On the Reasons of the Current War

I think that it is necessary to discuss the real reasons of the war in Iraq. Many versions are being proposed by different sides of the conflict, and none of them seems to me being convincing enough to be regarded as a real reason that made the current war possible and even inevitable.

First of all, let us relate to claims that the main purpose was imposing control over the Iraqi oil resources. I think, this objective required no war at all, and replacement of Saddam Hussein was not a conditio sine qua non either. Saddam's government was strongly interested in lifting of regime of sanctions imposed by the UN after the first Gulf War. The main opponents to such a decisions were governments of the USA and UK, regardless of their party affiliation. It was quite possible to establish confidential contacts with Saddam and to condition American and British support of the embargo abolition by privileges granted by Iraqi regime in future to their respective companies. It was quite possible to achieve the same goal by the "conventional" means of the secret diplomacy, and such a solution might have been cheaper and easier.

OK, let us proceed to the next allegedly possible reason that is being promoted by some of the opponents of this war: the USA was dragged into the conflict by the powerful pro-Israeli lobby. Let us even disregard the obvious fact of limited possibilities of this political influence group ?- U.S. government always acted against Israeli interests when the latter contradicted the national interests of the USA. Just an example: when the Israeli aviation industry concern intended to make a deal with China and to sell to them some flying radar that included U.S.-made components, such a deal was prohibited by the U.S. government, and Israel had to abolish it and to pay a forfeit to the Chinese. Such a decision also had a negative effect on the Israeli-Chinese relationships. But since such a deal might have affected the strategic interests of the USA in the Far East, no AIPAC was able to prevent the decision (noteworthy, no attempts of such kind have ever been undertaken; AIPAC leaders define themselves as Americans supporting Israel, and not as Israelis living in the USA, and they also respect priority of the American national interests to these of Israel).
But from the other side, policies of Saddam's regime were not the main existential threat to Israel. Saddam Hussein became a president in 1979, and since then there were almost no direct military hostilities between these two countries, and the only one that took place (bombing of the Iraqi nuclear center) was initiated by Israel. I may even suppose that the Iraqi nuclear program of ?'70s-?'80s was not pinpointed against Israel, Iran seemed by that time more probable target. Israeli attack was intended to provide security in long-term period, and not to eliminate an immediate danger.
Saddam's support of the Palestinian homicide bombers bears distinct PR campaign character, aiming to boost support of the Baghdad regime by the Arab nations and public opinion. Iran's support of the Palestinian terror seems being much more efficient (example: the shipment of modern weapons directed to the Palestinians and intercepted by the Israeli navy in 2002 was of Iranian origin, while Saddam limits himself to "humanitarian" aid to the homicide bombers' families). Noteworthy, that while Iranians try to act as secretly as possible, Iraq makes a lot of noise around its actions. Elimination of Israel from the world map is a desirable thing for Saddam, but it is not on the list of his top priorities, and this is well known in both Jerusalem and Washington. While the Iraqi dictator uses anti-Israeli rhetoric in order to improve his international positions, Syrian regime does the same thing to justify its legitimacy domestically: the ruling clan belongs to the non-popular religious minority of Alawites (most of Muslims consider the latter being pagans, that according to Koran is much "worse" than being Christians or Jews). Neither Iraq, nor Syria really planned starting a full-scale war against Israel (after signing the Camp David peace treaty prospects of having any success in such a war, put apart winning it, were absolutely impossible); under certain circumstances such a war might have occurred, but these might have been avoided by regular diplomatic measures. By all means, none of these countries posed anything more than a headache source for the Israeli government. Of course, both of regimes support terror, but it is impossible to put end to Israel by means of terror attacks.

Now let us refer to the non-conventional arsenals allegedly possessed by Iraq. I am not really interested in whether does such a thing exist. Chemical and biological warfare is being possessed virtually by any country in the world, and its high efficiency is strongly dubious. The low number of the lethal casualties resulting from the terror attack in the Tokyo subway (the conditions of usage were almost ideal: closed space not influenced by any weather conditions) shows that the main impact of chemical weapons is predominantly psychological. The same refers to the ill-famed anthrax: it can be efficiently treated by antibiotics. Iraqi and anyone's else chemical and bacteriological weapons, therefore, did not pose a serious threat: the regular passenger aircrafts being improperly used appeared being a much more serious hazard.

I cannot regard necessity of establishing of democracy in Iraq as a serious reason for waging a war either, regardless of my sincere and deep respect to President George W. Bush who seems really supporting such an approach. The list of non-democratic and anti-humane regimes in the world is not limited to Iraq, and Saddam is not the worst of the contemporary dictators. From the human rights' standpoint, North Korean regime deliberately starving its subjects in favor of its ambitious military programs seems much more monstrous.
More, I strongly doubt that democratic rule may be applicable to the modern Iraq, and that such a ruling may be stable and functional. Iraq is an artificial country with its borders being defined by the British government after the WWI in order to reward their Arab allies. It harbors numerous ethnic and religious groups strongly hostile to one another, and only strong authoritarian regime can keep all this together. In absence of strong, decisive and cruel dictator a civil war with further disintegration of Iraq is inevitable. Democracy and freedom of choice are more likely way to establishment of the Islamic republic (granted, pro-Iranian Shi'ites are majority of the Iraqi Arabs), than a predictable, peaceful and pro-Western country. Saddam is a SOB, but he is the least evil possible; if removed, he is to be replaced by "our SOB", but not by the democratically elected leader. Just we should keep in memory the results of the first democratic elections in Algeria that were overwhelmingly won by the local version of the "Muslim Brothers" (thanks God, the local military did not permit them to come to power in effect).

Does all this mean that this war is absolutely useless? I would not say so. Let us refer to the history of the ancient Rome. It applied strong efforts to eliminate its geopolitical foes, the superpowers of the ancient world: Carthago and Parthian Kingdom and established the unipolar world. The existential threat that later led to destruction of the Roman Empire came from the ancient analog of the Third World: the ancient German tribal unions. Appearance of strong military leaders was overlooked by the Roman authorities, and this brought the great empire to disaster.
The almost similar situation exists nowadays: after elimination from the political stage of the Nazi Germany and the USSR, the USA created the unipolar world dominated by the Western civilization, where America plays the leading role. The Third World countries formerly affiliated with the anti-American forces, being represented mainly by the Arab/Muslim countries try to change the balance of power in their favor. On the initial stage, when their military potential is incomparable to this of the USA, they resort to the terror tactics. But from the other side the leaders attempting to coordinate the anti-Western struggle and to unite all the enemies of their geopolitical foe on the common platform appear. In ?'50s-?'60s such a leader was the late Egyptian president Gamal Abed el-Nasser, his experiments with creation of non-viable (under conditions of the period) United Arab Republic, his attempts of reshaping the Middle East indicated on his imperial ambitions having definite anti-Western direction. Even unappeasable hostility of the Nasser's Egypt toward Israel, the Western outpost in the Middle East, can be easily explained by the approach mentioned above. Subtotal dependence of Nasser's regime on the USSR curbed his abilities, therefore, Nasser did not pose a strategic hazard per se, he was dangerous only as a partner of the Soviet Union. But since Russians belong virtually to the same civilization the Western world does, peaceful coexistence was possible, and Nasser failed to realize all the destructive potential of his regime.
From the first sight, Saddam did not endanger the West when he started a war against Iran: the latter was considered to be a threat to the civilization (in fact, Iran has a very limited influence in the Islamic world, since its Shi'ite leadership represent a religious minority; it may be dangerous only in a framework of a total Islamic aggression). But attack on Iran reflected a very dangerous symptom, overlooked by the West: this was an attempt of changing the world map without direct approval of the superpowers, the first power test of a man that wanted to become a new Salah ed-Din or Nabucchadenezzar. Saddam made a serious strategic blunder in 1990: he conquered the pro-Western Kuwait prior to gaining enough power to wage direct hostilities against the Western civilization. Thus he exposed his real purposes and was declared an enemy; this seriously impaired his ability to continue preparations to implementing his imperial plans and attempting to become an unquestionable leader of the Arab world.
Like any politician he tries to improve situation by means of the old and proved recipe: Divide et impero. By fostering internal contradictions of the Western world, like these between the "Anglo-Saxon" countries and the "Old Europe" he managed to breach embargoes imposed by the UN, and even attempted to prevent the current military operation.

Of course, right now Saddam's possibilities are strongly limited; he possesses certain defensive abilities, but his offensive potential cannot be regarded as sufficient. But he was chosen as an objective to teach the Third World a very simple lesson: any leader that will make attempt to challenge the Western domination on the Earth, may be removed and replaced. This is a very strong message, and its efficiency can hardly been overestimated. The collective enemy is represented by the countries ruled by the single leaders, and their motivation to keep their personal power and position overweighs any imperial ambitions they may have. Removal of the leader that dared to challenge the world order established by the Western civilization is a better deterrent for them than all the nuclear ICBMs of the USA and its corresponding programs of anti-missile defense. On the present stage (in absence of such a deterrent) they might fully realize potential of the terror war in the urban environment, and no missiles and anti-missiles are efficient against it. And the Western ability for passive preventive measures is strongly limited by the very essence of the Western social organization built on principles of respect to individual rights, on due legal procedures, freedom of speech and independence of courts of justice.

So, what are the American, British and Australian soldiers fighting for? The answer is: for our ability to conduct the chosen way of life. If the enemy overcomes the Western world, all its achievements in field of individual rights, respect for diversity of human types, freedom of speech, free market economy combined with protection of people unable to survive on their own ?- all these may be buried under the debris of the destroyed society for decades, if not centuries and millennia. Economic aspect of the situation should not be ignored either. All the freedoms of the Western societies are the direct result of high living standards. Historic experience of Germany in ?'20s-?'30s shows detrimental effects of poverty on democracy, and any country is not immune against this. And high living standards are possible only under condition of unchallenged domination of the Western civilization in the world. Its economy will not survive in absence of the cheap resources and cheap labor available in the Third World. It is unjust, I admit, but there is no alternative. Population of the Earth exceeds the number that can be provided with decent living conditions, and an alternative to the current injustice is poverty for all . The Third World gets as a compensation for such an exploit access to modern scientific medicine, to automobiles, to electricity, telephones and computers, and living standards there (in absence of fratricidal wars) gradually grow, along with life expectance and average family income; of course, such positive changes occur slower that in the West, but in absence of the Western domination these would not happen at all. (Some of the countries even managed to leave the Third World by means of strong effort and complete acceptance of the Western values; I mean, first of all, Japan and South Korea; Mexico, IMO, also has very good chances, and if Brazil puts end to socialist experiments of its new leadership, it may gradually become a Germany of the Western hemisphere ?- in economical aspect, of course).
I think, these are attempts to preserve the existing world order are the real underlying reasons of the current war, and all the other explanations, like oil greed of Texaco, Israeli interests and democracy for Kurds are either non-existing aims, or the secondary ones. I cannot exclude that Mr. George W. Bush sincerely believes that his mission is to bring democracy to Iraq. Mr. Bush makes an impression of a very sincere, noble, but at the same time somewhat naive politician, a kind of the last Don Quixote on the Earth. But the think tanks that built his doctrine might have shared the above approach, but they will never make it public, since it will be rejected in the modern politically correct world.
Being an Israeli, I cannot avoid saying several words regarding role of my country in the global conflict. Significance of Israel refers not to its being a Jewish state, but to its being an outpost of the West in the heart of the Middle East. This, and not a conflict of religions, explains the long-term and almost unsolvable conflict that this country has with the Arab world. But it must not be abandoned by the West just for the above reasons. These that abandon their outposts are doomed to be defeated; this is being regarded as a sheer exhibit of weakness, and this encourages enemy to act more decisively. IMO, if Czechoslovakia and Austria were not abandoned in ?'30s, the WWII might have not occurred, and Hitler's regime would be buried by its own unrealized ambitions by late ?'40s ?- early ?'50s, just like the Communist regime of the USSR was. One of the Western outposts has already been abandoned: I mean the South Africa; I am not a supporter of the very idea of racial discrimination, but this country was an integral part of the Western civilization, and now it joined the ranks of the Third World, and its natural resources (including uranium, by the way) may serve the enemy…