1 of 123

Write now Article Tools

It may be that no-one will ever know for sure why George Bush decided it would be right to invade Iraq, or why Tony Blair supported him. But was it right? To answer this we need to consider salient facts.

It was claimed that Saddam had a store of weapons of mass destruction, and that they posed a threat to the USA. However no such weapons were ever found. As to whether they would have posed a threat, had they existed, no-one can be sure.

It was claimed that a link existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and therefore with the 9/11 attack. This was never proved.

It was claimed that Saddam's regime was guilty of genocide against Kurdish and Shiite communities. This is now proved, but where does responsibility lie for action against such a regime, with the UN or with a sovereign state? Does the power and wealth of any nation ever give it the right to bring about regime change in another? If the answer to this question is no, then the USA must face up to its guilt in this respect, and several times over.

Is it coincidental and irrelevant to this debate that Iraq is an important oil exporting nation, and that US reserves of oil are depleting, making it increasingly dependent on imported supplies? Many would argue that this is the crux of the matter. That the previous invasion of Iraq, following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, was also linked more with future US oil supplies than support for Kuwaitis.

It was claimed, and still is, that there is a need to introduce democracy to Iraq. But have US administrations been consistent in their attitude to non-democratic countries? The US supports Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, to name but two non-democracies. Is it again coincidental that they are both oil exporters? Is it also coincidental that they, as allies, are possible customers for US military arms and equipment?

Some have suggested that US intelligence services may have been linked with Saddam's party's rise to power in 1963. That the US saw Saddam as an ally against communism. It is clear that with the beneficial social and administrative change which came about in the early years of his party's influence, Saddam was supported by western nations. So what was the real reason for the loss of this support? Was it one thing or a combination of things?

Was it simply the need for democracy in Iraq? If so, then why not in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia too? Was it Saddam's record of genocide against some of his own people? If so, why not invade Serbia to replace Milosovic? Or was it the need to maintain a flow of much needed oil to a US administration which still feels a need to base its future development on fossil fuels?

Finally, who has benefited from the invasion of Iraq? The Iraqi people? Not until stability returns to their country and they can feel a sense of peace in their lives. The countries that supported the invasion? They are probably no more or less safe from attack than before. Or the companies whose contracts have been accepted for the rebuilding of Iraq, and their shareholders and other beneficiaries? Well, who ever benefits from any war, besides those who supply the arms and get to rebuild afterwords?

Learn more about this author, Keith Redfern.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Debate on the war in Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!