[pistons92] Iraq

Ada analisa yang cukup objecktif ttg perang di Irak yang ditulis Bara Hasibuan 
di Kompas Senin 14/04/03. "Neo Cons dibalik Perang Irak".

As I wrote last time the war on Iraq is mainly about spehere of influence:  
ensuring the right world climate for the US. Oil is not the main issue, 
neither did the colonialism in our Sejarah Text Book sense. Oil and good name 
is a bonus, Toppling Saddam is a bonus (apart for the so called Neo Cons who 
believe that removing Saddam is essential), Colonising Iraq is certainly a 
burden.

Why the war was unavoidable since January eventhough UNSCOM seemed to function 
well? The truth was UNSCOM had stronger bargaining power than pre 98 
inspectors because of the military built-up. Hence Saddam had to give many 
concession. But such thing is not sustainable as having troops that are doing 
nothing cost a lot of money to the US and the UK. Franco-German proposal to 
prolong the inspection would only work if they contribute to the cost. War was 
the only way out... By the same token, it is not the US neither UK interest to 
colonise (hence having permanent military presence in large number) Iraq. At 
the moment Royal Navy and Royal Airforde are beginning to reduce their 
presence in the area. Recently, an exclusive interview with one or Jay Garner 
staff with BBC (id not channel 4) emphasise this fact.

You may still think that the US are not right in attacking Iraq (Of course it 
is still imoral when once think about the human cost. Then again, is there 
such thing like bloodless war?). However I hope you'll see that the whole 
thing is not born out of madness.

Indi H. Tristanto

Dept. Aero. and Auto. Eng. (AAE),       tel  : ++ (0)1509 227 242
Stewart Miller Building,                fax  : ++ (0)1509 227 275
West Park,                              email: I.H.Tristanto@xxxxxxxxxxx
Loughborough University,       
Loughborough,                
Leicestershire LE11 3TU         
United Kingdom

Other related posts: