack every day with no end in sight. Our positions elsewhere on the planet are weakened and vulnerable as a result. The fact is that the professional Army leadership was very much opposed to this war. Who would go to war with such a small army in such a remote area? On balance, such poorly planned adventures are rarely rewarding to the mother country but the Rhodesians among the party faithful are well compensated for their support.

The real proof that this is true is the urgency with which the modern day Metternichs seek to convince us otherwise while the astronomical toll mounts. Why do we have to be convinced that this war is good? Because there is no palpable benefit. Thus far there has been only costs and huge future risks. The benefit has been solely to the domestic political prospects of the bush regime. We could have purchased all of Iraq's maximum projected oil production and paid for base rights in the Persian Gulf for the next thirty years with what we have irretrievably lost so far. But that is not the reason why we are there. We are there to perpetrate the political fraud at home.