The original reason given by the US Government for going to war in Iraq was two-fold.
On the one hand, to the international community, it was sold as being necessary because of Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, a pretext that was not taken seriously by any reasonably informed person at the time. Iraq had been systematically bombed and blockaded into a starved and subservient position, its industrial power diminished. It was in no position to launch any kind of attack, even if there were attempts to gain “weapons of mass destruction”, and there was no real evidence to suggest that such a thing was taking place.
To the domestic market it was sold as being connected somehow to Al Qaeda and the attack on the Twin Towers of September 11, 2001. The attack was part revenge, part pre-emptive strike before Iraq could launch its own follow up to September 11 with the weapons of mass destruction. The convenient anthrax mailing scare that followed September 11 allowed the connection between “developing weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq and attacks on the US and its population.
After the invasion the reason was changed post-facto to a human rights based “liberation” of the Iraqi people from an oppressive and abusive dictator, Saddam Hussein.
The real reasons for the invasion have more to do with geo-political balance of power and access to and control of material resources.
The situation today in Baghdad, capital of Iraq, is in many ways worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. While much is made of the violence meted out by Saddam and his cronies, you have to give them one thing - like Hitler, they imposed order on the society. Today that order is gone, replaced by chaotic violence as warring forces struggle to gain the traction they need to overthrow their rivals for control of the instruments and institutions of power.
As the resident of an inner city Baghdad suburb said in a recent CS Monitor article entitled “In the struggle for Iraq, tug of war over one Baghdad neighborhood“:
When the Americans first came to Iraq, I thought we’d be kings. We hated Saddam and now I’m nostalgic for those days. It makes me sick.
In a previous age a murderous dictator was overthrown and killed by a liberating force, and the consequences were the same - where there was once dictatorial order, chaos ensued.
SB 4.14.37: In those days there were various disturbances in the country that were creating a panic in society. Therefore all the sages began to talk amongst themselves: Since the King is dead and there is no protector in the world, misfortune may befall the people in general on account of rogues and thieves.
SB 4.14.38: When the great sages were carrying on their discussion in this way, they saw a dust storm arising from all directions. This storm was caused by the running of thieves and rogues, who were engaged in plundering the citizens.
SB 4.14.39-40: Upon seeing the dust storm, the saintly persons could understand that there were a great deal of irregularities due to the death of King Vena. Without government, the state was devoid of law and order, and consequently there was a great uprising of murderous thieves and rogues, who were plundering the riches of the people in general.
However, the great difference in this case is that the same liberating force that overthrew King Vena, namely the sages, was able to install a suitable replacement administration which was able to impose order on the kingdom and serve the people competently and compassionately.
Prior to the invasion US Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki voiced his opinion publicly that tens of thousands of troops would be needed to handle the aftermath of the invasion and the transitional period that would be needed to establish a new government. He was publicly refuted by the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who stated that this was imagination.
Perhaps if Donald Rumsfeld read more Srimad Bhagavatam he could have seen this coming….
Dear Sitapati prabhu,
Hare Krishna. Your fine blog about all things Krishna conscious is no place for your half-baked, far left political rantings. Please put it somewhere else. It is contaminating. You are mindlessly spewing a very one sided view of the issue. There are a number of ways of making an objective evaluation but you have overlooked them all for the simplistic, “Bush/America is evil” mantra which you into have obviously bern brainwashed. Better to chant the Maha mantra and give up the anti-war ani-hero routine. What do you know about it anyway? In this regard, Prabhu, Prime Minister Howard makes a great deal more sense on this issue than you.
Dear Prabhu,
Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote, and to comment. I was beginning to think that no-one cared.
I must confess to some confusion. I’m not anti-war, nor is this article meant to be anti-war. I’m pretty open about being a follower of the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita, which lead to the battle of Kuruksetra. I also never mentioned Bush or said anything about America being evil. I feel that you may have jumped to conclusions by lumping what you’ve read here with things you’ve read elsewhere (the “far left”?).
I haven’t made any value judgements here. Good / evil - what are they? My analysis is that the strategy that was adopted in the example that I gave (Iraq) is not as effective as it could have been had the lessons learned by the sages during Operation Vena Freedom been applied in this situation.
Yes, I did throw in a little bit of a personal dig that Donald Rumsfeld doesn’t read the Srimad Bhagavatam, and I admit that I went over the line there. How do I know what he reads?
My point is not to point the finger at anyone personally. To me Donald Rumsfeld, Eric Shinseki, et al. are simply names in a story that I read about a country called America. I’m just drawing a parallel between the two situations. I could have substituted names for them, and I probably should have to avoid clouding the issue, so that people who are “inside that story” don’t take it personally. Because it’s not meant to be.
The main point that I’m making here is this:
The Srimad Bhagavatam describes what happens when a dictator is overthrown. Thieves and rogues become prominent in society as the strong arm of the law is slackened.
This was observed by the sages after they deposed Maharaja Vena.
It is necessary to put in place a strong replacement administration to stop these elements from taking advantage of the situation, which is what the sages discovered through empirical observation, and they acted on that.
You can learn this from studying history - such as the Second World War - and from studying the history of the Srimad Bhagavatam - a very practical book. Learning from the experience of others is a Good Idea ™.
In the practical example, that of Iraq, General Eric Shinseki made an analysis of the situation along those lines, which was a good one - in line with and confirming the practical lessons of the Bhagavatam.
His advice, the advice of the Srimad Bhagavatam on this issue, wasn’t followed, and the consequences were as the Bhagavatam analysis predicted.
I simply find it interesting how the Bhagavatam is so relevant to life in all its aspects. Whenever I’m involved in organizing a military operation to depose an existing government, or advising one, I’ll personally take on the lessons that I’ve learned from reading that section of the Srimad Bhagavatam, from studying how the occupation of Japan and Germany were carried out, and also what happened in Iraq.
I’m sorry for upsetting you. Again, the example that I used is probably a little close to home for some people. I should have chosen an example like the occupation of Germany in 1945, which would not have evoked such an emotive response. My apologies. My intent was to demonstrate the relevance of the Bhagavatam to all areas of human endeavor, including deposing dictators.
warm regards,
Sita-pati das