Iraq War

Tonight my wife and I and two of my daughters went to a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11. It was a salutary film, though not really containing anything we didn't really know already, but it presented in a powerful and emotionally arresting fashion the stupidity of the Iraq war. All wars are stupid, but when they are started by one's own country, Britain, and our supposed friends, the Americans, it is particularly upsetting. But more than stupidity, and there was a surfeit of this, the film revealed the real rottenness at the core of this present American administration. Its greed, its self-satisfaction and violent self-righteousness, and its contempt for ordinary people, both the ordinary people of America, and the ordinary people of Iraq. The problem is that the corporate fat cats, whilst certainly thriving under a Republican administration, don't always find life that much more difficult under a Democratic presidency. I am not sure exactly what Senator Kerry is going to do, he certainly seems to lack passion, and if the folly of this war can't excite passion, it is difficult to see what will at least Howard Dean had that passion. I think the conservative establishment managed to present Dean in the worst possible light, and the unthinking media was easily manipulated, and had a big hand in downing Dean, along with a good deal of help from a craven Democratic establishment who thought Dean was "too liberal".

What I just cannot understand is that the Americans seem to have forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. Vietnam was supposed to be a turning point in the way America saw its role in the world, but doesn't George Bush read history? In fact, does he read anything? The part of the film that will stick longest in my mind is Mr Bush in the primary school when he was told about the attacks on the Trade Centre. I actually felt sorry for him at that moment. He just didn't know what to do, he was like a rabbit caught in the glare of a car's headlights. As Michael Moore asked, just what was he thinking? We will never know, but those seven minutes revealed more clearly than anything else that George Bush had been elected to an office far, far above his competency. Each passing minute diminished Bush until at the end he almost vanished like a Cheshire cat, leaving behind a slowly fading image of utter bewilderment.

I was proud to be a war protester for the first time in my life, we couldn't change the course of history, but then history always seems to have its own unstoppable momentum. I can only pray that Mr John Kerry, when elected, does turn out to have the qualities of real leadership that American, and the rest of the world so desperately needs.

Two things that the film didn't cover at all were the role of Tony Blair, and the obscene financial cost of this war. I blame Blair a good deal, as a senior world politician, and a man supposedly of the left and an Englishman to boot, he failed miserably at this major test to become a world statesman. What I find difficult to understand is his apparent liking for George Bush. For a man who was good friends with Clintons, I would have thought the two would have been like chalk and the cheese. But one has to judge a man by the company he keeps and in this regard, Blair's regard for Bush has to be Blair's major failure of his political life; his support for the war was an inevitable outcome of his misjudgement of the character of Bush.

As to the financial cost, what can one do but weep? US$200 billion and counting. What could the world do with this money, drugs for treating AIDS, fresh water for all humanity, birth control, name what you will. America the only super-power. Well, for the moment it still is, but no country, however rich, can haemorrhage this sort of capital and not suffer the consequences. The ingrained paranoia of American society has been a strong feature of Fahrenheit 9/11, and Michael Moore's previous (and better) film Bowling for Columbine; in the former film it is is a fear of outside threats, in the latter the threats from within its own society. But America will not be defeated by outsiders anyway, but just like the Roman Empire, or the British, it is the internal contradictions in its own society that will eventually bring it down. I don't in any way wish to see this, but if the US can't learn from its mistakes, if it can't look after its own people in a humane and dare I say it, socially responsible way, it will eventually fail.

If you wish to see more pictures, and be severely warned, many are extremely graphic, visit this collection of pictures at Robert Fisk's internet site.

I append some letters I wrote before the start of the war. The first was in reply to an article by Michael Laws in the Sunday-Star Times. I know that Michael writes to provoke, but his support for the war was strident, he said war protesters were stupid, and he also said there was no such thing as an innocent party. My letter was published, slightly abridged. I would love to have had the company of Michael Laws tonight to see the film with us.

Subject: The Editor, riposte to Michael Laws. Date: 24 March 2003 11:19:16 AM To: feedback@star-times.co.nz

Dear Sir / Madam

When my friends call me stupid, well, perhaps they're on to something. But when a complete stranger calls me stupid, and publishes his opinion in your newspaper, that's slanderous and I take exception to it. So, Michael Laws, I want you to publish a retraction in next week's Sunday Star, and the same for the countless millions of peaceful, sensible, thoughtful human beings you have also slandered.

Your assertion, Michael, that in this war there is no moral right or wrong, no innocent party, is breathtakingly vacuous. Every casualty, British, American or Iraqi is an innocent party. There will be thousands of them before this war is finished. No-one, no-one, not even the stupidest person in the world, goes to war unless self-preservation demands it and every other avenue is exhausted.

Michael, you should volunteer. You could easily afford a fare to Kuwait, a rifle and uniform. You can perform your duty by blowing up the odd non-innocent party, a few Iraqi children would make an easy start, and you can progress from there. And at the end of the campaign, if you survive, you can publish another article reflecting on the true meaning of morals, innocence and stupidity.

Yours faithfully

Dr J K Monro,

Another letter to the Herald, I can't recall if this was published or not.

Subject: Letter to the Editor, Iraq Date: 7 February 2003 1:24:19 PM To: letters@nzherald.co.nz

Dear Editor

The latest revelations about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" are interesting, but still don't amount to an excuse for war. It is quite likely that Saddam has some remaining facilities relating to bacterial and chemical warfare. I wouldn't trust Saddam as far as I could throw him, but unfortunately I wouldn't trust Bush much more than twice that distance. War is uniformly terrible, to go to war the threat must be immediate and overwhelming. This is not the case. Bush apparently admires Churchill and his railing against appeasement, but even Churchill didn't threaten war, he asked for preparedness. At Munich, Germany had already invaded Czechoslovakia - the present situation is very different. When Bush goes on about his admiration for Churchill, he seems to be trying to gain respect for his warmongering by associating his name and policies with Churchill's - but the question should be not does Bush admire Churchill, but, if Churchill were still alive, would Churchill admire Bush? And anyway, wasn't it Churchill himself said "Better jaw-jaw than war-war".

Yours faithfully

Dr J K Monro

This was a letter to the Herald written slightly later, published.

Subject: Re Iraq war Date: 4 March 2003 8:37:45 PM To: Letters@nzherald.co.nz

I'm not sure who Nick Cohen is, he wrote the article in your perspectives page, supporting the war in Iraq, but I am sure he is wrong. His argument is neat, basically that Iraq is a tyranny, that tyrants should be disposed of and that all other considerations pale against this self-evident statement. But he only briefly acknowledges the possibility that it might all go terribly wrong. Whilst it may come to pass that the Iraqi soldiers will meekly lay down their arms, and deliver the head of Saddam on a brass platter, it is just as possible that there will be a civil war, a Kurdish war, a Turkish war, or many other equally frightening scenarios. Nor does it seem to have escaped the attention of North Korea that Uncle Sam is otherwise engaged. Now there's a nation that really could cause some mass destruction. For me the matter is simple I do not trust Mr Bush, I do not trust his advisors, and I do not trust that a simplistic and destructive solution to a complicated problem is likely to provide a long lasting answer.

Dr J K Monro

And a slightly later letter - not published, but should have been!

Subject: Iraqi War Date: 24 March 2003 7:47:22 PM To: letters@nzherald.co.nz

Dear Sir / Madam

I have just sent a letter congratulating our Prime Minister in her principled and humane stand in regard to the Iraqi war. To today's three correspondents supporting this war, I say
1. America must earn support, not compel it. America's argument - if you're not for us, you must be against us - is the last refuge of the intellectually and morally bankrupt.
2. France is not cowardly. As one of the main sufferers of both World Wars, France has a right to express disagreement according to their own experience. This applies to all the other nations who disagree with this war.
3. It is not our job to dispose of dictators through force and by the sacrifice of thousands of lives. We have no moral right, nor is it feasible even if we had.
4. War protesters are not pro Saddam. They are antiwar. That's all. Pretty simple really.
5. Our freedoms come through our own ability and resolution to live in a democratic society. Sometimes war is the only way, but not this time.
6. Evil is not overcome by evil.
7. If you want to learn more, just ask a few WW II veterans.

Yours faithfully,

Dr J K Monro,

The following two letters are more recent; the first was published, the second, my reply to someone's criticism, wasn't.

Subject: The American led war in Iraq Date: 20 April 2004 12:55:48 AM To: letters@dompost.co.nz

Dear Sir / Madam

One of the proudest moments of my otherwise pretty unremarkable life was walking in protest marches against the American and British war in Iraq. I had never previously protested about anything, not the Vietnam war, nor Apartheid.

What is happening in Iraq is appalling; over twelve years of Western sanctions has reduced Iraq to the functioning level of a scrap heap, causing the deaths of many tens of thousands of innocent children and now thousands more innocent lives are being lost in this continued illegal occupation, as in Fallujah.

I am pleased that Spain is pulling out, and I would now urge Helen Clark to withdraw our troops, not because we are scared, but because this is the just thing to do. Our withdrawal would be a forceful message of our disapproval of American policy in Iraq, but also we should send an official and strongly worded letter of complaint to that administration about its acceptance of Israel's permanent occupation of parts of the West Bank, against all previous UN resolutions and prior American commitments.

Yours faithfully,

Dr John K Monro.

Subject: re Iraq sanctions Date: 13 May 2004 9:15:47 PM To: letters@dompost.co.nz

Dear Sir,

Whilst Mr Wilson in today's letters is technically correct that Iraqi sanctions were "UN sanctions" and not "western" as described in my previous letter, I can't see how this affects my argument against sanctions and the recent war. UNICEF officials have estimated that that in 1996 some 4,500 Iraqi children were dying every month, that 180,000 children were malnourished, and that by 1999 half a million children had died, all because of sanctions. The prime instigators of these sanctions were the USA and Britain, and even when these appalling humanitarian effects of sanctions were repeatedly demonstrated to the USA, it blocked international moves to ameliorate the effects of them. And, after so much suffering, what precisely did the sanctions achieve?

Yours sincerely,

Dr J K Monro.