Madam Speaker, in this short period of time I would like to comment on three things: one, the war against terrorism; two, the weapons of massive destruction; and three, what happens next.
The problem with the war on Iraq is it is based on the dubious premise that disposing of Saddam Hussein is a significant step toward combating terrorism and ensuring world security. This is not to downplay the fact that Hussein is a cruel dictator and deserves absolutely no sympathy. However, in my estimation, there is a true terrorist threat to world peace and security that is far more menacing than Iraq, and that is Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network.
Most countries, excluding the U.S., have limits as to how much manpower and money they can afford to spend on extraterritorial military operations. In my view, it would be wiser to concentrate those limited resources on more pressing areas of concern, such as getting at the root causes of terrorism and capturing its most deadly practitioners.
Clearly, the U.S. has been traumatized by September 11 and operates out of a mindset that we in Canada have trouble comprehending. It has become frightened and cautious and its administration has certainly been spooked by terrorism.
Until September 11, Canada and the U.S. lived a somewhat charmed existence. The bad things seemed to happen to other people and other countries. Gwynne Dyer, in his book Ignorant Armies: Sliding into War in Iraq , calls it American exceptionalism. He said:
The citizens of New York should have known that they were not so much exempt as lucky for the moment, but the powerful tradition of American exceptionalism misled them into thinking that invulnerability was their birthright.
The Americans have been shaken to their core. We should respect that fact and resist the temptation to call them names and impugn their motives.
From September 2001 until now, we have witnessed many twists and turns. Canada was and is a loyal ally in the war against terrorism. Even the much maligned France has been there for the fight against terrorism and as the French said post-September 11, “We are all Americans”.
Domestically, Canada has spent significant sums of money on security and legislation. We have updated our laws and have given our security forces the tools that they say they need. In my opinion, some of the expenditures have been questionable and the encroachment on citizens' rights has been very aggressive at times. It is pretty hard to tell whether the gain in security has been worth it and really, only history will answer that question.
We are partners in Afghanistan and have participated in proportion to our resources. I would argue that is where we should remain focused and that is where the U.S. should remain focused. Osama bin Laden has not been captured and the al-Qaeda network has not been destroyed. They are likely in northern Pakistan and still quite dangerous to world peace.
The question is, however, how did a legitimate war on terrorism mutate into a war on Iraq? One day we seemed to wake up and there was an axis of evil with its three charter members: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It almost appeared to be a campaign of propaganda.
All these regimes can be described as tyrannical, anti-democratic and oppressive, but they cannot be described as terrorists in the same sense as al-Qaeda. Nor have they ever been accused of state sponsored terrorism, such as Libya or Syria for instance.
The war on Iraq may be a lot of things, but let us not confuse it with the fight against terrorism.
There are several perverse ironies here, the effect of which may actually give comfort to the terrorists of September 11.
Saddam Hussein is a Shia Muslim in a secular Muslim state. He is the antithesis of bin Laden's vision of an Islamic state.
Bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim from the Wahhabi sect, which sees itself as the only true version of Islam. In addition to being down on infidels like you and me, Madam Speaker, they despise Shia Muslims and they despise Muslims like Hussein.
Bin Laden has tried to have Hussein assassinated twice. In a perverse sort of way, bin Laden will be cheering President Bush, who he hopes will succeed where he has failed, although I dare to say they do not have the same thing in mind when they talk about regime change. I have this perverse image of Osama bin Laden in some cave with a little aerial outside the cave tuned in to CNN and cheering on George Bush.
It is a strange world when enemies such as Bush and bin Laden are cheering for the same result.
This war against Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism and might just be counterproductive. In my view, if the U.S. does not stay focused on bin Laden and his network, he may well enhance the risk of further terrorist attack and give al-Qaeda and others like them comfort.
The war on Iraq will likely exacerbate hatred against the United States, Israel and the west. Iraq will fracture along ethnic religious lines and give encouragement to one of the other members of the axis of evil, Iran. Already we hear of Shia Muslims crossing into Iraq at the Iran-Iraq border to finish off some business left over from the last 12 or 15 years.
In a post-war scenario, the U.S. occupying force will likely control Baghdad, but power will decline in inverse proportion to its distance from Baghdad. How strange it would be that Iran will also be cheering that President Bush has some success.
Having argued that the U.S. has lost its focus on that which threatens it the most, what then is the point of this war? If it is not terrorism, what is it? The argument is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to his people and his neighbours. Some might even argue that he has the ability to transport these weapons and do damage in the U.S. or sell them to terrorists.
Weapons of mass destruction come in three categories: nuclear, chemical and biological. The big one is nuclear. That is basically 98% of the game. It is powerful, very destructive and with a good delivery system can attack anyone, any place, any time.
The flaw in the argument is that no one in the Bush administration believes that Saddam Hussein has a viable nuclear weapons program. He may have bits and pieces here and there, but he cannot deliver them. The weapons inspectors have that one pretty well nailed down. If he does not have nuclear weapons, does he have biological or chemical weapons?
The U.S. has some basis for concern on this score as the U.S. sold the stuff to Hussein in the first place. As Dwyer in his mythical question to President Bush asks, “Mr. President, how can you be sure that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?” The answer, “We kept the receipts”. The U.S. sold him this stuff in order to stalemate the Iran-Iraq war. The problem is that the weaponization of this stuff is very difficult. It is useful in confined spaces such as battlefields and little villages, but not nearly as effective as nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein has no nuclear capability and his chemical and biological capability is severely curtailed, so where are the weapons of mass destruction that warrant going to war? Why would the world's only superpower start a war on those grounds? It does not make any sense.
The Prime Minister has tried to make the point that the Americans have already won the war. For 12 years there have been overflights. There are overflights and there are military satellites. Saddam Hussein cannot blow his nose without the Americans knowing what kind of kleenex he used.
For 12 years there has been a form of sanctions and presumably the coalition forces have a pretty good idea of the goods that are going into and out of Iraq. For 12 years on and off weapons inspectors have been playing hide and seek.
I appreciate the president is frustrated and is impatient, but there have been results. We saw missiles actually being destroyed. It is also a great deal less risky and less expensive to play cat and mouse than to start a war. What is the rush? This could go on for years, I am perfectly prepared to admit that, but during all of that time the mouse cannot run anywhere.
Again if this is not a war about terrorism, and it is not about weapons of mass destruction, and it is not about inspections, what is it about? It is just speculation as to what it is all about, but on speculation, I am not prepared to recommend going to war.