-->Beim Lesen dieses Beitrages sollte man im Hinterkopf haben, daß Israel mit etwa 400 Atomsprengköpfen eine der größten Atommächte dieser Erde ist.


10/28 On Iraq from a Cafe Member and Former Major in an Elite Anti Terrorist Unit of The Israeli Army


Dear BillI wish to offer another perspective on the burning issue, intensively debated lately on the Internet and your site as well, and that is the war drums between the US and Iraq. You and many others wrote that Bush might be so hot on the issue of Iraq to mask the critical issues and imminent collapse of the economy and/or take control of the Iraqi oil. Well, that certainly might be. It is no secret that history is full of politicians who used external enemies to hide the true state of affairs - internal incompetence, organized theft of state wealth, extreme poverty, brutality, lack of freedom, corruption…… and multiple other personal, social and economic diseases. It’s common practice in world affairs and it would not surprise me a bit.Whether the US government has these kind of considerations, I don’t know. But it is safe to assume that the following possible scenarios play a role in their war games because these are highly possible future developments that the US government would be crazy to ignore.


Scenario 1:It is reasonable to assume that Saddam Hussein will get his nukes sooner or later, with or without massive"inspections". His record of trying to build weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and playing hide and seek games with the international community speaks for itself. It must be assumed that Iraq will consider supplying Al-Quaeda with these WMD because of Saddam’s hatred of western civilization, and/or as revenge for his loss in 1991 Gulf War, and/or because of his wish to die as a martyr and hero of the entire Islamic world, and/or because of whatever - take your pick. Ignoring that outcome can lead to a disastrous results and the US must assume the worst case scenario when it comes to Saddam Hussein and act accordingly. If they won’t, sometime in the future, New York and Washington might be destroyed and that is a risk no sane government will take when dealing with such a person. Well, what’s new you say? This is exactly what the American government is indicating but has failed to prove. That failure was taken by many as a signal of massive public opinion manipulation and cynical playing on primal human fears. But is it the only conclusion? Imagine that they have a source at the top of the Iraqi government or military. If they would disclose that information it would burn a crucial source, stopping the flow of information. It may even cost human lives, many human lives. I personally have experienced such dilemmas on a minor scale and have witnessed situations where the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) refused to disclose sources of information even at the cost of severe public condemnation. There is no doubt that similar situations exist in abundance at higher levels of governments all over the world. In World War Two, the British were willing to risk the destruction of Coventry just not to disclose the existence of the Engima decoding machine. History is packed with cases where government could not reveal information crucial to its own reliability. Even if they don’t have exact information indicating that intention, considering the man’s past deeds is enough to give high probability to such a possibility. When a person repeatedly murder others, one doesn’t need to know about future planned murders to assume that the risk is there and act prudently to prevent further killings.


Scenario 2: Many are saying that the main reason for US intentions to take on Iraq is to control Iraqi oil, which is accompanied by a strong tone of condemnation. Let’s assume that Saddam Hussein get’s his nukes. Let’s look at the history of the Middle East where human life isn’t worth a dime. Egypt used chemical weapons - killing thousands - in its invasion of Yemen. Hafez Assad surrounded the city of Hamat with tanks in 1980 because they were protesting the rise in the price of bread. Throughout one week the city was destroyed systematically with tank shells, killing over 20,000 of his own civilians. The western educated King Hussein of Jordan killed over 10,000 Palestinians in"Black September". Saddam himself used chemical weapons against his own citizens, the Kurds, killing an untold number of people, let alone his usage of mustard gas against the Iranians. In the lower Galilee, between Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee (where I live), each year there are cases of Arab fathers killing their unmarried daughters who were seen sitting, just sitting, with a man in a car, to save the"family honour".It is a different world here and any attempt to judge it with western standards and codes of behavior, is futile. So when Saddam will have his nukes, it is feasible that he will take over Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the other small states in the Arab peninsula, thereby controlling half of the world’s oil. Wasn’t his invasion of Kuwait because of its oil reserves enough proof of his intentions? Most likely Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will also be taken over (and that is why secretly they and Egypt are the greatest supporters of the US taking on Iraq. We are afraid in Israel, but they, lacking the deterrent of their own nukes, are terrified as they are know and live by the same code of thinking).What do you get then? You get half of the world oil under the complete control of a brute, a mass murderer who knows no barriers and moral restrictions. This is a person who allowed his son to pick women up in the streets, brutally rape them and throw them half naked back into the street, who systematically robbed and pillaged his own country, enriching himself with billions upon billions for the sake of pure power over others, whilst his own citizens are starving. Would you want such a man to control half of the world’s oil?Oil is like water. It is accepted worldwide that the water flowing from one country does not belong solely to that country but also to all the other countries downstream. Water is the source of life and the natural gift of God to humans and the planet, and does not take into account artificial, human invented borders. Isn’t oil today almost as crucial to life as water? When taking massive control over the world’s oil will happen, what will prevent this newly created Arab empire from tripling and quadrupling the oil price to gather more wealth, build more WMD for the sake of personal power, glory and a place in history? Oil was used to blackmail the West in 1973, with massive economic damages resulting. This control will lead many countries into economic devastation, massive poverty, social chaos, violence in the streets and probably loss of democracy and finally to World War 3, but this time with the unrestricted use of nukes.Some say,"but the US can’t interfere in another state’s internal affairs, and the oil is the Iraqi’s people’s oil." This is not the case, however. In Iraq, as in Saudi Arabia, the oil profits do not belong to the people nor do they go back to the people. They belong to a bunch of armed robbers who steal their country’s natural wealth and resources to build for themselves numerous palaces and fly amongst them in private 747s, with a thousand-people escorts, and airplanes ferrying their Rolls Royces. If and when the US will replace Saddam, they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq, they will free the Iraqi people from the control of a brute who uses his country’s human and natural resources for his own personal wealth and sadistic enjoyment. I am quite sure that under a new Iraqi government, supported by the US, the Iraqi people will see a lot more of their oil wealth than they see today, not because generosity will rule the day then, but because they see none of it today. It is mostly being used against them and not for them.We need to ask ourselves, can the West allow a decline into economic and social chaos along with the possible collapse of numerous democracies because of this regime, because of one person? Can the West risk acting too late when this bully will already possess weapons of mass destruction? My personal belief is that considering the state of the Iraqi army and the morale of its people, it is going to be militarily relatively easy to change this possible course of events now, but it will be extremely costly in 3 years when Iraq will possess the ability to launch nuclear missiles to every major European capital. My guess is that this is the kind of discussion that is going on in the White House and other places in Washington. They will never say it, of course, for obvious reasons, it is colossally stupid to ignore such a scenario. After all, wasn’t the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 the early unfolding of such a scenario?


Scenario 3:Let’s say that Saddam will be slow to act according to the above scenario and will not immediately take over his neighbors. The world will never see, not even in the cold war era, the kind of nuclear arms race that will develop in Syria, Libya, Iran and Egypt. These regimes are not naïve and will not agree to be without nuclear capability with such a neighbor armed with nukes. How will the world look when these unstable nations, controlled by some of the most repressive regimes, will acquire nuclear weapons? And then if they then share them with other Islamic or anti-western nations all across the world? Is it really so unrealistic? This is dangerous to the extreme to the entire world. To do something about it today will be unavoidably costly, but to be forced to do something in the future, after the fact, will cost a price I’m not sure the world will be able to pay - ever.Think about when Prime Minister Begin destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1980. He was condemned by the entire world. He was thought to be a madman. In retrospect, even his strongest critics justified this act. Now think about Iraq conquering Kuwait in 1990 armed with nuclear weapons? The world would be entirely different today. Many decisions in the past that were popular with the masses turned out to be disastrous in retrospect. Moves which were extremely unpopular, in retrospect turned out to be the right thing to do. Your government might be inept, corrupt, but I have no doubt that these kind of threats are taken seriously by them, and they should. A decisive act now will take us a long way towards peace in the Middle East. Iraq’s destabilizing influence goes much beyond its borders. Ignoring these threats might turn to be a mistake which will cost millions of lives and throw the world into unimaginable chaos.With the hope to offer another view.Dan Turner***Dan is a veteran Cafe member, 45 years old and a former major in an elite anti terrorist unit of The Israeli Army.


Copyright 1999, 2002 Le Metropole Cafe. All rights reserved.