The morality of a war that was not necessary
Is a war justified, whatever may be the compulsions behind it? I would say NO, a BIG NO. Imagine the
destruction that comes along with the war. Add to that the sufferings of human beings. Children losing
their parents, parents losing their children, brothers losing sisters, sisters losing brothers, husband
losing wives, wives losing husbands and what not. What happens to the political leaders who initiate the
war? Well, your guess is as good as mine.
While I write this, my prayers are with the Iraqi people who have suffered already under the U.N. sanctions, with both the Iraqis and Americans who have lost their life, be it the soldiers or civilians. A life lost is a life lost.
Coming back to the morality of the current war on Iraq, I would like to pose a simple question to you.
Are you allowed to kill another person because that person is cruel, wicked and doesn't hesitate to
torture his own family members? Do you have the license to kill him or the right to ask him to get out
of his own home because he could be a potential threat to you in future? If I think somebody could pose a
threat to my family, I'll fortify my home. Take measures that I believe would protect my family. I would
not go on a pre-emptive killing spree. If at all I do, do you think I would be let go by any court in the
world?
This war, says the U.S and U.K, is about liberation of Iraq. About liberation of Iraqi people from the 'evil' regime of Saddam Hussein. But his liberation is by occupation. This liberation is for the control of the second largest oil reserves on earth. America fought a different kind of war to liberate Afghanistan from the 'evil' empire of Soviet Union with the help of a dictator, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan and then left them fight among themselves. America paid the price - you know when - and then again liberated the same Afghanistan from the clutches of the Taliban. They said then that Afghanistan will be ruled by Afghanis. True in letter but not on spirit. Hamid Karzai is indeed an Afghani. But there are enough reports available how the ex-King of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah, was arm-twisted and threatened to withdraw himself from the fray and go once again into political oblivion. History is replete with stories as to how Japan and Germany became the American allies after the World War II, in which those two countries were devastated by the U.S. So it is anybody's guess that who will be actually ruling Iraq after the war.
If you think that this Iraq war is justified, how did majority of the world think otherwise? How the all powerful U.S could not get the backing of the U.N.? The answer lies somewhere else. With King Fahd of the Saudi Arabia increasingly on wane and his more nationalist brother and King-in-waiting is in-charge, the Americans see that the prospects of controlling Saudi Arabia and by implication the huge oil reserves is diminishing day by day. With the U.N weapons inspectors failing to find anything that can be called a weapon of mass destruction, the U.S and its closest ally, U.K, had to, in some pretext, dislodge Saddam from power in order to control what they wanted to.
Saddam Hussein may be a bad man. Majority of Iraqis may have suffered under his regime as under any
dictator. But so did the black South Africans under the apartheid regime. Where was the morality then? Who
supported Iraq by providing arms in the Iran-Iraq war? How did he become an 'evil' ruler over night?
It was ludicrous when the U.S suddenly remembered the Geneva convention on POWs when their soldiers were taken. I can flout the the U.N and the whole world but when you catch one of my members, you must adhere to international conventions! Oh yeah. Tell me more, sir.
