- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
This book demonstrates that the Bush’s claims to change the regime in Iraq, despite intentions to impose another Sunni general to replace Saddam Hussein, are not in fact a ‘regime change’, but a ‘leadership change’. It also shows that the war would be in violation of international law; that there is no hard evidence that Iraq possesses any weapons of mass destruction; that there is no substantiated connection between the Government of Iraq, September 11th, and the al Qaeda network; that the proposed war carries a high risk of triggering a humanitarian disaster in Iraq, especially for the Kurds of northern Iraq; and that the war could precipitate a world recession with dire consequences for the world’s poor. Iraq’s neighbors, the ones most at risk from Iraq’s weapons, are against the proposed war, as are top military professionals in Britain and the US, many international organizations and countries around the world, and a great majority of people in the US and the UK.
“Give peace a chance and buy this book. It explains why Bush’s proposed war against Iraq has little to do with Saddam’s tyranny and everything to do with Washington’s infinite greed for oil and power.”—Mike Davis
“If Nobel Peace Prizes were given to true peace-makers, one would be reserved for Milan Rai and his comrades in Voices in the Wilderness and Arrow. This book is a thorough, irrefutable testimony to why there should be no war with the Iraqis.”—John Pilger
“Milan Rai is one of the wisest war resisters of our time. His carefully researched analysis has consistently guided non-violent efforts to end military and economic warfare against Iraq. Now more than ever, we rely on his reasoning and integrity.”—Kathy Kelly
“This is the clearest and most persuasive explanation of the reasons not to go to war with Iraq that anyone could wish for. Written with great clarity and precision, War Plan Iraq exposes the extraordinary hypocrisy and double dealing which characterises the US march to war.”—George Monbiot
Posted September 30, 2002
This is a most convincing and well-argued case for peace. Milan Rai deals brilliantly with the issue of the UN weapons inspections. He shows how the US government destroyed the UN¿s weapons inspection agency Unscom. On 30 October 1998, the UN Security Council, led by the USA, refused to confirm that it would lift sanctions even after Unscom had verified that Iraq had disarmed; this breached Paragraph 22 of its own Resolution 687. The US and British governments are covering up the fact that the inspections succeeded. By 1992, Unscom had eliminated Iraq¿s long-range missile programme. By 1995, the International Atomic Energy Authority had eliminated Iraq¿s nuclear weapons programme. According to Richard Butler, the head of the Unscom team, Unscom was within a few weeks of completing its work when the US government pulled it out. The Bush government continues vehemently to oppose inspections. The Washington Post noted ¿concern by Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power.¿ As Colin Powell said recently, if UN weapons inspectors returned to Iraq under existing agreements, the US `would find ways to thwart that¿. This signals the US government¿s intent to breach the UN Resolutions, whose alleged breach by Iraq is supposed to be the casus belli. The US government is not backing inspections to prevent war; it is trying to prevent weapons inspections so that it can launch a war. Rai puts forward ten reasons for opposing the war: there is no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; there is no link between Iraq and 11 September; war would not be about `regime change¿ but about `dictator change¿; war could trigger a humanitarian disaster; war would endanger the Kurds; war would be illegal; Iraq¿s neighbours fear Bush, not Saddam; US and British generals oppose the war; 58% of the British people oppose the war; war could trigger a world recession. One link between Al-Qa¿ida and Iraq that the US government has proposed was an alleged meeting in Prague in April 2001 between Mohamed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the suicide hijackers, and the Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad al-Ani. This allegation got worldwide coverage. But, as the BBC reported on 1 May, ¿investigations indicate that at the time of the alleged meeting with the Iraqi agent, Ahmed Chalil Ibrahim Samir Ani, in April 2001, he [Atta] was in Virginia Beach and Florida.¿ Time magazine reported on 13 May, ¿the best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack ¿ a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic ¿ was discredited last week.¿ Yet Andrew Buncombe of the Independent reported (26 September) that US officials are still using this story to try to prove a link between Iraq and al-Qa¿ida, and he wrongly described the story as `disputed¿, not as refuted. Additionally, the danger of Iraq using any weapons of mass destruction is obviously greatest if it is fighting for its survival. An attack would provoke the actions that it is supposed to prevent! Iraq has made no threats to use these weapons, but the US, British and Israeli governments have all threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, threats which themselves are breaches of international law. There is no right of `pre-emptive self-defence¿ in international law. The Bush-Blair rationale would open the door to any government claiming that it too was justified in attacking any other state that allegedly had any weapons of mass destruction! Bush¿s threat - which Blair has consistently backed ¿ to attack Iraq even without UN warrant is lynch `law¿. By contrast, the French government has rightly rejected the idea of a war to overthrow Saddam without UN backing. Further, even if the lynch mob bribes the sheriff into signing a warrant, or into looking the other way, it is still lynch law: the Security Council has no authoritWas this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.