Grass Freedom by Mark Thomas
Tessa Jowell, cares so much for Britain that she will fight to save every
blade of grass in Hyde Park. The anti war movement may scoff but it is that
kind of freedom and security that Iraqi grass can only dream of. Soon Jack
Straw will publish a dossier of Iraq's fauna abuse, not that we need further
proof. Look at where Saddam Hussein lives! In a desert! That is how he
treats his own grass! That is why we must bomb the Iraqi people to freedom.

And amidst this roar to war, amidst the governments cant, rant and lies is
the discernible sound of the Labour left shuffling rightwards to support the
war. Lead by the likes of Claire Short who treads her well-worn path from
rebellion to barbarism yet again. Her threats of resignation, again, amount
to nothing, she is like the Tory comedians who offer to leave the country
should Labour win and of course never do. After raising concerns about
military action she invariably backs it. Had she been around in World War 2
her initial doubts about the civilian deaths from the firebombing of Dresden
would naturally have been assuaged by "the international communities pledge
of Savlon."

The Labour left has a long history of capitulating before the armchair
generals, so there should be no shock as supposed liberal commentators like
David Aaronovich in the Observer (amongst other notable hacks) join the
ranks of the libertarian bombers. As an ex member of the Communist Party
Aaronovich probably has a tendency to support any trundling tank that passes
his way now the wall is down. However, there is one question they pose that
does need to be looked at " What do we do about Saddam Hussein?"

There are many in the anti war movement who would say that actually they
don't have an answer. But whatever is done should follow the Hippocratic
principle of "do no harm." The UN figures of predicted Iraqi civilian
casualties in a war come in at about at least 48,000 .Even though these
deaths might be, according to Short, Aaronovich and the likes of Nick Cohen,
well-intentioned freedom loving deaths, they do by any definition amount to
"harm."

Any war in Iraq is not only going to result in large numbers of civilian
deaths but will be the best recruiting campaign Al Qaeda will ever have.
When Colin Powell says that the invasion of Iraq might be funded by Iraqi
oil he might as well paint Osama Bin Laden's freephone number on the side of
every bomber and jeep in the region. Everytime Bush talks of "weapons of
mass destruction" but fails to mention Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea
Russia and the US he might as well mail shoot leaflets with a picture of a
turban and a beard over the slogan " Uncle Osama needs you!" straight into
Saudi Arabia. Surely the prospect of 1,000's joining Al Qaeda counts as
causing "harm".

Somehow though the pro war pundits claim to represent the Iraqi people
when they ask "what do you do about Saddam Hussein?" In reality a minority
of British Iraqis want an invasion to topple Hussein. Many I have talked to
and corresponded with have relatives in Iraq. Why would they want them
bombed? The US talks of raining 3,000 missiles on Iraq in 48 hours, who in
their right mind would want their relatives and friends to endure that? Not
even Prince Philip would wish that on Fergie. .. Alright that might be a bad
example but you get the argument.

The apologists for war might claim to represent Iraqis but their actions
do not. The US budget for post conflict humanitarian aid is $15million. The
population of Iraq is roughly 23 million, so Iraqis are in line for 65 cents
each. This is how much the war camp cares 65 cents worth of care. 65 cents
for enduring a hell to be rained upon them. Maybe I am wrong and Iraqis are
rubbing their hands with joy muttering " A whole 65 cents just to be bombed
with cruise missiles. Easy money!" But I don't think so.

The dream outcome for the Americans, and therefore for Tony Blair, is a
palace coup before a war with another strong man taking power. This time the
dictatorship will no doubt be a benign one, a sort of New Labour New
Dictator kind of thing, where torturers respond to focus groups and secret
police learn teamwork by paint balling each other at weekends. Neither
liberation nor total tyranny but a third way for dictators.

So what do we do with Saddam? Lift sanctions. It is as simple as that.
Obviously keep the military ones but lift the economic sanctions that have,
according to UNICEF cost the lives of half a million under fives in Iraq.
The first effect would be to start to reverse this awful toll on the Iraqi
people.

The second would be to remove the power Saddam Hussein has gained through
controlling the food distribution in a country where 60% are dependent on
food aid. Far from punishing the Ba'thist regime sanctions have consolidated
its power.

Without sanctions and without the US and the UK bombing raids (there have
been over 90 since 11 September 2001) the Iraqi people might stop regarding
its enemies as those that starve and bomb them. Maybe they might just turn
their sights on Saddam. Domestically the most turbulent years of Hussein's
rule were from 1988 to 1990, when after the war with Iran, thousands upon
thousands of veterans returned to civilian life to find poverty and
hardship. Hussein faced about 2 assassination attempts each year.

Maybe without the violent distractions of war and sanctions the Iraqi
people will topple Hussein. Without huge civilian causalities, without
regional instability, without creating a new brigade for Al Qaeda and
without America's empire rolling into town Iraq might have the chance to
save itself. Maybe the Labour pundits and dinner party generals will
consider this next time they talk of liberation as the brandy and mints go
round.


http://www.mtcp.co.uk/mark/articles.htm#top