It is disappointing there is no effective political challenge in America to a policy that seems to outsiders so ruinous not just for Iraq, the Middle East, indeed the rest of the world, but for America itself, writes Vincent Browne.
George Bush claimed in his debate with John Kerry on Friday night that 70 per cent of al-Qaeda had been brought to justice; that al-Qaeda now had no where to "play" (since they are not free to romp around Afghanistan); that although Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, he intended to acquire them and therefore posed a serious threat, which justified the invasion; that Saddam Hussein would have supplied these weapons to al-Qaeda; that America was right to refuse to engage with the International Criminal Court because that could have meant American soldiers being brought before an "unaccountable" judge; that whatever unpopularity America provoked by its policy on Israel, it was doing the right thing and would continue doing the right thing, irrespective of whatever unpopularity this evoked in Europe.
It transpires the claim about 70 per cent of al-Qaeda being brought to justice meant 70 per cent of al-Qaeda's top operatives were brought to justice, but even this is a piece of nonsense because no one knows who the top operatives are. Sure as hell the Americans don't know.
Al-Qaeda now have nowhere to "play"? What about Iraq? It didn't have Iraq to play in 18 months ago but now it has a large populous country and lots of room to play. And, more significantly, it almost certainly has many, many more players, recruited from Iraq and from around the region.
So the invasion of Iraq is now to be justified, not because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction but because he "intended" to acquire them, or at least so the Americans surmise; and, further, that he might have given them to al-Qaeda, even though there is not a scintilla of evidence there was any such intention. Some justification for bombing a country to bits, murdering thousands of civilians (yes, murdering, i.e., intentional unlawful killing) and devastating the lives of millions. All because the Americans believe someone "intended" something.
It is bad enough that the Americans should undermine one of the few institutions established recently to deal with crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court. They have undermined it by refusing to engage with it on the grounds that American soldiers (or leaders?) could never be guilty of such crimes and arraigning them before such a court would be an obvious affront to justice. But that this should be something that a US president should boast about in an election campaign?
And on Israel: The sole concession Tony Blair was seen to extract from George Bush in return for his (Blair's) support for the invasion of Iraq was the Roadmap for Peace in the Middle East, which required an agreed settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians - essentially the position of the European Union. Then a few months ago, George Bush tore up the roadmap by endorsing a unilateral initiative on the part of the Israelis, a slap in the face not just for Europeans but for America's foremost world ally, Tony Blair. And, again, George Bush sees this as a trump card to pay in the US election.
What is especially disquieting about all this is not that a US president is contemptuous of the views of the rest of the world and justifies the devastation of a country so flimsily, but that his opponent in the presidential election demurs only on the margins of these policies.
John Kerry agrees Saddam Hussein was a threat to America, even though he (Saddam) had no weapons of mass destruction. Kerry says he would have given the US weapons inspectors more time to determine whether there were such weapons in Iraq. But what would have been the point of waiting since, irrespective of whether he had such weapons, Saddam represented a threat to America? Kerry says he would have orchestrated a wider coalition of forces before invading Iraq, he would have committed more troops and would have had an exit strategy. But what if he found, as George Bush found, a wider coalition could not be assembled? On the troops deployment issue, Kerry is saying the invasions would have been even more devastating. As for the exit strategy, what conceivably could that have been?
It is disappointing there is no effective political challenge in America to a policy that seems to outsiders so ruinous not just for Iraq, the Middle East, indeed the rest of the world, but for America itself. No room on the political spectrum for the view that America's security is best protected by defusing the anger that is currently directed towards it. Yes, Ralph Nader represents this view but he is marginalised by the media (no room for him or the other candidates in the TV debates, for instance) and the electoral system makes it impossible for third candidates to compete except in the most exceptional circumstances. In effect, Americans are being offered a Hobson's choice: if they don't want George Bush, they have to opt for John Kerry who is not substantially different.
It is an illustration of how seemingly neutral electoral systems shape agendas and policies. And although our electoral system makes more sense, it too shapes agendas and policies in ways that were never intended and in ways that remain masked.