Late last night, debating Blair's Dossier on Iraq, 53 (Labour) MPs voted against its acceptance. Although most of this group are hardline left-wingers in their economic ideas, whose views I'm normally extremely wary of, I'm proud that on this issue there were at least a few MPs who had the courage to vote against their supine Party.
As for the Dossier itself, I think it would be fair to say that it was unconvincing. It had a full ration of horrifying photographs of Saddam's previous atrocities against his own people, but no satellite photos showing stages of reconstruction of missile bases or silos which would be required to deliver WMDs of danger to countries outside Iraq's boundaries. Given that every square foot of Iraq's territory must have been clearly photographed many times (and able to determine objects down to a few inches in size), then the Dossier was clearly deficient. No wonder that Bush has not tried to publish any similar sort of evidence in America. It would be torn to pieces by the larger number of experts over there. Saddam has undoubtedly continued to develop WMDs as best he can in underground factories and laboratories but, as he can't deliver them at distance, the only time he could use them in practice is at short range against occupying troops as a last suicidal gesture -- though I doubt very much whether even this would be practicable. Biological and chemical weapons needs absolutely precise conditions of the weather and population densities for efficient delivery. As far as I'm aware, there are only two reasons why Bush Senior didn't invade deeper into Iraq during Desert Storm, 11 years ago. One is that he was prevailed upon for humanitarian reasons; the other is that Saudi Arabia did not want to see a provisional government in Iraq that would have allowed full political rights to the Shi'a muslims of southern Iraq because the Shi'as in Saudi Arabia would have started to claim the same for themselves. I'm inclined to believe the latter reason. This decision then became the direct stimulus for Saudi Arabia to adopt a Constitution shortly afterwards (in '93) which bound the government even more firmly to Islamic law. Not anticipating this was the mistake that Bush Senior's advisers made at that time because, ever since, SA has became increasingly hostile to America and their clerics have fostered financial support for Al Qaeda. My original hypothesis of some weeks ago was that Bush Junior was trying to reverse this mistake by increasing pressure generally in the Middle East (and Saudi Arabia in particular) -- and, as a bonus, perhaps encourage a change of regime in Iraq. I don't know what to think now -- except that I still can't imagine that Bush thinks he can get away with heavy bombing or an aggressive invasion of Iraq right up to, if necessary, hand-to-hand fighting in Baghdad with the loss of thousands of civilian lives. I think public opinion in America would condemn him -- particularly if another major Al Qaeda incident also occurs, showing that Bush hasn't got his priorities in the right order. Keith Hudson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
