Attacking of Iraq by the United States seems to be inevitable. So,
the "Cyber Team Fox-Eye" dispatched three of our volunteered
members to Baghdad, the capital of Iraq to report what was really happening
over there, on the very eve of actual war. It would be difficult to
read the truth from mainstream media reports, since their priority is
likely to be saving their ass rather than reporting.
According to what they have told me, Baghdad seemed to be extremely
calm. Even though my teammates are Japanese,meaning petty disciples
of America, Iraqis were very friendly to them, and an Iraqi man invited
them for a cup of tea.
Maybe some of our readers think the situation over there to be too
relaxed, but such a view, I believe, is much too Japanese and at the
same time, very abnormal. Yes, Japan has enjoyed prosperity and peace
after the World War II. However, those were brought not by Japanese
people's struggle but rather by geopolitical reasons. Under the Cold
War, Japan served as a sort of breakwater, and the prosperity and peace
came as the bonus.
In addition, there are few countries that have managed to avoid military
conflict for half a century. So from world standard, Japanese way of
thinking is way out of sense. Not only the Gulf War, Iraqis have been
continuously exposed to military conflict. For them, war is something
of an everyday life. So their desire for peace is incredibly strong
compared to ours. Their daily lives may be very quiet, and I believe
there is a sense of resignation, but that actually is their notion of
peace, and reality of war.
Even though the Americans have not begun their attack at this point,
but from my viewpoint, they do not possess the option of averting the
conflict. Bush administration is sure to collapse if they don't go to
war. According to polls conducted in the United States, 60% of the Americans
approve Bush's policies, and this is the percentage of America who are
enthusiastic to engage in a war. Even if Bush actually averted the war
this time, the remaining 40 percent, including those originally supported
Bush but decided not support his war, is unlikely to change their minds
to support Bush again.
Presidential election is coming ahead next year, and the only possibility
George W. Bush could manage to stay in the White House is for the second
term would be to engage in war with Iraq, and earn an overwhelming victory.
He is planning the war as a tool for his survival as a President.
So what happens after the war? I would like to let scholars--who are
usually immune to reality--to discuss who is going to rule Iraq after
Saddam and so on, but instead, I shall like to predict circumstances
much more dynamic. Strong waves of "Anti-America" will take
place not only in the Islamic world but in countries that have been
friendly to the U.S. As a consequence, a fragile balance of the world
that have been building up like a delicate mosaic, will collapse. The
modern world is intricately woven together. There was a story when Thailand's
currency crisis occurred, there was a hike in Swedish mortgage rate.
When something happens in today's world, nobody could predict what happens
to whom, or where, as a result. A chain reaction of the collapse would
be most likely to happen from somewhere very unexpected.
Do you think the logic goes like this: Iraq is a bad country because
there Saddam Hussein is ruling, and the United States possesses democracy
and thus makes it a great nation?Is America really such a great country?
It is the United States that have engaged in most of the military conflicts
in the 20th century. I personally cannot possibly believe American point
of view that they are doing the right thing. For instance, Al Qaeda,
the terrorist organization believed to have masterminded the attack
on New York's World Trade Center and Pentagon, had been funded and nurtured
by Americans to fight against Russians who had invaded Afghanistan.
The same theory works for Saddam Hussein, who had been supported by
the American government to contain Iran, ruled by Ayatullah Khomeini
after the revolution. You have kept a watchdog but the dog began to
bite and harm you. Killing the dog should not be the solution. There
must be a reason why the dog began biting at you.
As for Al Qaeda and Saddam, they have their reasons for being anti-American.
Unless bring a positive solution for their hatred, someone must not
condemn them as enemy of international society. I believe most of the
European nations--British aside-- share same view as mine, taking the
distance from the Americans. Europeans have learned their lessons that
war could never be a final solution, from their experience of closely
watching the Soviet Union falling apart and war in the Balkans. So averting
the military conflict and at the same time provide measures to solve
the problem, whatever it is, is the better and clever way. On February
14, more than 10 million people across the globe took to the streets
to rally against war, and their sentiment would likely to be based on
this European point of view.
Of course, there are movements against war in the United States itself.
However, it is too early to come to conclusion that the democracy is
working over there. Because their basic notion is that America is beautiful
country equipped with democracy, so such a great nation must not go
to war. The anti-war activists actually share the same logic as George
W. Bush. It is their tactics to brew the sentiment against war and at
the same time, incite people's excitement. The movement is something
totally different from the anti-war rallies organized during the Viet
Nam War, which was much more concrete and possessed philosophy. I believe
the difference between the two had been created by the 9.11 attack.
The American sentiment of being victimized and the national movement
on "anti terrorizm" have destroyed their basis of conscience.
Other nations would not agree to sing the same tune as Americans if
their only logic is act against terrorism. On the contrary, rising anti-American
sentiment would likely to end the world domination by Americans. Since
the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the United States has been
the only winner in world politics and diplomacy. They could have been
stronger and stable if they used their supremacy to put pressure against
Iraq without using military forces. But I believe George W. Bush is
most likely to take physical pressure, war, to secure his position as
President and oil concessions, which is the base of his political support.
As a consequence, American allies would be devided, and the countdown
would begin for the demise of American empire. This is the way the Soviet
Union had gone down. The collapse of an empire begins from its interior.
United States would be isolated completely, and finally learn that there
is something it cannot rule by military supremacy.
Then, the problem would rise on the relationship between United States
and Japan. It is true that Japan has owed a great deal from this U.S.-Japan
alliance, but what awaits Americans are losing of its supremacy and
slow deterioration. Is it wise to keep the alliance status quo, considering
the next 50 years to come? I don't think so. I would suggest look at
Asian nations, such as China?
"The pitcher goes so often to the well that it is broken at last,"
wasn't there an old saying?
