Why Canada Should Not Fight in Iraq

(This article was originally written in 2003)

The Chretien government has been trying to smother debate about whether Canada should fight in the event of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. When Canada’s Defence Minister John McCallum recently met U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington, he suggested that Canada might participate in an attack on Iraq even without the sanction of the United Nations. At a press conference in Ottawa a few days later, the Prime Minister seemed to lean against involvement in any unilateral U.S. strike, but he left his options open. The government is sowing confusion about the course it will take.

The Prime Minister likes to act as though consideration of a possible war is merely a hypothetical question, something not to focus on until the crunch comes. That’s what he did in the autumn of 2001, in the weeks preceding the U.S. assault on Afghanistan. He sat firmly on the fence until Washington attacked and then he announced that Canada would join in the attack. On Iraq, we need a debate in Canada while there is still time. Waiting for George W. Bush to announce that the marines are on their way is not good enough.

In recent weeks, George W. Bush’s case for war has been collapsing for all but true believers to see. For the past year, as the administration beat the war drums, it claimed that action against Saddam Hussein was urgent because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used in a strike against the United States or its allies. A parallel claim had it that the Iraqi regime could supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction for attacks against America.

The White House was insisting that the system put in place to contain Iraq was failing. Despite harsh economic sanctions, continual air surveillance by the U.S. and Britain, and a U.S. naval shield that prevents banned shipments from reaching Baghdad, Saddam was growing ever more dangerous. Failing to invade could mean that the first visible evidence of the Iraqi threat might take the form of a mushroom cloud, as Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor, graphically warned. It appeared that the American possession of the world’s greatest store of weapons of annihilation, which had contained the Soviets for decades, was not enough to keep Iraq in check.

So far, the U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq have found scant sign of chemical or biological weapons and no evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program. From his ranch in Texas and the White House, George W. Bush continually utters one-line threats, warning that he is running out of patience, and that if Saddam doesn’t disarm forthwith, force will be used to disarm him, with or without U.N. sanction.

Meanwhile a second member of Bush’s "axis of evil", North Korea, has admitted it has been secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program and has started up a nuclear reactor that can produce more plutonium and more nukes. In addition, Kim Jong Il’s regime has announced that it is withdrawing from the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. In response, the Bush administration insists that what is happening in the Korean peninsula is not a "crisis", but rather a "situation" that remains amenable to diplomacy.

In his state of the union address last year, Bush warned the "axis of evil" countries that the United States "will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons."

According to that yardstick, North Korea poses a much more dangerous threat than does Iraq, and yet the Bush administration plainly wants to avoid war with Kim Jong Il, and for plenty of good reasons. A war with North Korea could devastate Seoul, the South Korean capital, which is close to the Korean Demilitarized Zone. In addition, the U.S. calculates that with the diplomatic collaboration of Russia, China, Japan and South Korea, it may well be able to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for much needed economic aid. In the final analysis though, America’s trump card is the same as it always has been, its own storehouse of nuclear missiles that can blast North Korea off the planet at a moment’s notice. Containment---now a dirty word in Washington---can keep North Korea at bay. That’s why a pre-emptive strike is not needed.

By the same token, given its ample means for containing Saddam, why does the Bush administration so clearly want war with Iraq? The answer is that the issue of weapons of mass destruction has always been a subterfuge, used to camouflage the geo-strategic reasons Washington wants war. Yes, Washington wants to ensure that Iraq’s oil is freely available to the industrialized world and to U.S. oil companies. But it’s not as simple as that. What Bush’s key advisors want is a U.S. military base in Iraq that can keep an eye not merely on a subservient, pro-U.S. government in Baghdad, but on the surrounding region. That includes, Saudi Arabia, seen as unstable in Washington, Syria, and the third member of the axis of evil, Iran. A great deal of planning has already gone on in Washington about how the United States will manage post-war Iraq.

With the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, if possible, but without it if necessary, the U.S. looks almost certain to act. By mid February, George W. Bush will have the forces he needs in the region to wage war. All that will then be missing will be a last minute, dramatic U.S. claim that it has proof that Iraq has been hiding banned weapons. That trigger, which may be based on truth, half-truth or complete fabrication, is highly likely to serve as the justification for unleashing an assault.

Canadians have every reason to stay out of an unjust and foolhardy U.S. war that threatens, among other things, to render us more insecure from terrorists. As the rationale for war has been stripped bare, Canadians who are determined to support Bush have been reduced to arguing that we should stand with the Americans because they are our kith and kin.

The true course of friendship with our neighbours is for Canada to say no to this senseless war before it’s too late.