|
|
| Civil society, missile defence, and Iraq: Can idiotic government proposals be blocked by effective and active involvement by civil society? |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
Even the oil factor and geo-strategic considerations, which were likely the real motivators behind the war, are not bearing fruit. Iraqi pipelines are being continuously sabotaged, and it doesn’t appear that the day Iraq will emerge as a model democracy for other regimes in the Middle East to follow is anywhere closer. Thus, from almost every angle, this war is quickly turning into the dreaded quagmire that many had feared, and warned about, at the outset.
What if former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien did not have the foresight to see this war and its implications for the disaster it has become? Could the protests that took place throughout Canada have effectively stopped what may have been quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions a Prime Minister could have made? Would there have been any effective way that society could have signalled its disapproval of this war? What’s really frightening is that many European countries that participated in the war, such as Spain, Italy and the UK, experienced significant public opposition to the invasion of Iraq, as indicated by protests and polls that took place at the time. If Martin and Graham had their way would they have suggested that it would be necessary for us to make this ridiculous sacrifice for the sake of our relationship with the United States? And is there anything society could have done to signal their disapproval to the extent that this silly duo might reconsider?
Consider the implications, and what Canada has avoided by taking the wise decision to avoid this war. Contrary to what Blair and Bush claim the war in Iraq never ended and is worsening. In the immediate post-invasion period most mainstream media reported an average of 20-30 attacks a day against occupation forces. As of October 2004, this figure has risen to approximately 80 attacks a day. The increased oil exports, which were supposed to have financed the war indirectly, are actually lower than they were during the Saddam Hussein era. Foreigners are being kidnapped repeatedly for political purposes and ransom. Crime is out of control. Iraqi civilians, in almost every aspect, are astonishingly suffering even more than they were under Saddam Hussein’s regime because of the complete lack of stability and security. And finally, the occupation forces are dealing with a highly militarized and hostile society, where there is no shortage of heavy weapons from the disbanded army, and where roughly 80,000 elite ex-Republican Guards still roam freely having never surrendered or been captured after the fall of Baghdad (let alone the 400,000 strong former Iraqi army).
In fact, some independent news sources suggest that this may have been a deliberate act by the Republican Guard, who, knowing that they were no match for the US-led occupation forces in a conventional scenario, melted into the civilian population and allowed the occupation of Iraq to proceed with little resistance. All in all, what we’re really seeing in Iraq now is asymmetric warfare being waged by local Iraqi groups (and allegedly foreign fighters) who are using cheap and simple weapons to make this occupation a very costly one for those involved, rendering the high-tech American war machine a virtual laughing stock in many parts of the world, with their inability to quell a constantly evolving resistance.
Canada as a whole has avoided this madness and continues to enjoy a solid international reputation as a peace-keeping nation that abides by international law. Canadians should never feel ashamed that they are not in the spotlight with glamorous comic book talk about fighting evil with evil, spreading freedom with bombs, and promoting democracy with puppet regimes – which in effect is what the United States does. The relatively just, law-abiding, socially conscious and tolerant society Canada has produced, in this day and age, is a real source of pride. So let’s hope it stays that way.
So now, we get to the current issue of missile defence. I read on CBC news that it is estimated that Canada may have to contribute a portion towards the (estimated) 60 billion US$ . It’s bad enough that the press and everyone keep whining about a lack of funds for health care and education, not to mention this burdensome debt that has to be re-paid. Given the latter, missile defence is hardly a wise investment when important national priorities exist. I don’t know what genius comes up with these ideas. Maybe it was someone who grew up watching too many science fiction movies as a child. I am no expert on the technological aspect, but still, the rest of us have some basic tools we can use, out of reason and rationality, to judge the benefits and costs of missile defence.
First of all, we’ve all heard someone describe missile defence as “trying to hit a bullet with another bullet”. So let’s assume this technology becomes more reliable where it can actually do this on occasion. Will this be enough to thwart the unlikely event of a Russian attack? I read once that Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, warned that Russian missiles have effective decoy technology. So, if the Russians really had the intention to nuke North America they would probably be able to get a few hundred missiles across anyways. So really, there’s no point wasting that $60 billion on missile defence, since you’re going to have to hit the decoys as well as the real thing. It is unlikely that a large scale nuclear attack can ever be thwarted.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Riyadh Bseiso
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
