As a simple thinker, I can see that the justifications for this war have all been unconvincing. No evidence of weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons has been found. No evidence of any collaboration with wanted “terrorists” has been established. So, where is the threat? The people of Iraq, other than the Kurd minority, do not demonstrate opposition to Saddam’s regime but dance and chant pledges to die for Saddam. In the present circumstances, they cannot be doing so in fear of Saddam. They demonstrate stubborn resistance to the US/UK forces which claim to have come to free them of the dictatorship.

Democracy can not be exported by force. The people of a nation are more aware than outsiders of what they want and how to achieve it. If the people of a nation are not ready for democracy and do not work to establish it and achieve it, they will not be able to hold on to it once it comes. On the other hand, if democracy is so meaningful and indispensable in the vision of the USA and UK, why don’t they respect universal democracy?

The international community has clearly opposed this war and urged US and its allies to give peace a chance. The inspectors were doing an excellent job and they commended Iraq’s cooperation. They needed just a couple of more months to finish their work. A couple of more months seemed a life time for Washington. The inspectors would perhaps succeed in proving that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction or would ensure the destruction of any other weapons that could be a pretext for war against Iraq. Another unspoken US reservation is that in a couple of months, the weather in the region would be too hot for its army. So, why wait?

So, the “Coalition of the Willing” was only willing to wage war and not to continue diplomatic and peaceful efforts just when these efforts were yielding the desired results and just when Iraq was most cooperative. In fact to avoid a war, Iraq has not only been compliant, but submissive to even arbitrary demands. I say arbitrary demands because while any nation has the right to secure a degree of armament to ensure its protection, Iraq was ripped off of the minimal degree of armament that would secure any decent protection. Iraq was compelled to destroy even its simple, old and unsophisticated weapons and to give in detailed reports about all its weapons, what has already been destroyed and the remaining. This information is most likely being readily used directly and indirectly by the US and UK in the present war.

Moreover, acknowledging the fact that Iraq has been under sanctions for over the last ten years, it is ironic that Bush describes the American and British service men who are engaged in this war as “brave”. What bravery is there in attacking the weak, the totally exposed and those who are stripped of any decent means of defense and self-protection? Is this modern-day chivalry? These are just the ethics and policies that give rise to terrorists and terrorism.

It seems that ever since the US developed weapons of mass destruction it has also developed an appetite for war. This appetite first became evident in World War II, and has never since been dormant. All its eruptions have been disastrous. Over the last decade alone, the US has led about six wars, and has supported a seventh slow and steady yet intense war against the Palestinian people. The US did not support serious multilateral diplomatic efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis fairly and halt the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and even vetoed resolutions attempting to. Yet it was ready to wage war for the third time against Iraq — this time unilaterally and against the will of the international community. This ongoing war leads us all to question the real intentions behind all the other US-led wars over the last decade.

The American and British leaders have claimed that the coalition forces are coming to free the people of Iraq from the Iraqi tyrant they resent but are unable to overthrow. But we all see large groups of innocent civilians taken prisoners of war, “paraded and humiliated on TV.” These are the exact words used by the allies to describe similar Iraqi treatment to US prisoners of war. But only when the first few US prisoners of war were shown and questioned on TV were the Geneva Conventions recalled. Why are civilians taken as enemies and treated as prisoners if the allies have come to free them? If the Iraqi civilians are hostile, the allies must have been misinformed. So, why do the allies continue their mission to help people that do not want to be helped?

Since the war started, every time Saddam appears on TV, the media replays the suspicions of the coalition that it may be a double and that Saddam may have already been killed. According to the allies, once Saddam is killed, his people will be relieved that they got rid of the tyrant and that the aggression which is meant to bring down Saddam will halt, so who needs to keep a double? It would only make sense if the people around Saddam know that he is revered by his people and that it is important for their morale to keep his death secret. By reiterating their suspicion, the allies show they realize that Saddam may not be as hated by his people as they have claimed. Perhaps he has become a symbol.

Before the war the allies put out a lot of propaganda about their smart missiles and the precision of their strikes. Since this war started, thousands of smart missiles have been aimed precisely at harmless targets. Shouldn’t the commanders of the coalition forces have been more precise in selecting their targets? Many buildings have been set ablaze, much of the infrastructure has been destroyed and many innocent civilians have lost their lives. What a waste of energy, resources and human lives. Who will pay for them?