What We Know about Iraq

New York Times editorial: "Watching Iraq" (3/23/03):

What most of us know of Iraq we know from just the kind of television we are watching now. It's a nation seen over the correspondent's shoulder, or through the windshield of a fighting vehicle moving into a beige void. But in a way, America knows a great deal about Iraq. We actually know every inch of the country. United Nations inspectors have explored it in the ways that interest us most. Surveillance satellites are constantly watching overhead. We've been making fixed-wing surveillance flights since before the first gulf war. Perhaps in some declassified future, those photographs will serve the same purpose as the aerial photos the Luftwaffe took of England in the late summer of 1940. Now, they provide a clear snapshot of the country as it was, an archeological benchmark against which to measure all future change.

Protests: Africa

"Anti-War Protests Sweep Africa" (BBC, 3/23/03):

Other developments across Africa:

  • South African President Thabo Mbeki, whose country has been a prominent opponent of attacks on Iraq, expressed regret, saying the war "is a blow to multilateralism".
  • The United States has shut its embassies in South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya.
  • Nigeria says some of its citizens have been recruited to fight for Iraq against US-led forces and are preparing to leave.
  • Eritrea, one of two African countries to join Mr Bush's "coalition of the willing", said it did support the war but added that it was not directly involved in the actual conflict.
  • Ethiopia said it had offered the United States the use of its airspace and also landing rights, as requested by the US in relation to the Iraq war.
  • Archbishop Desmond Tutu said the attack on Iraq was an "immoral" war in which America was abusing its power.

March 22 Protests in Britain

Marcus Tanner on the 3/22 protests in Britain (The Independent, 3/23/03)

Among the veterans of these affairs, the lean, ferrety-faced men with their megaphone voices and mass- produced slogans about socialism and Palestine, there were droves of representatives from that famous if elusive constituency known as Middle England -- worried-looking families wrestling with the business of carrying a placard in one hand and a rolled-up "quality" newspaper under one arm, while keeping pushchairs and toddlers in order.

Protests

Early demonstrations, 3/22/03: Japan, Bangladesh, Taiwan, South Korea, India, New Zealand, Pakistan (New York Times, 3/22/03)

Elsewhere: Germany, Britain, Spain, Ireland, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, New Zealand, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, Australia, Japan, and the United States, (New York Times, 3/23/03)

More: Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, the Sudan, Indonesia, Bahrain, and Egypt (Guardian, 3/22/03)

War Support Much Lower This Time

Poll: War boost for Bush smaller than for his father in 1991, and unlike then, Democrats and Republicans diverge sharply. Overall, 70 percent of Americans approve of the war and 27 percent disapprove (does that mean that three percent are undecided?); 93 percent of Republicans approve, but only 50 percent of Democrats (in 1991, these numbers were 94 percent and 81 percent, respectively). (New York Times, 3/22/03.)

Arab League Head Condemns Invasion

"Arabs Seethe as TV Brings Iraq Destruction Home" (Caroline Drees for Reuters, 3/22/03)

Amr Moussa, the head of the 22-member Arab League, said "no Arab with any remnant of conscience can tolerate" the bombing of Baghdad, once the proud capital of the Islamic world.

George W. Bush, 3/19/03

"The bombing and violence we're seeing on satellite TV should stir the ire of every Arab who sees it," said the secretary-general, who has warned a war against Iraq could "open the gates of hell" in the Middle East.

While many Arabs have little sympathy for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, they say they are furious about the suffering the war is causing innocent Iraqis.

"I feel sad and hurt because there's nothing we can do. The Arabs are weak and America controls the situation," said Saudi Walid Musharraf, a 29-year-old accountant.

"Now everyone here hates America, and even some Americans hate the American government," he said.

Congress Weighs Environmental Exemptions for Military

Congress considers exempting military from more environmental rules (New York Times, 3/22/03):

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has begun a campaign it calls, portentously, "Operation End Extremism." The purpose is to expose "the increasing burden U.S. soldiers face on military training bases because of irrational enforcement of environmental laws." The whole thing might be dismissed as another ideological stunt from the committee's reactionary chairman, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, were it not for the fact that the Pentagon is trying to do the same thing. With White House backing, the Defense Department has asked Congress to approve a program it calls the "Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative," which would broadly exempt military bases and some operations from environmental regulation.

The Coalition of the Willing

Bill Keller on Bush's coalition (New York Times, 3/22/03):

[M]uch as I respect Estonia and El Salvador, there is something ridiculous about the list of our "partners" -- a coalition of the anonymous, the dependent, the halfhearted and the uninvolved, whose lukewarm support supposedly confers some moral authority. This is like -- oh, I don't know, wresting a dubious election victory in Florida and claiming a mandate. It lacks a certain verisimilitude.

Protests: Britain

Claire Phipps on youthful protesters in Britain (Guardian, 3/22/03):

They've been marching, shouting and demanding to be heard - it's only the school uniforms that mark them out as a new kind of political protester. In a week of unprecedented action, the tactics employed by tens of thousands of schoolchildren have taken the older (and supposedly wiser) of us aback. From the 1,000 pupils who staged a demonstration in their school grounds at St Dunstan's, Glastonbury, to the 300 ambitious 12- to 15-year-olds who attempted to occupy Edinburgh Castle, teenagers are not waiting for anyone to tell them what to do.

The Antiwar Movement

Jonathan Freedland on the impact of the antiwar movement (Guardian, 3/22/03):

[T]here may be another motive for the initial preference for short-and-sweet over shock-and-awe. The US might have wanted to avoid a wave of worldwide revulsion. A series of tight, well-aimed strikes at the regime would have confounded the global fear of colossal Iraqi civilian casualties. It's as if Washington had heard the peace movement's objection to this war -- that too many innocents would die -- and was attempting to heed it. (Now the US can, at least, say it tried its best, but that it didn't bring instant results). . . .

Critics have railed against Washington for its gunslinging unilateralism, lambasting the US for playing the lone ranger. So the first sentence of George Bush's TV address on Wednesday night referred to "coalition forces". Of course he spoiled the multilateralist feel of the phrase by preceding it with "on my orders" -- suggesting he is in charge even of the British army -- but the thought was there.

And perhaps the clearest proof of the anti-war camp's efforts came from our own prime minister: "I know this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country," he said, just seconds into his own TV message to the nation. No leader wants to go into a war admitting such a thing. But Blair had no choice. As with much else, the peace movement has changed the landscape for this conflict -- and the men of war are having to deal with it.