Why the left was wrong

[Violet_Crumble]

A dictator is captured and his people freed. But if the left had got its way, this would never have happened, writes Gerard Henderson.


Iraq, December 14, 2003. At a news conference, Iraqi journalists loudly cheer the formal announcement that United States forces have captured former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein near Tikrit. Some shout in Arabic "Death to Saddam"; others express in English their gratitude to the US for liberating their country.

Australia, April 6, 2003. In his Sunday Age column, ABC Radio National presenter Terry Lane, declares: "I want the army of my country, which is engaged in an act of gross immorality, to be defeated" by Saddam Hussein's regime. Lane adds that he does "not want a single soldier killed or wounded". Previously he had expressed the wish to "have seen a Scud fall on (the) cruel, sanctimonious head" of a US Army spokesman.

The debate over the Gulf wars of 1990-91 and 2003 tends to overlook two central facts. First, many of those who opposed the present commitment were also against the previous one, even though this was endorsed by the United Nations. The list is a long one. It includes academic Robert Springborg (who became ABC TV's in-house expert the first time around and was the recipient of a soft interview by Radio National's Life Matters presenter Geraldine Doogue on December 2), journalist John Pilger and many more.

If those who opposed the US-led military action in 1990-91 had succeeded in their advocacy, Saddam would have achieved his aim of annexing Kuwait. Almost certainly, this would have cemented Saddam's rule for the remainder of his life and led to a situation where he was regarded as a hero on what is sometimes called the Arab Street.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336885594.html