Quo vadis?(1)

by Dr. Heinz Loquai(*), General ret., Germany

Long before September 11th, shortly after George W. Bush began his presidency, it became clear that the American President would work towards the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. In an editorial of 17th February 2001 'The Washington Post' congratulated the new President on a 'good start in Iraq.' The reason for the congratulations were the American-British air raids of 16th February near Baghdad, outside the no-fly zones.2 Since then the USA and the British have continued their air-raids in violation of international law, and which could also be called criminal.

September 11th gave the American President the chance to attribute participation in these crimes in New York and Washington to the dictator. Despite intensive efforts no evidence was found for this. But Iraq was included in the 'axis of evil.' Since then Iraq has been considered as the next goal in the world-wide war against terrorism. Bush places the war in a wider context. On the occasion of a troop visit, he announced: 'In the years to come we will fight evil in the whole world, and we will triumph.'

The rabble-rousers in his government were more specific. His Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice called Saddam Hussein 'a threat, because he is absolutely determined to come into possession of weapons of mass destruction.' Evidence for this claim? None! The American Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld spoke of a 'longstanding connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.'3 Evidence for this? Of course none!

All experts agree. It is no longer the question of 'whether' there will be an attack on the USA, but only 'when' and 'how.' The 'Office of Strategic Influence' has already begun to get the US population in favour of a war and to manipulate the opinion leaders in the countries of the anti-terror alliance. Every day, we receive, from different sources, well-placed new findings about the 'monster' in Baghdad. 'Currently a systematic campaign of false and incorrect information is being intensified - the largest campaign ever undertaken by US authorities. An increasing propaganda dosis is being fed to the American and international public every day, telling them what a threat Iraq represents for the world in 2002.'4

Let us look back and dwell briefly on the facts:5

- The USA supported Saddam in his war against Iran.

- The sanctions imposed after the second Gulf War against Iraq had severe consequences for the Iraqi population. Half a million children have already died of malnutrition and illnesses. That is known as war crimes.

- The US and Great Britain have so far closed their minds to a humanization of the sanction regime to a large extent (with the exception of the 'Oil for Food' programme). They are waging a cruel war against the civilian population - but with other than military means. The victims are above all children. The dictator and his ruling clique are certainly not the ones who are suffering from these crimes against humanity by those on the good side.

- In protest against the 'genocide consequences' of the UN sanctions the co-ordinators of the programmes 'Oil for Food' have stepped down.

- The American Scott Ritter, one of the weapons inspectors, stated, 'that Iraq has not possessed any weapons of mass destruction since 1997.'

- After returning from a two-week stay in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, one of the co-ordinators who have stepped down, said: 'The US Ministry of Defence and the CIA know exactly that today's Iraq does not represent any threat to the region, let alone to the United States. Every other statement is dishonest.'6

However, President Bush will nevertheless wage his personal war against Saddam Hussein just as Madeleine Albright waged her 'very personal war' against Milosevic.7 In doing so he will not be at all impressed by the fact that this war cannot be justified - 'not according to international law nor on ethical peace grounds.'8 The USA will without any doubt win the military war. A country already ruined will be destroyed even more. The suffering of the people will be increased. But what then?

The German Federal Chancellor Schroeder and his Minister of Foreign Affairs Fischer spoke out, with surprising clarity, recently against a war on Iraq and rejected German participation in such an 'adventure.' If one remembers, however, what the same red-green leading politicians wrote down in the coalition agreement and the government program four years ago, and if one compares this with their actual policy, then we should be sceptical. Dissociation from the USA, demonstrated in the final phase of the Bundestag election, and the question whether renewed participation of the German Federal Armed Forces in a war of aggression will take place, will be put to the test when the USA calls for declared unrestricted solidarity.

The American historian Barbara Tuchmann states as an historical experience that the problem lies in insisting on the error. The practitians of a government follow the wrong path to its end, as if they were under the spell of some Merlin, whose magic strength guides their steps. Nothing is more anathema to a government than having to admit mistakes, or putting an end to losses, or changing their course. The title of her book is The Foolishness of the Governing. From Troja to Vietnam.9

Does this answer the question 'Quo vadis?' Let me first make a pessimistic prediction. The American President, obsessed by his mission and supported by his bellicose advisors, will in any case wage war against Iraq in order to catapult Saddam Hussein out of power. A case will be construed, the USA have enormous experience in doing so. The United Nations and NATO will be instrumentalised. The American government also has a lot of experience in this. The Europeans and particularly Germany will join in. Our experiences with Schroeder/Fischer teaches us so. The USA will win the military war. This is already clear when looking at the military balance of power. There will be hundreds of thousands of victims among the civilian population on the Iraqi side. But who cares? Experience teaches us that too. The winners will celebrate their grandiose victory - as usual. And then?

And now the optimistic version. The negative attitude towards this war gains political strength among the populations of the European countries. The people start to rebel against it. 'We are the people' can be heard again on the streets. The media live up to their role as 'the fourth power.' They free themselves of 'propaganda and voluntary conformity of thought.'10 The German Federal Government and other European governments are pressured by the people and published opinion. The United Nations will finally pursue a policy which is committed to the UN Charter. Bush finds himself facing pressure in domestic affairs. Then, perhaps then, there is a chance that this 'heralded war' does not take place. But does our historical experience permit this optimistic variation?

1 Excerpt from 'Revitalisation of War as a Means of Policy,' lecture held at the Xth Conference 'Mut zur Ethik' in Feldkirch/Austria from 30th August to 1st September 2002 entitled 'Humanity at a Crossroads'; first publication of the full lecture in: Zeit-Fragen No. 39, 23rd September 2002, Zurich.

2 Böhler, Volker. Drohende Schatten über Mesopotamien. (Threatening Shadows Over Mesopotamia) In: Auftrag Vol. 248/2002, p. 20. Col ret. Böhler was head of a military attaché staff of officers for Syria, Lebanon and Jordan from 1992 until 1995.

3 op. cit p. 22

4 von Sponeck, Hans. Ein Krieg, den nur die US-Regierung will. (A war only the US desire) In: Frankfurter Rundschau, 30th July 2002.

5 op. cit.

6 op. cit.

7 Ruby, James. Countdown to a very personal war. In: Financial Times, 20th September 2000 and 7th October 2000.

8 op. cit. p.28

9 Tuchmann, Barbara. Die Torheit der Regierenden. Frankfurt am Main 1984, p.480f.

10 Gabriele Gillen on WDR 3 on 14 Sept. 01: 'The media as well face a challenge [...] We must mention the names of the offenders and the context [...] Who equipped the Albanians in Kosovo with weapons - and who are the vassals of the terrorist bin Ladin? Aren't they Germany and the USA? We must free ourselves from propaganda und the voluntary conformity of thought.'

(*) Dr. Heinz Loquai, retired Brigadier General

Heinz Loquai served in the German Federal Army from 1959 until 1991. General staff training at the Officers' Academy in Hamburg, taught as a lecturer for operations and organisational science in the Officers' Academy, spent six years working in the Federal Ministry of Defence, lectured on nuclear policy with the German NATO Representation and Chief of Staff, and was also acting Divisional Commander. In 1991 he became head of the Centre for verification tasks in the area of arms control of the German Federal Army, and from 1995 until 2000 he was commander of the army section of the German OSCE-representation in Vienna. He published a book on the Kosovo conflict in 2000.