The probability that the US will attack Iraq -with or without Britain- seems more evident everyday. For instance, the US is increasing its fuel reserves, as they know that the oil market will be strongly disturbed- and they advised their allies to do the same. At the same time the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said that it would be "unwise" for the US to start a war against Iraq, as the probability to upset the whole Middle East is too great. He also suggested that the US should settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first. The Russian Foreign Minister agreed with him.
Blair too receives conflicting advice at home. The latest one is from Lord Wright of Richmond, a former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office during the Gulf war in 1991, who said that joining the Americans in attacking Iraq, could be disastrous for Britain. He added that without proof that Iraq was developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and without formal approval of the UN for the invasion, Britain should not join the Americans in invading Iraq. Most probably the American public and the US Congress will back an attack on Iraq, but it is not a reason for Britain to follow blindly.
On August 26, 2002, US vice-president Dick Cheney called for a pre-emptive military action against Saddam Hussein, adding that the US could not afford to wait until Baghdad had a nuclear weapon. If he meant what he said, Iraq has no nuclear weapon now, but the US wants to attack it because it could have one in the future. This is an attempt to build up domestic and international support for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. President Bush's legal advisers told him he does not need the Congress' authorisation to attack Iraq; the mandate his father received for the Gulf war 11 years ago is still in force!
On the other hand, the US authorities have invited the leaders of the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein regime to Washington DC. They hope to unite them, which is not difficult, the US has only to pay them. Unfortunately, they do not have much weight in Iraq. The Kurds are the exception; they are willing to help, hoping that the USA will give them independence in return. However, the neighbouring countries -such as Iran, Syria, and Turkey, where there are also strong Kurdish minorities- are opposed to this. The leader of the Kurdish "Patriotic Union of Kurdistan", Jalal Talabani, assured the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that his organisation would help the US in their invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein.
Now, in the middle of August 2002 Israel, through its first minister Ariel Sharon, is putting public pressure on President Bush to attack Iraq without delay, because Saddam Hussein, if attacked, probably would again send missiles on Israel. This is in complete contradiction with the advise of foreign policy experts in Washington DC, and the fact that European governments show little enthusiasm to join the US. It is generally assumed that Sharon does it to show that he is the most faithful ally of the US, hoping to keep American support for his fight against the Palestinians. More that 50% of the Israeli support such an attack. At the same time, we are being told that Russia gave millions of dollars to Iraq to have access to their oil. Direct payments to Iraq are illegal under international law, and in contradiction with the UN resolutions. This information came two days after Russia said that it was negotiating a $40m economic and trade agreement with Iraq. This will complicate the relations between Washington and Moscow.
The British Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, will attend high-level meetings in Washington DC during the first two weeks of September 2002. He will discuss the plans to invade Iraq with his American colleagues. This was taken as a clear signal that plans for armed actions against Saddam Hussein are proceeding, and are in a well-advanced state. He will also have a private meeting with the US defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, on September 11 to commemorate the first anniversary of the attack on New York City and Washington DC.
In the first days of September 2002, we have been told that the USA is starting a massive military build-up in the Gulf region and, together with Britain, they are intensifying bombardment in the two non-flying zones of Iraq. The latest strike involved more than 100 planes. At the same time we are told that a war with Iraq could double the cost of petrol in Britain.
After their meeting at Camp David in Maryland on September 7, 2002, Mr Blair and President Bush agree to ask the UN Security Council to send an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Iraq would have about three weeks to accept weapon inspections without any condition. If Saddam Hussein refuses, then Iraq would be invaded, possibly by a large coalition and, if not, by the USA and Britain alone. Both the US and Britain are convinced that Iraq is a real threat to the free world, that it is trying to develop nuclear devices, and that they already have chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them within a radius of 650km.
At the beginning of September 2002, President Bush is trying to heal the internal divisions within the USA, while Saddam Hussein is playing on these differences of opinion. Bush has called an urgent meeting with the leaders of the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, to brief them on his Iraq policy. President Bush said that he was prepared to back a final ultimatum to Iraq to accept weapon inspections without conditions, or face invasion. The moderates within the Bush administration consider this a victory. Bush will detail his proposal when he talks to the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002. Blair will meet President Bush at Camp David on Saturday September 7 to coordinate their views. He will, talking also for the other EU countries, urge Bush to win UN backing before any action is taken against Iraq. Afterwards, Blair will fly to Moscow to try to persuade President Vladimir Putin to join the Americans and the British in the eventual invasion or, at least, to stay neutral. The Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, will soon go to Bush's ranch in Texas for talks on the same subject.
The US will deploy a Patriot anti-missile shield in Israel if its government agrees to stay out of any conflict with Iraq, even if subjected to missile attacks. The US also promised Israel that Iraqi missiles will be destroyed in priority, and that Israel will be told 48 hours in advance of an attack on Iraq.
At the beginning of October 2002 the CIA director, Mr George Tenet, told the US Congress that Iraq poses little threat to America at the present time, and that an invasion could push Saddam Hussein to attack his neighbouring countries with chemical and biological weapons, starting a regional crisis. The CIA sees the risk of such an Iraqi reprisal as being high. At the same time the American people's approval for military action was now 53%, down from 57% last week. In Britain, the Anglican bishops hardened their opposition to the war. Moreover, the British Intelligence Services, the MI5 and the MI6, dismissed the Bush administration's claims that there are links between Iraq and al-Qaida. The opposite is probably true as an alliance between the two makes little sense since Iraq has a secular regime that does not appeal to the al-Qaida fundamentalists. The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, visited Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Iran to try to induce these countries to join the war against Hussein Saddam. His mission was not a success as most countries, although hating Saddam Hussein, are opposed to such a war. In Iran, the foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi denounced the American interference in the region, and talked of "the deep hatred of the US felt in Islamic society". According to him, the US plans for war "could not bring confidence and trust" and "the different should be dealt through diplomatic means and through the UN." But, of course, neither Bush nor Blair are taking any notice.
In the first days of October 2002, Washington revealed its intention to use the UN weapon inspectors as an excuse for a military occupation of Iraq. US troops would be sent to Iraq to seal off exclusion zones, and to create secure corridors throughout the country. Weapons inspectors would operate out of these bases occupied, possibly, by UN soldiers, or from other countries -mainly the US. These troops would protect the inspectors, enforce no-fly and no-drive zones around suspected weapon sites, and prevent anything being removed before inspection. In addition, the Security Council member states would be authorised to send their own inspectors to operate alongside the UN inspectors, and with the same rights. There is no doubt that Iraq cannot accept such a plan designed to justify the war that the USA wants. On the home front, the US House of Representatives handed Bush open-ended authority to take any actions that he believes necessary -including war- towards Iraq. Is this not giving him dictatorial powers? The Senate did the same the day after.
In October 12, 2002 we were told that the USA is planning an American-led military administration and occupation of Iraq for many years, something similar to the post-war occupation of Japan and Germany. This would require about 75,000 soldiers at an annual cost of $16b. British and other allied troops would be welcome, but under the leadership of a senior American general, probably Tommy Franks, the general who led the war in Afghanistan. The occupying regime would track down war criminals -as defined by the US-, remove members of president Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party from power, search the country for hidden biological and chemical weapons, guarantee Iraq's territorial integrity, and administer the country's huge oil deposits. Finally the truth: the Americans are not interested in Iraq, or the Iraqis: they want the oil fields! The opposition Iraqi parties are not happy, they would prefer an interim Iraqi government, but their opinion does not count. The other Arab countries believe that such an action would destabilise the Middle East, as it would give the Arab militants, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida, a good reason to go on fighting the west. No official decision has been taken but it is already obvious that Britain is not happy with this extreme right wing proposal.
Around October 15, 2002, the Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and the US president George Bush met in Washington DC to decide what Israel should do if attacked by Iraq in case the US invade this country. It is not yet known what was decided.
Confirming that he is ready to send British soldiers to fight in Iraq with the US, Blair said that Britain had to pay a "blood price" to secure its special relationship with America. He added that Bush was right to want to eliminate Saddam Hussein and his regime. Iraq came under strong pressure from its Arab neighbours, and from Russia, to admit the UN weapon inspectors, as an invasion could destabilise the whole Muslim world.
President Bush goes on repeating all the time that no decision has been taken to invade Iraq but, at the same time -end of October 2002-, we are told that American soldiers are being trained for street battles in Iraq.
The American generals who would lead the invasion of Iraq, including General Tommy Frank, believe that a large force -about 130,000 soldiers- would be required, whereas the civilian aides to Donald Rumsfeld have been planning for a much smaller one. These civilians believe that Saddam Hussein's army will collapse under an attack relying on speed, surprise, air power, psychological operations, and help from the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime. Such an invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein could tear Iraq apart.
In the meantime US and British planes are bombing the Iraqi military installations in the non-flying zones, and this without the usual justification that they have been shot at. Does this does not look like a preparation for an invasion?
The present US war plans foresee a short air campaign followed by occupation of some Iraqi territory from where the main invasion would take place. This would require about 200,000 to 250,000 soldiers.
President Bush is still preparing to invade Iraq although the inspections by the UN weapon experts are going smoothly with nothing discovered. The US plans about two weeks of heavy bombing with precision bombs, followed by a ground invasion that, they hope, will be of short duration.
On December 1, 2002, the Bush administration revealed its estimates of the cost of the eventual invasion. They range from about $60bn to $200bn, and this time the US will have to pay most of the cost. In 1991 they only paid $7bn out of a total cost of $80bn with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paying most of it. This time will be different.
In the first days of December 2002, the American soldiers did some war games in the deserts of Kuwait. They did not hide the fact that it was a full rehearsal for the invasion of Iraq, if and when it happens.
Iraqi exile groups met in London from Friday December 13 to Monday December 17, 2002, to search an agreement on how to govern Iraq if, and when, Saddam Hussein is thrown out of power. After four days, they created a committee of 65 members representing most of the religious sects and political parties. The meeting showed mainly their disagreements, and less their common views. They will meet again in January 2003, possibly in northern Iraq, in the Kurdish zone.
On December 18, 2002, the USA believes that, following a successful US invasion, Iraq will put their oil fields on fire, destroy their power stations, and burn their food reserve as well as release poison gas. What else do they expect?
On December 20, 2002, the US military authorities said that they were ready to deploy up to 100,000 more soldiers in the Persian Gulf to be ready to fight, if president Bush decides to invade Iraq. At the same time, the authorities said that war was not inevitable!!!
At the end of December 2002, President Bush decided to send 25,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf. If this is not preparation for war, what is it? And in the meantime the UN weapons inspectors (there are now more than 100 in Iraq) do their jobs, and they have not yet found anything wrong.
On December 27, 2002, the Pentagon ordered a large force composed of two aircraft carriers, many aircrafts, and about 50,000 military personal to be ready to move to the Persian Gulf and be ready to invade Iraq, if President Bush decide to do it.
President Bush went to Killeen Army base in Fort Hood, Texas where he told the 4,500 soldiers present that they must be prepared to fight in Iraq if "Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm". But Saddam has already said that he has no more weapons of mass destruction and the inspections by the UN experts seems to show that this is true. Everybody knows this, with the exception of Bush.
The American administration goes on repeating that no decision has been taken on invading Iraq and that, if Saddam Hussein get rid of all its weapons of mass destruction -weapons that the UN inspectors have not found after more than one month work, -then the Iraqi problem will be solved peacefully. However, on January 6, 2003, the American newspapers disclosed the plans that have been drawn for "administering and democratising" Iraq after the expected ouster of Saddam Hussein. There will be a heavy American presence in Iraq for at least 18 months, military courts will try most senior Iraqi leaders, and the country oil fields will be taken over to pay for reconstruction!! This is the American way of life that they want to impose on the world.
At the beginning of January 2003 the US and British military build up went ahead making war very probable in February although the UN inspectors have not found any weapons of mass destruction after nearly two months of looking around Iraq. After saying that the UN inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, the CNN television network said that President Bush was not seeing Saddam Hussein disarming, and that this could mean war. The US authorities are, of course, talking to the American people. If they are stupid enough not to see the contradiction, should we follow them like their British poodle?? CNN also said that France was mobilising its troops to help in the invasion of Iraq. This is wishful thinking!
On January 8, 2003, the US medias said that the British are sending a 16-vessel task force carrying planes and helicopters to the Persian Gulf with at least 3,0000 Royal Marine Commandos recalling also 1,500 reservists. At the same time the US nearly doubled its military presence in the Gulf to about 100,000 soldiers, with another 100,000 ready to follow. General Frank, the commander of the invasion, if it takes place, is also sending many of his staff to the new Control Command post in Qatar. And all this while the UN inspectors are confirming that they have not yet found anything wrong in Iraq.
On January 10, 2003, US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, signed an order to send 35,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf. This comes in addition to the 25,000 troops ordered to go on December 24, 2002 as well as 5,000 ordered to go on January 6, 2003. As there are already about 60,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, the total will exceed 100,000 at the end of January 2003. Additional ships of all types and planes will be sent there too. On January 11, 2003, he decided to send 27,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf bringing the total to about 150,000. And still, the UN inspectors did not find anything wrong yet!
On January 22, 2003, President Bush repeated his usual threat to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm, or be disarmed. At the same time, the more than one hundred inspectors on the spot have not found any weapon of mass destruction, and the US did not provide any concrete proof that he has. If Iraq is right, how can they disarm? And if the USA knows that he has such weapons, why do not tell the inspectors where to look? All this looks like a play by retarded 6 years old children, with Bush at their head. However, up to a point, the US public is convinced, and the polls are changing. Now seven out of ten Americans would give the inspectors more time to do their work, even a few months. And a majority of the same Americans are not happy with the way Bush is handling the economy. Perhaps there is hope after all.
On January 22, 2003, President Bush warned the Iraqi's military leaders that they would be tried as war criminals if they use chemical or biological weapons against US troops, or civilians. Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that the Pentagon had begun transmitting radio and television programmes in Arabic to Iraq from planes.
On January 22, 2003, Colin Powell said that the US would not claim Iraq's oil fields, or use their revenue to recoup the cost of a possible war. He added that the proceeds would be kept" in trust" for ordinary Iraqis, and that "the oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people". But who believes him? At the same time American experts visited North Iraq airstrips to decide what repairs were necessary to make them useful for an US invasion of the country.
On January 24, 2003, hundred of German soldiers started manning check-points and inspecting cars at US bases in Germany to release American soldiers in preparation of a possible war in Iraq.
On January 24, 2003, the USA said that they would try to make a more persuasive case to their allies for possible military actions against Iraq. However the Pentagon is continuing to build up a strong military force in the Persian Gulf, and let it known that they do not preclude using nuclear weapons, for instance in retaliation, if the Iraqi use chemical or biological weapons, or even to pre-empt their use!
On January 26, 2003, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Iraq was not cooperating as requested with the UN weapons inspectors and that, as a result, he had lost faith in the ability of the inspectors to conduct a definitive search for banned weapon programmes. He added that an US-led invasion of Iraq was not imminent, even if Iraq has responded to weeks of inspection "with evasions and lies". He added that only a strong international response would deter Iraq from sharing its weapons with terror groups, or using them directly. However President Bush was ready to act alone if necessary. Polls show that the majority of the Americans do not believe that President Bush has made his case for military intervention in Iraq. In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the UN inspectors "should have whatever time they need".
On February 1, 2003, the usual un-named sources informed the world that the invasion of Iraq will start with a 48 hour period of heavy bombing (3,000 "intelligent" bombs, at least), followed by a massive ground invasion from Kuwait by thousand of troops. The main targets for the bombing should be Saddam Hussein's palaces, ministries, family properties, Republican Guards, Intelligence services, and police buildings, as well as his hometown of Tikrit. Some airborne troops will try to take over the oil fields to prevent them being set afire. At the same time we are told that Hans Blix and Mohanmmed ElBaradei will go back to Baghdad for high-level talk on February 8, 2003. They will try to persuade the Iraqi to collaborate in a more active way with the weapon inspectors. This will be a kind of ultimatum: collaborate as we said because the world is loosing patience, and you are facing invasion.
On February 4, 2003, some British military leaders said that they were uneasy to attack Iraq as the objectives are confused (regime change, destruction of weapons of mass destruction, bringing democracy, securing the oil fields, etc) and the ethic of launching a pre-emptive strike against a country is poor. Such an invasion would be justified if Iraq was attacking its neighbours, or if the USA and Britain had the backing of the international community (through a new UN Security Council resolution) as well as from the citizens of both countries. The US general who will lead the invasion of Iraq, if it is taking place, Tommy Franks, is under investigation for abuse of office. He is accused of letting his wife attend secret briefings and fly free on military planes. Also on the same day, the ex-Labour MP, Tony Benn, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. During this meeting Saddam denied all the US charges, and insisted that Iraq had no more weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
On February 6, 2003, it was revealed that the British government is sending 40,000 troops to the Persian Gulf as well as more than 100 military planes. "Doggy" Blair repeated that, if the UN does not decide that the invasion of Iraq is justified and the US decide that resolution 1441 has been breached, then the UK will follow the US lead, and invade Iraq without the UN agreement. At home the majority of the British people are against the war. Its initial cost is now estimated to be £3.2 billions, and this does no cover the cost of occupying and reconstructing Iraq, which will be much higher.
At the beginning of February 2003, we were told that the Americans are preparing
a three-stage plan for ruling Iraq after toppling the Saddam Hussein regime.
- In the first phase there would be a US-led military rule for between 6 and
18 months after the war ended.
- The second phase would see a kind of UN-led international civilian administration,
backed by a smaller military presence, more or less on the same line that
what was done in Kosovo. The UN is not very happy to be responsible for this
difficult phase that they see as "cleaning the mess".
- The third phase would organise the reconstruction of the country under a
pro-American Iraqi government (of course!) This part of the plan is not acceptable
to many countries outside the USA and Britain.
President Bush on February 19, 2003, said that he would like the war preparation to be all in place by the beginning of March 2003. But there is a problem: Turkey has not yet authorised the US to invade northern Iraq from its soil despite the promise of a 26 $bn package of compensation. The Turkish parliament is reluctant to agree in front of widespread negative public opinion (90% of the Turks are against the war), and the USA is becoming tired to have to wait so long for a decision.
On February 21, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said that America is ready to fight in Iraq where he has sent nearly 200,000 soldiers.
The USA's efforts to win support around the world are backed by a strong
"dollar policy". From what we know at the end of February 2003,
the following amount have already been agreed (for a total of $41.6bn):
- Turkey, $28bn
- Israel, $10bn.
- Jordan, $500m.
- Egypt, $2.2bn.
- Pakistan, £100m
This is still considered too low by Turkey for letting the US use their bases
there to invade Iraq. Turkey now ran by an Islamic government and the majority
of the people are against the war.
It is now clear that, at the end of February 2003, the USA and Britain have
enough troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf to start the war. The only
options still open to Bush and Blair are:
- The war could start immediately while the UN inspectors are still at work
in Iraq. This would surprise Saddam Hussein. The diplomatic cost would be
high but it would help shortening the war.
- The war could start around March 7 to 10, 2003, when most of the troops
and equipment would be ready. This would be before full moon, and night attacks
would profit from total darkness. Moreover the day temperature would remain
very supportable around 21oC. But this approach would clash with the present
Bush/Blair strategy of giving diplomacy a few more weeks. However some troops
and combat support would not have arrived yet.
- If the war started in mid or late March, all the troops and equipments would
be available. Blair and Bush would have had time to go through their diplomatic
strategy at the UN, and heard the last of Mr Blix report. At that time the
mid-day temperature in Iraq would still be acceptable (maximum 27oC) but it
would be full moon. This would not be too important at the beginning of the
war that would see high altitude bombing and ground force operations in open
terrain, where the US-UK have big advantages regardless of the light.
- The advantages of a war starting in April would be mainly diplomatic; the
day temperature would reach 27oC, while the nights would still be cool. A
war starting in autumn is not what Blair and Bush would prefer, but if the
diplomatic manoeuvres at the UN could still impose it. The troops would have
to spend the summer in the Persian Gulf area.
- The most probable option is that the war will start around March 17, 2003
with high altitude bombing and desert actions by ground forces. The battle
for Baghdad would then probably take place at the beginning of April before
the heat become unsupportable.
On March 2, 2003, we were told that the US and British planes are destroying as many Iraqi military installations as possible in the non-fly zones imposed by the UN in 1991 in the southern and northern parts of Iraq. These were declared non-fly zones for the Iraqi to protect the Shiites and the Kurds who live there. Now the US and Britain, the countries that control the application of this UN decision, are using the opportunity to start what can only be called a non-declared war.
On March 11, 2003, Dinosaur (sorry, Donald) Rumsfeld said that the USA is ready to invade Iraq without the participation of the British. If they did not join in the invasion, they could be used, in a second time, to police the country. This, he said, was due to Doggy Blair's problems with its public opinion and parliament, both being largely anti-war. Of course, Blair was no happy to hear this, and Rumsfeld had to rectify what he said. This he did in writing but without denying the content of his speech. Britain, as a whole, was very upset by Rumsfeld comments, especially the British soldiers already in the Persian Gulf and ready to go and kill some Muslims. To be deprived of this opportunity does not please them at all.
Bush, Blair, and Aznar will have a meeting in the Portuguese island of the Azores this Sunday, March 16 2003. Officially they are meeting to decide what to do on the diplomatic front, but very few people believe it. It is more credible that they are putting the last touch to the plans for the invasion of Iraq.
Also on March 14, 2003, the commander of the British forces in the Persian Gulf, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, believes that it will take at least one year to secure a peaceful Iraq under a new government. What this new government will be is not clear, except that it will be an American puppet. The US State Department is now doubting that the "domino" theory of democratic change in the Arab world -the hope that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq will make democracy flourish in the region- will work at all. Huge economic and social obstacles are still in the way to make political changes acceptable. Even if free electoral systems were introduced, there are so strong anti-American feelings around the region that radical Islamists would be elected forming governments hostile to the USA.
On March 15, 2003, most diplomatic missions in Baghdad are empty as all the non-essential personal and families have already gone back to their countries. However, the UN inspectors are still doing their job.
If another proof was necessary to show that the US had prepared to invade Iraq for a long time, we are now told on March 16, 2003, that the USA is sending bigger planes to bomb Iraqi military installations in the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. And no war has been declared yet!!
Blair will talk to his ministers on Monday March 17, 2003. By that time it will be known if the UN Security Council has approved a second resolution, bowing to the US/British ultimatum. More probably the second resolution project will be withdrawn, because it would not be approved anyway. On the same day Blair is meeting with the British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, who is asked to say that a war with Iraq, without a second resolution, is perfectly legal. In any case one wonders why Blair has to ask this to one member of his government. He should have asked himself, as he knows the answers to everything. Here again the British and the American leaders are only convincing themselves and the American people, but not even the British.
The question now as far as Britain is concerned is very simple: how many members of the cabinet and ministers will resign, and how many Labour MPs will revolt against Blair since there will not be a second UN resolution authorising war? However, Blair received some good news: Gordon Brown is supporting him for the war in Iraq. Moreover, he also has the support of the Italian prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who, at least for the moment, is not in jail where he belongs for bribing some judges and paying his ways in getting contracts; also he is keeping the ownership of his private television channels, newspapers, publication houses, and many firms in contradiction with his job as prime minister. He fit very well with Blair, Bush and Aznar.
Blair finally got his own way and he will be able to join the USA in their war against Iraq, and this despite a high number of opponents in his party. There will be something to pay later on. He could have to resign as prime minister, and his authority, and that of future prime ministers, could be curtailed as a result of his obstinacy.
In the evening of March 17, 2003, President Bush spoke on television to the American people and to the world. He gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to go to exile with his sons, family, and closer associates if not, Iraq will be invaded. Later on, he added that even if Saddam Hussein left his country, the US troops would go into Iraq to "destroy the weapons of mass destruction that were never found by the UN inspectors". Some people have no doubt that the USA will find such weapons in Iraq. It will be up to each of us to believe if they belong to Iraq, or if the Americans planted them to justify the invasion. Until now there are no apparent reason for this war: Iraq does not threaten the USA or Britain; the so-called links with al-Qaida have never been proved (some intelligence services -the British- denied them); and there are no hard evidence that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. The Americans and the British have them, while Iraq has none!!
Tony Blair, after it was clear that the UN Security Council would not adopt a second resolution, called a Cabinet meeting to confirm that he intended to join the American in the invasion of Iraq. Robin Cook, the ex-foreign secretary and now leader of the House, resigned. He was to be followed in the next two days by two ministers and six parliamentary aides. Clare Short did not resign explaining her change of mind by saying that it would not be fair to do it when so much will have to be done once Iraq is taken-over. Let us hope that she convinced herself as, from the point of view of an outsider, she was bought by her desire to stay in power as member of the British cabinet. It is a shame really. The public opinion in Britain was still against the war (44 to 38%) but it is shifting towards approval, and this will probably occur when the war begins. By tradition the British support their soldiers in case of war. In Western Europe and Turkey there is still a strong majority against the war. However, in Turkey, the new prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, knowing that his country needs money, will ask his parliament, if not to allow 62,000 US soldiers to invade Iraq from their country, at least to let the Americans use the Turkish air space to bombard Iraq. Probably this will be acceptable. Paris, Moscow, and Beijing condemned the use of force against Iraq, repeating that the inspectors would have disarmed Saddam Hussein if they had been given more time and stronger collaboration. But Bush was never interested in disarming Iraq, even if we assume that there are weapons of mass destruction there. He only wants a war to boost his chance to be re-elected, and to add Iraq to the American empire, the same way as he has taken Afghanistan. Britain and the USA are now saying that a second resolution was not needed to make the invasion of Iraq legal. If this is the case, and most countries disagree with it, then, why ask for one?
On March 18, 2003, an important sitting of the House of Common in London
was convened to vote on going to war in Iraq. The MPs first voted on an amendment
against it, and it was defeated by 396 against 217; but among the opponents
there were 139 Labour MPs, most Liberal Democrats and some Conservatives.
The vote on the main motion -to approve going to war without a new UN mandate-
was approved by 412 votes to 149 as many labour MPs gave up their revolt against
Tony Blair. Blair won the battle, but the fact that 139 Labour MPs voted against
him is a very important factor. If the war does not go well, last too long,
or result in many casualties, Blair's premiership will be in deep trouble.
Blair was so afraid to loose that he asked his wife, Cherie, to help him.
She phoned many woman MPs asking them to support her husband. This is highly
unusual in the UK and show how much was at stake.