Republican demise Essay Example for Free

Republican demise Essay Saddam is fairly sure about his future at the end of this one-sided trial in Baghdad. He would most likely meet an end rightly deserved by a cruel perpetrator against humanity. None of us is immune to fear, pain and loss. But to suffer the fate of an uncertain future could be worse than any of these feelings. From this point of view, George Bush, assured of Republican demise, Tony Blair, assured of his exit and Saddam Hussein, are all on the same boat; certain of their fate. The biggest sufferers of the war in Iraq, are no doubt the Iraqis, suffering the most gruesome bloodshed that mankind has witnessed in recent times. To classify the next category of sufferers are the people who follow Islam. Iraq war has resulted in stereotyping the collaborators and extremists and has led Muslims in the Middle East to feel that it’s a war against their community. Due to the cascading effect that travels in communities and religions, the Muslims in most of the other countries also share this view. Unfortunately, the inability to locate the so-called â€Å"weapons of mass destruction† has also cast a serious doubt on the intentions of USA and UK in the minds of millions residing in their own countries. Now, many of us can relate to the uncertainty sneaking in the minds of people who had to commute on the morning of 8th July 2005 or 12th September 2001. Our government has done its best to gift unscathed tentativeness to British citizens. To foresee a natural calamity is definitely not expected from our leaders. But to invent a manmade catastrophe is also not what we deserve. In order to be socially responsible and contribute in preserving human rights, Britain has to contribute in the current World order. We cannot ignore the atrocities inflicted on mankind especially when we have the capacity to affect the situation. However, to bully a bully is also not a sensible stance. Let us analyze the pretext of going into this war as claimed in a dossier presented in the British parliament on 24th September 2002. The central points of Blair’s defense for offense were Iraqi regime’s program to develop nuclear, biological, chemical weapons of mass destruction. Aiding, funding and supporting groups like Al Qaida by this regime. He argued that Saddam has brutalized his own people using chemical warfare, so far the only blame that could be substantiated after dethroning the dictator. After explaining the threat posed to the region by the Iraqi regime, he lamented I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up. Where are those weapons of mass destruction now? Another losing battle is on the economic front. It is clear that the total cost of operations in Iraq is quickly exceeding previous estimates, and is now well over the ? 3 billion originally set aside by the Chancellor to fund the conflict. Rough estimates suggest that as much as an extra ? 1 billion will be required for each further year UK forces remain in Iraq. Perhaps as important as the rising costs themselves is the lack of transparency about where the money is going, and how much more will be needed in the future. The Iraq Analysis Group calls on the future government to clarify the costs of war in terms of size and expenditure type, and how they are being met. In the meantime, we will update this briefing as further information becomes available. It seems that the British government had detailed plans of â€Å"how to go in? † but never planned or foresaw on â€Å"how and when to come out? † Reluctantly enough, people of Great Britain stood by their elected leaders and the choices they made at the time of going into this war. The imminent dangers painted on our minds with repetitive citations on terror, terrorist attacks, axis of evil, tyrannical regime etc, were potent enough for us to believe that we are going to fight for peace. (Oliver King and Paul Hamilos, 2006). The UN was shoved aside, French, German and Russian representatives were simply ignored. Ironically, these nations are geographically and diplomatically a lot close to United Kingdom than Iraq. Somehow, British decision to act as the drum beater for this war, has also led the world to believe that commitment of our conscience is mortgaged to the USA. With his efforts, Blair successfully blurred the identity of our nation. Most of the media in the Middle East now cite UK and USA in the same breath, especially in context of the Iraq war. USA had suffered an indelible blow on 9/11. And we suffered a seemingly low scale trailer on 7/7, primarily due our policies on Iraq. A common view point held by world leaders is that the use of force can never be justified unless all other means of negotiation fail. UN inspectors on Iraq’s weapon program had certainly failed in their job as they were neither supported nor shown any cooperation by the Iraqi regime. The report from the chief UN inspector fortified the rhetoric from George Bush who went to label Saddam’s tactics as a charade. (George Bush, 2003). In such circumstances and in those times when most of the nations were made to believe that what’s going on in Iraq is dangerous for humanity, use of armed action certainly seemed feasible. A dictator, who could kill his own people, can very well drop a bomb on neighboring countries. The dangers and ease of spreading Anthrax as a biological weapon could not be taken as anything less than a grave concern. Just one push of a button could have caused irreparable and unrecoverable destruction. Faced with such a situation, UK’s stance on supporting USA is acceptable. To wait for Saddam to light a fuse for such havoc would have reduced most of the world leaders to a laughing stock, only if few of them would survive to be mocked at. Pre-emptive strike, as popularized by the US media, earns a lot of credibility in this context. Britain, or as a matter of fact any other nation, would react with utter might in order to prevent this. And if the countries surrounding Iraq are themselves grasping for survival and development, the onus does fall on developed nations to resolve the stalemate. Negotiations since 1995 were not bearing any fruits other than letting Saddam to build a black economy of earning billions despite the sanctions imposed on Iraq. Worse, none of this money was used to feed the destitute or mitigating infant mortality. The dictator had built water-tight ways of siphoning money into his personal accounts. The discovery of vast amounts of money being utilized without any tab raised suspicions in the minds of the majority. This surely was a reason valid enough to strike. And there is evidence that Saddam utilized all these years to fool the international community. It will also be not entirely fair to say that Blair did not weigh the situation at all We waited 12 years and then went through the United Nations. It is now three months since we gave Saddam what we called a final opportunity. (BBC News, 2003)