h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think a war, or any sort of operation to remove Saddam is a good thing. I pretty much take the position that it should be well thought-out, I think the American's want to rush in without thinking.

The "liberal" attitude to Iraq is hypocritical. It basically states "Saddam is an evil dictator, but he's no threat outside his borders really, so we should just leave be. No skin off my nose". Isn't this a fairly right-wing postion, when you actually look at it? Yet this is currently the line being trotted out in most "liberal" publications. Modern liberalism seems to have become pre-occupied with opposition rather than any sort of ideological platform. America accomodates Milosevich in 1995? Dreadful! He's a monster, they should be getting rid of him! NATO goes to war with Yugoslavia over Milosevich's policies in 1999? Imperialist warmongers! Hands off Yugoslavia! There is no ideology there, just oppositon. I see the same thing with Iraq. If America were friends with Saddam, those who currently oppose the war would be foaming at the mouth, demanding the removal of this monster, support for insurgents etc.

My own sympathies are leftist and arguably liberal. However, as an opponent of tyrannies like Saddam's I can't support all this "let's just leave him and his government be" stuff that is, when all's said and done, what opposition to an opertation to remove him has to boil down to.

Zagreb, you seem to be overlooking one rather important factor in all of this: namely, that in wars lots of people tend to get killed, maimed, bereaved and rendered homeless. That's why some of us liberal types believe that starting a war is a bad thing, unless there really is no other possible means of preventing something worse from happening. And not many things are worse that war - unless, that is, you're an arms manufacturer, like the ones that financed Bush's election campaign.

It isn't callous indifference to the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam that makes liberals want to hold back from war. It is the suspicion that raining bombs on the Iraqis might not actually relieve their suffering very much. And it's a safe bet that any US-led attack on Iraq will be largely airborne, since the Bush administration would be keen to minimise American casualties in order to keep the war - and, by extension, the President - popular at home.

As Kofi Annan has anxiously pointed out, there's also the very serious concern that the conflict could easily spread beyond the primary participants, given that the Middle East is already a war zone. There's already a huge amount of anti-Western feeling in the Arab world because of America's support for Israel against the Palestinians. An attack on Iraq would unquestionably make things far, far worse, and the conflict could easily escalate. In fact, just about the only certain thing about the proposed attack on Iraq is that if it happens, a huge number of innocent people will suffer horribly.

I share your impatience with the existence of tyranny in the world, Zagreb. It's just that the drastic remedy you're suggesting seems to me to be worse than the disease you're hoping to cure.