Customer Reviews

War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War with Iraq

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

As a former US Army Intelligence Analyst, and as a long term lobbyist on this issue, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. The analysis of the US dominated policy toward Iraq is dead on accurate. On the inside flap of the book there are three quotes, the first being one from a member National Security Council in 1991: "Our goal is to remove Saddam Hussein, not his regime."

This quote reveals the US policy not just toward Iraq, but is also useful in understanding what the US did in Afghanistan: The US government purposely and willfully destroyed attempts to extradite bin Laden -- just as it has destroyed all popularly supported methods to remove Saddam from power. As the book says so bluntly, it's about leadership change, not regime change in Iraq. As for Afghanistan, as Sen. Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put it, "The worst outcome would be if bin Laden was extradited."

About the only negative remark I can make about this book is that it's mostly from a British perspective and might not be the best choice for American readers. No matter, I urge everyone to read this book, buy it, give it to your friends, especially the ones who think that President Bush is doing the right thing. I have never recommended a book on Iraq this way. But this one is that good and more important than ever as we face a potential war in Iraq.

*War Plan Iraq* is a reasoned, non-jingoistic appeal for cool heads and out-of-the-box thinking when it comes to US relations with Iraq. Milan Rai provides a concise history of UNSCOM inspections and how those inspections eventually broke down. Rai's point is to argue that the breakdown isn't irreparable. Rai then goes on to argue explicitly against a military showdown with Iraq by claiming (1) that there's no established connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, (2) that there's no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, (3) that the consequences of war could be devastating to both the region and to international relations, (4) that the economic consequences of a war are dire, (5) that both popular and military opinion about a war are mixed, and (6) that Washington isn't so concerned with a regime change--that is, a change to democracy--as a leader change--that is, getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Consequently, overthrowing the current strongman will do nothing to improve the lot of the average Iraqi, despite Washington's rhetoric to the contrary.

All in all, a persuasively argued book. I recommend it alongside Anthony Arnove's *Iraq Under Siege* and, for the other side's perspective, Kenneth Pollack's *The Threatening Storm.*

I fully agree with the excellent reviews previously posted by Will Podmore from the U.K. and Patrick Carkin from the U.S. It is true that the United States (and to a lesser extent Great Britain) have been seeking a pretext for invading Iraq for some time in order to gain control of its oil reserves. As this book makes clear, such an act of unprovoked aggression is in clear violation of the United Nations and would render much harm to our relationships with other countries around the world.

Overall, the book does a great job of deconstructing much of the anti-Iraqi propaganda that has recently been heaped upon the American public. But while Saddam Hussein is certainly no saint, the fact remains that our onetime ally has been doing our dirty work for years. Indeed, Saddam's dictatorship has served to effectively check the growing influence of Islamic fundamentalism. Contrary to President Bush's rhetoric, this is the real reason why the U.S. purposely left him in power at the conclusion of the Gulf War. The author details how U.S. forces allowed Iraq's Republican Guard troops to escape U.S. General Schwartzkopf's trap in southern Iraq so that they could move to quell the Kurdish rebellion in the north, ensuring the survival of Saddam's regime.

According to a recent article in Forbes magazine, it is estimated that Iraq's undiscovered oil reserves may equal Saudi Arabia's. Bush is obviously trying to promote an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection in order to drum up support for an invasion that will ultimately allow U.S. oil corporations to profitably exploit these reserves. The losers in such an endeavor are U.S. taxpayers and of course the long-suffering Iraqi people.

Noam Chomsky has contributed an essay to this book reminding us that American foreign policy has often failed to live up to the country's democratic ideals: Guatemala, Vietnam and East Timor are just a few examples. The great irony in this latest episode is that the goal in Iraq is merely "regime change", not democracy; in other words, we want to replace Saddam with another strongman, not let the Iraqi people govern themselves. This should be reason alone to oppose the war, as if supporting another corporate oil war wasn't bad enough.

In short, "War Plan Iraq" gives us many reasons why we should avoid this unnecessary war, and in so doing gives us much to reflect upon as U.S. citizens. Perhaps if we want a better world, we should focus not on Iraq but on changing the regime in Washington, D.C. Leadership dedicated to peace and democracy would make us proud; but Bush's war mongering and despotism shames us all.

I can not recommend this timely, relevant and important book any more highly.

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 UNs 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, and Iraq, temporarily, withdrew its cooperation with Unscom. A month later, it restored cooperation, but the US government had already decided to launch the Desert Fox bombing attack.

The US and British governments are covering up the fact that the inspections succeeded. By 1992, Unscom had eliminated Iraqs long-range missile programme. By 1995, the International Atomic Energy Authority had eliminated Iraqs 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. Why didnt the US government want the inspections to succeed? Because it didnt want Iraq peacefully disarmed, it wanted Iraq defeated in war. Why? Because only by occupying Iraq can the US government get what it really wants - control of Iraqs oil.

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. So Bush is determined to wreck the new agreements achieved on 1 October. He does not want inspections, because they would prevent war; he wants to prevent weapons inspections so that he 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; Iraqs 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-Qaida 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-Qaida, 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!

Bushs 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 authority to tear up the UN Charter, which permits the use of force against a sovereign state only when it is unambiguously self-defence against an armed attack.

Stopping Blair from backing Bush would stop Bush. Only a minority of Americans would support a unilateral US attack on Iraq; 60% are opposed. Bush and Blair cannot launch a war without public support. We can stop this war.

This book, which I read after the war, turned out to be quite accurate. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the invasion was illegeal; it is a devestation for the Iraqi people; no link between Iraq and al-Queda; the whole world fears Bush more than it ever feared Sadam (even Iraq's neighbors); most of the world opposed and still opposes the invasion; we were never interested in Sadam's crimes until we decided to invade. It is a bit pointless to read the book now, except for historical interest to see that even before the war started we knew enough to know that it was a bad idea.

This book is very practically arranged in short, easy to comprehend chapters. Sections such as "ten reasons against war with Iraq" will be of great use to those who are already persuaded of the folly and injustice of this war and would like to persuade others whose minds are still open to suasion. I would not proffer the book itself, however, at those who think that anything W. Bush says is gospel truth. Noam Chomsky, for instance, is a man of great intelligence, integrity and knowledge but he is unlikely to change anyone's mind. Readers may be able to translate his uncompromising critique into terms their next door neighbors will accept.
Milan Rai has done an excellent job at assembling this data and structuring it in a way that makes it usable for plain citizens. My only criticism would be its general orientation toward British readers, when the war really needs to be stopped here in America. Of course, you could easily argue that Britain (meaning Tony Blair) is the controllable vector of this plague. But I think catalyst might have been the better word, and that the reaction is unstoppable at this point

Chomsky aids in clearing up the propaganda and lies around the corporate media and backs up all his opinions with facts and evidence. he is a genius. some cannot believe the stuff he documents is actutally true so they label him a liar. but if you investigate his cited evidence you see he (frighteningly) is speaking truth. get this book.

Mr. Rai points out that attacking Iraq would be against international law. Article 51 of the UN charter, a treaty which are supreme laws of the land under the constitution, allows for armed force by nations only in cases of individual or collective self-defense. This armed force is clearly understood, the author notes, in response to a clear and verifiable military attack across a nations border. Rai also notes that no UN resolution from 678 of November 1990 (which was used to justify the Gulf war) explicity gives any nation, much less the United States the right to attack Iraq.

He shows that the United States has deliberately kept the conflict alive. They have refused to promise to support the lifting of sanctions on Iraqi exports if it complies with WMD accountability and destruction as called for in the provisions of resolution 687. They have tried to provoke Iraq as in the November 1998 UNSCOM appearance at the Ba'ath party headquarters carried out by their lackey Richard Butler, which demanded that 12 inspectors have access to that site, although such a site was not covered in the Sensitive Sites agreement of 1996. Rai notes that Bulter only cited 5 problems in 300 covered incidents in his December 1998 report, during which the U.S and British began bombing while he was delivering his report to the security council.

No the U.S. government and this means the Republican gangsters currently in power do not care about WMD or Saddam's human rights violations or whatever. They want to install a Saddam-style regime but without the unreliable gangster Saddam at the top. Fear of democracy in Iraq, Rai writes, i.e. fear of Saddam's regime dismantling was what led the U.S. to block access by the rebels to captured Iraqi arms and to allow Iraqi helicopters safe flight over U.S. lines to crush the rebellion. One can see this, the author shows, in the exiles the U.S. is looking at to replace Saddam. These include the former army chief of staff under investigation in Denmark for taking part in Saddam's butcheries of Kurds in the 80's., a commander in the Basra area when chemical weapons were being used against Iran and the Hashemite family. Of particular interest is the author's writing about the Iraqi National Accord (INA), a prime recipient of CIA aid, which carried out terror attacks in Baghdad in 1994 and 95 killing up to a 100 people. This according to a video admission that the author quotes of the man who carried out the attacks. The INA, the author notes also seems to have carried out terror attacks against the Iraqi National Congress(INC). He points out that most U.S. officials such as Colin Powell violently dislike the INC and prefer some sort of Sunni military strongman to take power after Saddam. In contrast the INC is supported by the reactionary policy makers of Baby Bush's regime like Richard Perle. There is probably nothing to this the author writes, other than the INC being used as a pawn by the reactionaries in their rivalry with the liberals of the administration.

Rai notes that the U.S. virtually destroyed Iraq's electrical system during the Gulf War and that paved the way for the destruction of Iraq's water and sewage treatment facilities, hospitals, and so on. This biological warfare has caused horrendous epidemics the author points out.

Rai notes from Dec. 1996 to July 2002 Iraq has received about 55 billion in Oil For Food money. About 14 billion of that was taken to a fund to pay victims of the invasion of Kuwait, UN administrative expenses and so on. About 59 percent of that , the author writes, is distributed to the Saddam controlled Central and South of the country. 13 percent goes to the Kurdish North. But most of that money has been used by Iraq to pay for food and medicine. Iraq needs anywhere from 50 to 100 billion dollars to rebuild its civilian infrastructure. He points out that the Bush administration did its best to block the latter: the value of the "holds" placed by the U.S. on items for Iraq's infrastructure went from 3.71 billion dollars on May 14 2001 to 5.17 billion dollars on May 17 2002.

He responds to the BBC's John Sweeney's attempt to discredit the UNICEF report of August 1999 which found that 500,000 children under 5 had died because of the sanctions. He quotes David Albright as saying that his former protégé Khidre Hamza is a liar and a reckless warmonger. He quotes the hardline British former inspector Terry Taylor that the words of Iraqi exiles should be taken very cautiously for they are seeking influence and jobs with the Western establishment and are thus heavily inclined to say things which the latter want to hear, regardless of the facts. He quotes an article from Seymour Hersh that interviewed several experts who could not detect any Iraqi signature on the common remote control devices supposedly planned to be used to assassinate George Bush Sr. which Clinton used as an excuse to lob missles at Baghdad in June 1993 and kill 8 civillians.

The author has a special section on the U.S. refusal of an offer to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan. Noam Chomsky writes the intro where he points out the U.S. is the greatest terrorist state in the world. He notes that the U.S. greatly exacerbated starvation in Afghanistan by ordering Pakistan to close its border with that country, severely restricting food convoys. And that the bombing disrupted 80 percent of the 2001 fall harvest. He quotes a June 2002 Ahmad Rashid article in his endnotes which reported that food supplies had run out and international funders had put forth pledged resources.

Several relatives of victims of Sept 11. have brief essays here. Including one who visited Afghanistan and saw two child victims of our cluster bombs, one who died from picking one up and the other who lost his hand in the same explosion.. She contrasted that with the sorrow of her young niece at loosing her father on 9-11. They argue that their cause is not served by revenging their loved ones on innocent people.

Great book. Not only does Rai dispel countless myths surrounding Iraq, he does so with great research (includes sources, of course) and a great writing style. It's hard to argue with many of his points.

It seems that most people ripping this book apart have failed to read it, rather they simply saw the name 'Noam Chomsky' and decided that it must be horrible just because of that. Truth is, Chomsky has one chapter in ths whole book, and it's not even that long. You can ignore that chapter altogether if you really hate him and still understand the points Rai is trying to make.

If you want to become a part of the alternate reality that is the left side of the political spectrum of America and the world, check this silly book out. You will probably not learn anything new as all of the facts are suspect. For example, the author states that there is "no evidence" of WMD in Iraq. How about the Kurds who were gassed by their own president? Maybe the author should have a conversation with them about it. I'm putting my copy into the circular file. Yuck.