
© Str/Reuters
I couldn't sit with someone who justified the invasion of Iraq with a lieThe immorality of the United States and Great Britain's decision to invade
Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.
Instead of recognising that the world we lived in, with increasingly sophisticated communications, transportations and weapons systems necessitated sophisticated leadership that would bring the global family together, the then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand - with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.
If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and
Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer.
On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?
Comment: What we are seeing today in Syria - that is, ALL of the massacres and car bombs etc. - is the work of the 'Free Syrian Army' and it is precisely the same kind of tactic that has been playing out in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 10 years. This is a NATO 'proxy Army', trained and funded by the intelligence agencies of NATO countries to sow chaos in the targeted nation as an alternative to a 'boots-on-the-ground' invasion by NATO country armies. Even in the case where an invasion takes place, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, this proxy army war takes over fairly quickly because such proxies can kill and maim with impunity whereas regular Western soldiers cannot do so to the same extent. There are two main benefits of such proxy army tactics:
1) In the case of Syria, they can be used to try and create such chaos that NATO countries can ultimately invade or start a bombing campaign for "humanitarian reasons".
2) In the case of Iraq, for example, they can be used to justify the continued occupation by NATO in order to fight these same proxy armies that NATO created.
See also: 'Free Syrian Army' aka 'al-Qaeda' aka US, Israeli and British Mercenaries, Use Syrian Man as 'Suicide Bomber'