March 24, 2004
IRAQ: ONE
YEAR LATER
KEY FINDINGS
** Global editorial opinion
remains polarized a year after Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
** Supporters of toppling
Saddam militarily assert the world "is now a safer place."
** Critics label the war a
"failure" that has made the world "more vulnerable" to
terrorism.
** Most writers agree,
however, that Iraq must not now be "abandoned."
MAJOR THEMES
A 'success in campaign against global terror'-- Editorial arguments on the merits of the war
in Iraq have changed little a year after "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
was launched. Papers that supported
military action against Saddam Hussein--"one of the bloodiest dictators of
modern times"--argued that the war was "justified, and even
essential." A "genocidal"
and "repressive regime was destroyed." Coalition nations, said a conservative
Israeli daily, "sent a message" that dictators cannot
"scorn the civilized world with impunity." The war was an integral part of "the
continuing struggle against terror" and, according to Scotland's leading
journal, forestalled an "evil alliance" between Baathist
"thugs" and Islamist extremists.
Despite post-war problems, Iraq is "making slow but steady
progress" and is "undoubtedly a better country today." A number of papers, like Canada's
conservative Chronicle-Herald of Halifax, pointed to recent surveys
showing that "Iraqis themselves, on balance, seem to approve" of
deposing Saddam by force. While some
writers found the absence of WMD "deeply disturbing" or criticized
the "naive visions of Washington neo-conservatives" that failed to
anticipate post-war resistance or misjudged the difficulty of stitching
together Iraq's "confessional and ethnic" mosaic into a stable, unified
state, they still applauded the effort to fashion the "first-ever
democracy" in the Arab world.
A 'hideous mistake,' a 'fiasco born of lies'-- Marshaling familiar arguments that the war
was based on "highly selective" intelligence--or
"lies"--about Iraq's WMD and the "the dogged myth that Saddam
Hussein had links to al-Qaida," critics of the "horrendous" war
called it a "total failure."
Muslim papers denounced the action as a "war of aggression"
that has brought "neither peace, nor justice and security" to
Iraq. Despite attempts by the Coalition
"and its media apparatus...to beautify the Iraqi image," Jordan's
semi-official, influential Al-Dustour proclaimed, Iraqis live amidst
"chaos, ruin, destruction, killing, arrests, blood-shedding and continuous
foreign efforts to provoke an ethnic or civil war." Though most agreed that the removal of Saddam
"was a good thing" and some allowed that the war had a "subduing
effect" on other despotic regimes such as those of Libya and Syria,
analysts claimed the war was "counter-productive" and "has made
the world more vulnerable" to terrorism.
"Hatred against the U.S.--and the West--has increased and a growing
number of cells are preparing themselves to continue their holy war under
al-Qaida's trademark," said Belgium's Christian-Democrat Gazet van
Antwerpen. A French op-ed blasted
the "arrogance and ignorance" of the "Bush-Blair Axis of
Incompetence," while other commentators declared the war had left Iraq
"drowning in a bloodbath" and "on the verge of a civil
war." The conversion of the Middle
East to democracy "is at best a far-away dream," skeptics added.
Now the international community must 'show its worth'-- While agreeing on little else, observers on
both sides of the debate contended that "abandoning the Iraqis to their
fate" is "not an option."
Even war critics argued this "would be a bigger mistake" than
the war. "What's done is done"
a Canadian daily said, and both proponents and opponents of the war "have
a vested interest" in Iraq's successful reconstruction. A fiercely anti-war British broadsheet
concluded that Iraqis' "hope for the future is a precious gain, and the
world must work together to see that it is not dashed." Zambia's government-owned Sunday Mail
spoke for a number of papers in stating that Iraq "is a matter that the UN
should now be seen to be truly in control of." Papers in Germany and Britain called for
"a new UN resolution mandating a multinational force to continue operating
in Iraq." Uruguay's conservative El
Observador agreed getting help from the UN is "the option" and
stressed the U.S. "holds the key" to obtaining it; Washington
"will have to concede definitive authority" to the UN "instead
of the crumbs" it has so far been offering.
EDITOR: Steven Wangsness
EDITOR'S NOTE: Media
Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment. Posts select commentary to provide a
representative picture of local editorial opinion. This report summarizes and interprets foreign
editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
Government. This analysis was based on
179 reports from 53 countries March 16-24, 2004. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "The Myths
Of War"
The conservative Times had this to day (3/21): "A year on from the start of the war with
Iraq there is much to celebrate. Saddam
Hussein, one of the bloodiest dictators of modern times, was easily deposed and
is in captivity.... Despite the
determination of Saddam loyalists and al-Qaida to kill and maim, life is
gradually returning to pre-Saddam normality....
It would be foolish to pretend everything has gone according to
plan.... America's initial post-war
strategy was based on the naive visions of Washington's neo-conservatives, who
thought that U.S. troops would be garlanded and that democracy would flower the
instant Saddam was removed from power....
The other major glitch, of course, has been over weapons of mass
destruction. If there was a consensus
before the war it was that Saddam had large quantities of [WMD].... The debate was over whether the threat from
those weapons was best dealt with through containment or confrontation. The failure to find them has been a huge
embarrassment, particularly for Mr. Blair.
But let us make no mistake. Most
of those who opposed the war, including yesterday's ragbag of protesters in
London, would have done so even if Saddam had been found to have had missiles
trained on Big Ben."
"Why We're Losing
The War On Terror"
The center-left tabloid Sunday Mirror
declared (3/21): "One year on and
there is a single question to be asked about the invasion of Iraq--has it
advanced our chances of winning the War on Terror...the reason George Bush and
Tony Blair gave for toppling Saddam? Few,
except for diehards in the Pentagon, would say it has. Most would take the view that it has advanced
the cause of bin Laden, Middle Eastern terrorism and Islamic religious
fundamentalism. Worse, it has created a
dangerous new theater for the terrorists to display their bloody arts. Politicians who supported the war...pretend
the invasion was imperative if the world was to be freed from the barbarism
unleashed by bin Laden and his imitators.
That is why the Spanish are being given so much stick by Bush and his
sidekicks and why, disgracefully, [conservative leader] Michael Howard makes
veiled references to the 'moral cowardice' of changing foreign policy.... The vast majority of Spaniards were against
their leaders' support of the war for the same reason so many opposed it
here--because Bush, Blair and ousted Spanish leader Aznar conspicuously failed
to make the case that Saddam--however brutal he was--constituted a clear and
present terrorist danger to the rest of the world. A year later, the opponents have been proved
tragically right. The invasion of Iraq
was an irrelevance and a desperately dangerous irrelevance at that. It has strengthened bin Laden's resolve. It has given fresh impetus to the cause of
those who would fuel their fanatical hatred of the United States by murdering
innocent civilians. It has shown
terrorism can change governments. Not
because the people are cowards. But
because their rulers made a hideous mistake, the consequences of which were to
make our world a madder, sadder, more evil and more frightening place to
live. When that happens, the people are
right to put the mistake right.
Especially if their leaders lack the moral courage to do so themselves."
"One Year On"
The center-left Independent observed (3/21): "One year on, the arguments for and against
the invasion of Iraq have been exhaustively and exhaustingly rehearsed.... Everything that has happened in the 12 months
since has strengthened us in our conviction that this was an unjustified,
immoral and illegal war. Of course, we are pleased that a survey suggests that
most Iraqis think life is better now than before the war. Their hope for the future is a precious gain,
and the world must work together to see that it is not dashed. But nothing can retrospectively justify the
casualties, or bring the dead back."
"Iraq Depends On Us Being United"
The center-left Observer editorialized (3/21): "The predictions [about how the war would
go], to a greater or lesser extent, were wrong.... Iraq has not descended into civil war,
although the security situation is critical.
The lack of WMD evidence has revealed that Bush and Tony Blair should
have made much more of the humanitarian case for war than they dared. Iraq is undoubtedly a better country
today.... Of course the picture is
mixed. Sectarian violence between Sunnis
and Shiites is on the rise...intimidation continues of the Turkmen and Arab
minorities by the Kurds.... This
continuing violence marks the greatest failure of the U.S.-led occupation and
threatens other progress--an improving economy, wider free speech and countless
small improvements to the daily lives of ordinary Iraqis. Now is the time for the international
community to show its worth.... The
constitution drawn up by the Iraqi Governing Council as the basis for that
government is worth defending from those trying to drag Iraq into civil
war. All nations, whatever their views a
year ago, should back Britain's push for a new United Nations resolution mandating
a multinational force to continue operating in Iraq. Iraq must feel supported. That is the best way to face those who wish
it to fail."
"One Year On"
The conservative Times judged (3/20): "Anniversaries should be moments for
reflection as well as celebration....
Reflection, though, would be appropriate on this occasion...not just to
those who fought or supported the war, who must properly consider what aspects
of post-conflict planning may have been handled better, but also to those who
opposed intervention, a stance which would have ensured that Saddam continued
to exercise authority in Baghdad....
Honesty on all sides of this debate would be welcome. It remains a possibility that Iraq did
possess serious stockpiles of biological and chemical material until very close
to the conflict itself but that these were either disposed of or were dispersed
by the time of the invasion.... The
Iraqi dictator was hardly an innocent figure, unfairly and unreasonably accused
of malevolent objectives he had long ceased to entertain. He may have been less competent than was
concluded 12 months ago, yet he was a menace.... The fear of an alliance between rogue groups,
rogue states and rogue weapons remains real.
If the true outcome of the Iraq war is that politicians will feel unable
to confront those who aspire to access to biological, chemical or nuclear
weapons again, then that legacy will prove eventually to be a bitter one."
"One Year On...And It's Still A Rotten War"
The center-left tabloid Daily Mirror
opined (3/20): "One year ago the U.S. and
Britain went to war in Iraq.... The
Mirror was among the voices warning that winning the peace would be much
harder.... Far more troops have been
killed and wounded since the war ended than in the battles to remove
Saddam.... Worst of all, there is evidence
that hatred is being fostered between the Sunni and Shiite communities. If that breaks out into open warfare the
bloodshed will be horrific.... Saddam
has been captured and his sons killed.
Their regime has gone forever and many Iraqis rejoice in the end of
their tyranny and brutality. But it is
too soon for there to be rejoicing in Britain or America. The Mirror's fear before the war was that it
would inflame the terrorists and make the allies their targets. That has been proved tragically true--not
only in Madrid, but with the rush of fanatical killers into Iraq.... On this first anniversary we could have
expected there to be dates for elections in Iraq and the withdrawal of British
troops. There are neither and certainly
no prospects of our forces returning home in the near future. If this is victory, it is a very hollow one."
"Better Times"
The right-of-center tabloid Sun editorialized (3/19): "A year ago today, life began to change for
the better in Iraq. Don't just take our
word for it. A poll this week shows that
70 per cent of Iraqis say life has improved with Saddam off their backs. The war on Saddam's evil regime was right -
and it was worth it, no matter what the Dismal Jimmies may whine. Iraq is now within a few months of having a
democratic government. As billions in
American and British aid pours in, Iraq has electricity, running water, goods
in the shops, cars instead of donkeys--and hope for the first time. The bombings, like the hotel blast in Baghdad
and the car bomb in Basra, are not happening because of what George Bush and
Tony Blair started a year ago. Al-Qaida
are murdering in cold blood in Iraq because Bush and Blair's campaign has been
too successful for their liking. They
desperately want to disrupt Iraq's blossoming way of life before it takes root.
"What Kind Of 'Freedom Fighting' Is This?"
The conservative Scotsman of Edinburgh took this view
(Internet version, 3/19): "Tomorrow
is the first anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. We can expect the date to be marked by a wave
of bombings and murders by the remnants of the old Baath Party regime and the
foreign Islamist extremists who have infiltrated Iraq since then. Already, since February, some 400
people--mostly ordinary Iraqi civilians--have been murdered by these
groups. For some in the West, this
continuing violence will be proof that the war was a mistake which has, if
anything, made the threat from terrorism worse, not only in Iraq itself, but
also in Europe and America. That view is
wrong.... Another specious argument used
by those who criticize the war is that it has created an alliance between the
Baathists and al-Qaida which otherwise would not have existed. This is to turn reality upside down.... The consummation of this evil alliance was
always going to happen. At least now the
Baathists lack a state, an army and the oil revenues to help al-Qaida get
nuclear weapons--thanks to Saddam's overthrow.
Never forget that the tally of 400 innocent people murdered in Iraq in
the last six weeks by the Baathists and their allies is probably fewer than
Saddam normally killed in secret. And
never forget that it is the same thugs doing the killing."
"The Worst Foreign Policy Blunder Since Suez"
Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook commented in the center-left Independent
(3/19): "It says much about the
nervousness in Government over Iraq that they have no plans to mark tomorrow's
anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
This is very sensible on their part.
Any retrospective examination would inevitably draw attention to questions
that they find increasingly difficult to answer.... The rational approach is to ask whether our
actions are making the world as a whole safer from their malign
intentions. The sober, depressing answer
to that question must be that the invasion of Iraq has made the world more
vulnerable to a heightened threat from al-Qaida.... On this first anniversary it seems only too
likely that the judgment of history may be that the invasion of Iraq has been
the biggest blunder in British foreign and security policy in the half century
since Suez."
"It Is Essential We Admit We Were Wrong"
Henry Porter commented in the left-of-center Guardian
(Internet version, 3/19): "There
comes a point in every nation's life when its people and their leaders have to
admit to and atone for a mistake in order to be able to continue as a
functioning part of the international community. That point has been reached for Britain on
the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
WMD have not been found in Iraq and, whatever the modifications
subsequently made to the casus belli by the prime minister and his publicly
unabashed cabinet, that was incontrovertibly the reason we sent 12,000 troops
to bomb and invade a sovereign territory.
It's such a simple matter. Tony
Blair was wrong. His cabinet was wrong
not to oppose his policy on the evidence that he presented, and both the major
parliamentary parties got it wrong....
Security in the West has not been improved by the Iraq war; in fact, the
war has supplied al-Qaida with a brand new pretext for attacking the West,
something that was widely predicted before the war and dismissed out of hand by
the prime minister. This was no finely
balanced political decision in which supporters on both sides could after the
event claim equal moral rights in the matter.
One group of people were wrong because they had not thought the many
issues through, because they believed in America's distorted representations of
itself and of its mission in the Middle East, and because they failed to distinguish
between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida's network.... As was evident in his speech in Sedgefield
this month, [Blair] cannot and will not admit to his part in this profound
error; nor to his enthrallment to the U.S., nor to his own vagueness and credulity
about what does and does not work in the Middle East. We cannot be the guardian of the prime
minister's conscience. We can, however,
decide who owns the truth. To deny his
account that the Iraq war was simply one battlefield in the global struggle
against terrorism is the first step we should take as a nation a year after the
bombs fell. We owe it to the world and
to ourselves."
"A
War That Has Divided The World"
International affairs editor Quentin Peel commented in the
independent Financial Times (3/18):
"A year after the misbegotten launch of the war in Iraq, its
unresolved consequences continue to haunt us.... Global terrorism is seen by many as a threat
to the existence of democratic societies.
That a government is toppled after a terrorist act seems to confirm
that. But it is not the terrorism that
really threatens democracy; it is the danger of an overreaction to it. That is just what the terrorists are seeking.... Iraq was a dangerous distraction from the
real struggle against terrorism and fundamentalism.... So how to bridge the gap? Joining forces on Iraqi reconstruction is one
way--but it will not work if the U.S. insists on running the show. Iraq has demonstrated the limits of American
power. One cannot expect Mr. Bush to admit
that it was a ghastly mistake. Not in an
election year. But at least he might
have the humility to admit he needs help even if he has to pay for it."
"One Year On, Things Getting Better For Iraqis"
The center-left Independent wrote (3/17): "What the poll of 2,500 people shows,
above all, is that Iraqis are coming to terms with their particular
circumstances in a situation that came about because of events far beyond their
control. What it does not show, however,
is that the invasion was justified by the results--or that what has happened in
Iraq provides in any way a model for the future."
"Voices Of Iraq: A
Poll To Confound The Platoons Of Pessimists"
The conservative Times commented (3/17): "Iraq is a nation of rational
optimists. This poll demonstrates that,
despite what some of the reporting from Baghdad has implied, more Iraqis
welcome the demise of Saddam Hussein than lament it.... That is not to say that foreign soldiers or
the Coalition Provisional Authority are popular. Iraqis, understandably, would prefer to run
their own affairs and have every confidence in their capacity to do so given
time.... The anniversary of the
beginning of the conflict will also doubtless involve a debate about how
postwar planning should have been handled better. That there was and is room for improvement is
not in doubt. That regime change is
itself an improvement, Iraqis have concluded, is not in doubt either."
FRANCE: "Iraq As A Source
Of Discord"
Jean-Christophe Ploquin observed in Catholic La Croix
(3/22): "Over the weekend the EU's
foreign policy representative, Javier Solana said that 'Europe is not at war'
while Spain's PM-elect Jose Luis Zapatero said 'terrorism cannot be vanquished
with wars.' Almost at the same moment on
the other side of the Atlantic President Bush said in his radio address that
'the fall of Saddam Hussein eliminated a source of violence, aggression and
instability in the region....' These two
antagonistic points of views prove that the victory of the Socialists in Spain
and the defeat of Aznar, who gave his undisputed support to President Bush,
will most probably make Euro-American relations a little tenser, just when Iraq
needs a united international community....
On June 30 the context in Iraq may be one of bombings, reprisals and
mistrust among the different communities that will not give much of a chance to
stability.... A year after the start of
the war, the Iraqis have to navigate in troubled waters, between rejected
occupiers, feared terrorists and the terrible demons of sectarianism."
"Winning In Iraq"
Ivan Rioufol commented in right-of-center Le Figaro
(3/19): "The West can lose...the war
against Islamic fundamentalism.... The
West can lose this third world war from lack of conviction and courage.... The real perpetrators of terrorism are not
even being named: the culprits fingered
for the bombings in Madrid are Aznar and Anglo-American policies. George W.
Bush and Ariel Sharon are accused of causing world instability.... Many in the West refuse to see the
Koran-inspired imperialism, humiliated and spurned by a feeling of revenge, for
what it is, preferring instead to accuse those who have chosen to fight against
it. The war will be won or lost from
Iraq's doorstep. A defeat by the U.S.
and its allies in their wager to bring democracy to a Muslim country...would
signal a victory of fundamentalism....
This is not the time to recall and rehash 'Bush's mistakes or
lies.' Yes, the intervention that saw
the light with 9/11 has amplified world terrorism. So what?
Should the answer have been to do nothing and to lie down before the
enemy?... Honor lies with all the
nations present in Iraq who are trying to help the Arab-Muslim world put an end
to the obscurantism that fuels this war of resentment."
"Ambivalent Successes Achieved In Iraq"
Michel Schifres concluded in right-of-center Le Figaro
(3/19): "Friendship does not preclude
clarity of vision. Even those who
thought that the war in Iraq was a necessity, short of being just, cannot help
but acknowledge that the results are few....
Iraqi sovereignty will be implemented in June under dangerous and
ambivalent conditions.... The democratic
crusade is not spreading, while Islamic terrorism continues to
progress.... Conversely, western
nations...have not much to be proud of....
It is futile to look back and say, like an Italian minister, 'that the
war may have been an error.' One of the
greatest dangers threatening us would be to conclude that the terrorists have
reasons to do what they are doing simply because the Americans were
wrong.... It is not surprising to have
uncertainty in Iraq; it parallels uncertainty around the world. Our world today is as unstable as it was in
the aftermath of 9/11. Today's wave of
terrorism confirms what we knew then, that the battle would be long and
hard.... Considering the dangers that
still lurk, questions remain: why is the
international community incapable of uniting in the fight? Why are so many nations, Arab nations for the
most part, reluctant to commit to the fight?
Why does the EU give the impression it lacks unity in the construction
of a common defense?"
"Good Morning Iraq"
Patrick Sabatier observed in left-of-center Liberation
(3/19): "News from the front is not all
that good. One year later the war
continues. On the ground, with
terrorism, but also in public opinion where the controversy between the pro- and
anti-war groups rages, all eyes riveted on the carnage in Madrid. It is a bitter victory: the warnings against a 'preventive war' have
become reality.... The occupation of
Iraq which was to weaken Islamic terrorism has re-enforced it.... The pursuit for WMD was a fiasco born of
lies.... As for the Middle East's
conversion to democracy it is at best a far-away dream.... While one cannot yet speak of a U.S. defeat,
one can say that defeat of Washington's strategies is patent. An equal measure of arrogance and ignorance
is guiding those who find fault with the Spaniards and others who want to put
an end to the Bush-Blair 'axis of incompetence.' The choice in fighting terrorism does not lie
with a choice between 'war and dishonor,' it is between a war that is
well-thought out and is led in unison, and a slapdash war that plays into the
hands of the terrorists. Abandoning the
Iraqis to their fate is not the answer.
But the road that Bush and Blair have taken leads, via Baghdad, to an
impasse."
"Aznar's Original Sin"
Jacques Amalric observed in left-of-center Liberation
(3/18): "Every day that passes confirms
that the second Iraqi war, far from inflicting a blow to Islamic terrorism, has
on the contrary opened a new ideological and geographical battleground.... The original declarations made by Bush and
Blair, look, with hindsight, as manipulation and exploitation of the fear of
terrorism for political ends that have very little to do with the fight against
terror.... Washington, which has been
forced to give up on terrorism as an excuse for the war in Iraq, has found a
new pretext: the Greater Middle East Initiative. Bringing democracy to Baghdad and the region
is an impossible mission. At best it is
wishful thinking. But this wishful
thinking has been contradicted by certain facts: Washington's 'pardon' of Qadhafi the repented
terrorist, its refusal to get involved in the Middle East conflict, and the
fact that George Bush had to make believe he accepted Musharraf's story in the
nuclear proliferation incident because Musharraf needed to be protected."
"The Anniversary Of An Error"
Bernard Guetta commented on government-run France Inter
(3/18): "The war in Iraq was to bring
democracy to Iraq and serve as an example....
It was supposed to change America's image in the Arab-Muslim
world.... The war is not just a lack of
success; it is a total failure.... All
the more so because originally the reasoning was correct, the intention was a
good one. But one does not base the rule
of law on state lies and the violation of international law. One cannot implement democracy by occupying a
nation that has no democratic tradition.
The Middle East needed change. It
still does. But Iraq was not where one
had to start.... There is still time to
repair the Iraqi error."
"No Cheating With Terrorism"
Serge July wrote in left-of-center Liberation (3/18): "A year after the Anglo-American offensive in
Iraq, it is clear that the war has provided al-Qaida's network with an
unhoped-for prosperity."
"Iraq, A Year After"
Left-of-center Le Monde editorialized (3/17): "A year ago on March 16 three world leaders
meeting in the Azores agreed on a way to fight terrorism.... The Azores trio hoped to introduce a new
model of Western leadership.... On March
20 the first attacks against Iraq began.
With its quick victory, Washington predicted the beginning of a new
strategic era. A year later, where do we
stand? No WMD and no proof of ties
between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida....
The Iraqis were supposed to welcome the Americans as liberators...as
they waited for a 'decent' Iraqi government....
Half the U.S. forces are still in Iraq and the transition from one
regime to the other is being implemented in a climate of civil war. The war was supposed to strike a long-lasting
blow to terrorism. While it has certainly
had its effects, with Syria and Libya namely, the intervention in Iraq has also
generated the creation of many terrorist cells ready to chase the Americans
from an Arab land and to punish those who help Washington.... Washington has left the Middle East conflict,
which determines the region's climate, in a terrible state of abandonment,
fueling daily violence. The Madrid
bombings have cost dearly to the Spanish right, in which President Bush saw a
European ally. Iraq has cost Blair
dearly, he who President Bush saw as the leader of the EU. The other allies of the U.S. have suffered
for their involvement in Iraq. Who knows
if the war in Iraq has not in fact turned our attention away from the main
front: Islamic terrorism?"
"Useless Iraqi War"
Dominique Jung held in regional Les Dernieres Nouvelles
d'Alsace (3/16): "By their savagery,
the terrorist attacks [in Madrid] cast a raw light on the war in Iraq,
tragically confirming its uselessness....
The fall of Saddam Hussein has not made the world safer, nor intimidated
al-Qaida. That said, we must not be
naive. The terrorist attacks of 11
September 2001...were the beginning of a world war. The tragedy of Madrid must show us that our
priority is the merciless fight against terrorism, a fight against the right
target, not Baghdad, and without giving up the rules of democracy."
GERMANY: "Confirmed
Arguments"
Pitt von Bebenburg judged in
left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (3/22): "One year after the Iraq war, the peace
movement has been confirmed in its arguments.
WMD were not found, neither the country nor the region has been
pacified. The fight against terrorism
has not made progress, as the bombings in Madrid demonstrated. And fears that the United States only
respects one right, the one it imposed itself, have by no means been refuted
last year, on the contrary.... Even if
President Bush says that all differences between the war opponents and the war
coalition have now been removed, the people do not forget them."
"Messages From Baghdad"
Peter Muench argued in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of
Munich (3/20): "The U.S. government
should be condemned for its tricks and deceptions, but the Iraq mission must be
measured against whether it has pursued the right goals with false means. From Washington we hear a defiant praise for
its own activities...and everything Washington says is correct, but progress
only remains a promise. As a matter of
fact, the Iraqi people are balancing near the abyss on the path of
democracy. A plunge into civil war is
looming.... But the Iraq project will
only have a chance if it is embedded in a program for the region.... The Greater Middle East Initiative that
Washington propagates promises exactly this....
But the initiative could be turned upside down: first pacifying the
region thus sending a impulse for its democratization. In order to do this, the focus should finally
be again directed to a problem that was deliberately postponed with the Iraq
war a year ago: to the permanent
conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
This is the source for radical currents in the Arab world.... At the beginning of the war, George W. Bush
promised to achieve peace for the region through democratization. This has not come true. If Bush were serious about his promise, he
should now reverse his strategy and come to a democratization of the region
through peace in Palestine. Only with
such a move he could repair the damage the inflicted on the region with the
war."
"One Year After"
Center-right Neue Presse of Hanover had this to say
(3/20): "One year after the
beginning of the war, the 'coalition of the willing' is showing tendencies to
disintegrate, because Poland, Italy, and Spain have to realize that Washington
deceived them with respect to the reasons to go to war. This process will have repercussions. If all allies want to leave Iraq as quickly
as possible, the U.S. political authority in Iraq will also collapse. This means that the transfer of power to the
Iraqi civilian government will turn into an unpredictable risk. One year after the beginning of the war,
there is one dictator less in the world.
This is good, but this war has not create more security."
"A Positive Balance Sheet Of Horror"
Holger Schmale noted in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung
(3/20): "If President Bush is right
[with his statement on Iraq], then only because the United States turned the
country [into a front-line state against international terrorism]. It is true that Saddam Hussein was a
merciless tyrant, but he never played a role in international terrorism. This is why President Bush's remark is wrong
that the world has become a better, a safer place after Saddam's ouster. The president continues to pursue his course
of deception...but, despite all positive developments, it would now be totally
wrong not to raise the question of the reasons for war any longer. Up until today, the real motives for the
attack on Iraq have not been clearly mentioned.... The real reason is probably the Bush
government's desire for an impressive military demonstration of power,
accompanied by strategic considerations to safeguard influence in the region
with a special emphasis on the access to oil resources. The driving forces in the Pentagon have
hushed this up with an aggressive security doctrine, which allows to attack
opponents who were declared rogue states before. But this strategy has failed. A grandiose blitz victory was followed by the
disaster of occupation.... If there is a
positive point on the balance sheet, it is this one: the aggressive security doctrine that was
developed by neo-conservative forces around George W. Bush has been discredited
to such a degree that the American people, the U.S. Congress and the closest
U.S. allies will not allow a second war according to the Iraqi model. In this sense, and only in this sense, has
the world become safer."
"The Erosion Of The Alliance"
Markus Ziener contended in business-oriented Handelsblatt
of Duesseldorf (3/19): "One year
after the beginning of a blitzkrieg the current result is not acceptable. Peace should have been brought to Iraq and
not a civil war.... To find the positive
things in Iraq one has to dig deep these days.... And things might even get worse: the war alliance, which is fragile anyway and
plagued with doubts, is crumbling faster than expected. That is bad for Iraq--regardless of one's
opinion about the war.... After the
dramatic events of Madrid it has become more than clear how little sense war
coalitions make that are not based on convictions and consensus but on
individual loyalties."
"Shape The World According To A Partnership"
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger judged in a front-page editorial in
center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (3/19): "If the Iraq crisis, which has revealed
the strategic rift between the Americans and part of the Europeans, teaches us
a lesson it is that U.S. power is no substitute for a consensus among western
democracies--and that a European moral claim which dispenses itself from power
and responsibility, is vain and encourages U.S. isolationism. Since the threats in the 21st century do not
decline, but rather become less predictable, there is no way around it that
America and Europe must cooperate. This
means they must take security concerns of the other side seriously, not dismiss
them; they must begin a strategic dialogue, not refuse it; they must strive for
joint activities, not make it more difficult through arrogance and
smugness. This means: the indispensable shaping of the world must
be done in a partnership. This, too is
another lesson from the Iraq war."
"No Right, No Wrong"
Christoph von Marschall penned in a front-page editorial in
centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (3/19): "Europe is allowed to--and must--be
unforgiving: with respect to WMD that
have so far not been found, at Guantánamo, with respect to the treatment of the
truth, and with respect to international law.
But it should not lose sight of the balance sheet: first, the ouster of the dictatorship;
despite the war, despite the attacks in Iraq over the past twelve months, fewer
people died because of the use of force than during a 'normal' year under Saddam. In addition, there has been a gradual
stabilization of the situation. Repeated
bombings are overshadowing this development, but this is also a problem of
perception.... Now it is not decisive
whether the war was wrong but what is correct today. The scenario that will create more difficulties
for George W. Bush--the Spaniards withdraw and after them probably more
Europeans--punishes not only Bush but also Europe and Germany, for it is in our
interest to see progress in Iraq and setbacks for the terrorist network. Europe must not unite against America, but
against terror, not in favor of a withdrawal but in favor of a UN mandate,
which allows Spain's new government to leave its forces in Iraq."
"Opening Pandora's Box"
Birgit Kaspar commented on regional radio station Westdeutscher
Rundfunk of Cologne (3/19): "When
the U.S. president began this war a year ago without a well-conceived post-war
strategy, he opened Pandora's box. And
with this illegal war that was waged against international law, he has made the
law of the jungle presentable. Ordinary
Iraqis and ordinary U.S. soldiers are now paying the price. And end of this horror is not foreseeable,
but the horror is likely to intensify even more."
"World Is Not Safer"
Center-right General-Anzeiger of Bonn stated (3/19): "The calculation of election campaigner
George W. Bush is easy to recognize:
those who are convinced that the ouster of dictator Saddam Hussein is a
gain for the Iraqi people, for stability in the Near and Middle East, for U.S.
security, will hardly take care of the question why this war was started at
all. Apart from the fact that every
means justifies the end in this politically precarious logic, Bush's argument
has another flaw: it is simply not true
that the world has become safer after Saddam Hussein's ouster. The situation in Iraq itself, where U.S.
soldiers and Iraqi civilians die almost on a daily basis, refutes Bush's
argument and the most recent bombings in Madrid have demonstrated in a tragic
way that international terrorism is not less capable of acting than a year
ago."
"Fantasies"
Centrist Suedwest Presse of Ulm concluded (3/19): "The United States and its allies based
the reason for the second Iraq war on a conglomerate of lies, manipulation, and
played up propaganda. Thus far, evidence
that could back the main arguments for the military strike has not been
presented, and most of the reasons were unmasked as clearly false. As depressing as the analysis of its reasons,
as depressing is the balance sheet of this war.
Even though the dictatorial regime was relatively quickly ousted...Iraq
is still far away from peace, freedom and democracy. The great departure for democracy in the
entire Middle East, which the U.S. president mentioned already a month after
the beginning of the war turns out to be a fantasy."
"More Vulnerable Than Ever"
Right-of-center Saarbruecker Zeitung argued (3/19): "Today, the United States has not been
safer but more vulnerable than ever before.
Fanatic Muslims consider Americans in Iraq living targets, while, at the
same time, the United States does not have the funds to protect aircraft,
trains, ships, and nuclear power plants....
Saddam Hussein's ouster and the freedom of the Iraqis had a high price,
in reality and in a figurative sense.
And the daily victims in Iraq are increasing this price day by
day."
"Incapable"
Rainald Becker commented on ARD-TV's late evening newscast
Tagesthemen (3/17): "Almost a year
after the ouster of the dictator, the 'coalition of the willing' has obviously
failed, has been incapable of implementing law and order. I think an engagement of the UN is now
urgently necessary, and the necessary mandate is long overdue. Only now, after the announcement that the
Spanish government plans to withdraw its forces from Iraq, are the U.S. and
Britain considering supporting a corresponding UN resolution. This is much too late. The damage has already been inflicted on
Iraq.... If one year after Saddam's
ouster almost half of all Iraqis want a strong leader and only one-third
supports democracy, then something has gone totally wrong. To democratize means to drill holes into
thick boards. It cannot be forced, and, what
is also important: it must happen in
cooperation with, not against, the people, meaning that Iraq quickly needs its
own sovereign government with sufficient support among the Iraqis. Then, and only then, will the ground be cut
from under the feet of terror and violence."
ITALY: "A Bitter
Anniversary For Washington"
Mario Platero commented in leading business daily Il Sole-24
Ore (3/19): "The Americans are not
living the first anniversary of the war on Iraq in the best of ways: worry; sense of isolation; frustration for
the distancing of some of its allies; astonishment for Spain's about-face;
discouragement for having been manipulated on the WMD; fear of a new terrorist
attack.... On the anniversary of a
rapidly won war, terrorism is stealing the scene over peace. The attack in Madrid succeeded in dividing
the alliance that the Americans built in Iraq and it brought back to surface
the rift with France and Germany--a rift that everyone is trying to mend. The continuous attacks in Iraq indicate that
the country is still on the verge of a civil war.... With the attacks in Spain and Iraq, terrorism
has scored a point. It has brought back
to the surface the long, painful, and destructive debate at the UN Security
Council. Its activism shows us that
today is not only the anniversary of the war against Iraq--it's also the anniversary
of the practical application of the U.S. right to pre-emption doctrine; of the
transatlantic rift; an American division of Europe in two parts--the new
decision-making one and the compromising, old one.. Anyone in Europe who thinks, starting with
Jose Luis Zapatero, that this troublesome anniversary will drag on until
November, or that the U.S. will withdraw from Iraq if Kerry wins the elections
is dead wrong."
"Blood On The War's Anniversary"
Bernardo Valli noted in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica
(3/18): "Many expected it, but when the
explosion came, and the Karada district rocked...feelings ran amok in a city
that is accustomed to bombs and gunfire....
There could have been no more eloquent or brutal way to remember that
the war began one year ago and to underscore that the war is by no means over."
"It's Not Enough To Criticize Bush: We Must Do Better Than Him"
Gianni Riotta commented in centrist, top-circulation Corriere
della Sera (3/17): "Already one year
ago, when President George W. Bush decided to attack Iraq, it was clear that he
opted for the worst decision in order to subdue the dictator Saddam
Hussein.... The White House tried to
bend its adversaries with its military supremacy, without taking into
consideration the international coalition....
If Bush's strategy doesn't work, then we need a different one to fight
the war against terrorism and to reiterate to Osama bin Laden that terrorist
attacks will not cause us to give in.
It's illusory to believe that it would be enough to disapprove of Bush's
unilateralism in order to escape the vendetta of the strategists of
chaos.... If the left wing, which
governs in England, Germany and now in Spain and possibly in the U.S. if Kerry wins,
wants to become the political and moral guide, it will not be enough to say no
to Bush and to withdraw troops from Iraq....
Iraq must be stabilized with the contribution of Americans and Europeans
(and with the UN aegis), with the cooperation of a UN that is conscious that
the corruption of its 'oil for food program' has created bad blood in Baghdad.
We need a coalition that appears unbiased to Iraqi ethnic groups, but resolute
to the terrorists. The military tactic
must be integrated with policies and diplomacy in the Middle East, Arab economic
development, dialogue between religions, effective instruments in the long-term
strategic period.... An erroneous
strategy must be contrasted with a better one, not with illusions, no matter
how well intentioned they are. The
terrorists are not only at war against Bush and his friends. They are also at war against us, all of us."
RUSSIA: "One Year
After War Began, World Is No Better"
Leonid Gankin commented in business-oriented Kommersant
(3/22): "A year ago George Bush
began a war to prevent Saddam Hussein's regime from using weapons of mass
destruction. It turned out later that
Saddam had no such weapons. Nor was he
found to have been involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United
States. Nonetheless, people in
Washington insist that they did the right thing, and that they would have
started the war anyway, even they had known then what they know now. We, the Americans claim, have liberated the
Iraqi people from a bloody dictator.
That is hard to dispute, but of all the dictators in the world, Saddam
Hussein did not at all deserve to be toppled first. The war in Iraq, far from helping the global
anti-terrorist campaign, has made the problem even worse. Radicals find it easier now to recruit people
in countries of the Islamic world, which has been seething with
indignation. Besides, Iraq is drawing
resources that might otherwise have been used in the real war on terror. More terrorist acts have been committed over
the past year. The latest ones, the
Madrid bombings, stopped Spain's right-wingers, who support the United States,
from winning the elections in that country.
The entire Coalition of the Willing may break up, as the electorate in
Britain and Japan may not forgive their governments' involvement in a game that
is not theirs. But then, of course, it
is too early to sum up the results of the Iraqi campaign. Even so, we have to admit that a year since
the war began the world has been none the better for it."
"Lack Of Respect For International Law And Customs"
Sergey Shishkarev, a Duma deputy, stated in official government Rossiyskaya
Gazeta (3/19): "Not only was
the U.S. administration wrong about weapons of mass destruction available to
Saddam's regime but it totally misjudged the confessional and ethnic
relationships that helped Iraqi authorities for decades to keep the country
from splitting into three separate states.
Washington could not but see that, without that three-in-one 'paradigm,'
there could be no stability in the region following occupation. Its only alternative is disintegration and
civil war. Most observers are of the
opinion that the Iraqi resistance no longer views the U.S. invaders as an
active player in their territory. It has
been concerned more about internal feuds."
"War Served Terror's Purpose"
Vadim Markushin said in centrist army-run Krasnaya Zvezda
(3/19): "Constant acts of sabotage
in Baghdad are certainly no sign of cherished peace being near. Nor does the all-pervading fear in Europe and
elsewhere of more attacks by fanatics attest to an imminent victory over
terrorism. The most honest thing to do
now would be to admit that the war in Iraq has served terror's purpose by
having resulted in terrible blasts in Spain, threats against France and
scandals in Britain."
"Coalition Has Feet Of Clay"
Andrey Zlobin said in reformist Vremya Novostey (3/18): "The possibility of the coalition
breaking up worries the White House not only in terms of prospects for the
operation in Iraq--it may become a major factor affecting people's choice in
November. Ever since the coalition of
35 states came into being, Washington has touted it as a key foreign policy
accomplishment. Exactly a year after the
invasion of Iraq, it turns out that the coalition has feet of clay and,
contrary to George Bush's statements, the world has not become any better or
safer.... By speaking of a rule-of-law
state, international law and special services as a basis on which to fight
terrorism, Madrid echoes what Moscow, Paris and Berlin insisted upon even
before the war in Iraq."
"Iraq Crisis: The Year
After"
Yelena Suponina held in reformist Vremya Novostey
(3/17): "The war started with no
authorization from the Security Council--the Americans didn't give a damn about
the UN. France, Germany and Russia put
up strong opposition, but the Americans ignored us. As Iraq was being bombed, millions of people
around the world staged protest actions.
The Americans couldn't care less, especially because the anti-Iraq
coalition swelled to some 30 countries, most of them ex-Soviet republics and
satellites.... Last Thursday's bombings
in Madrid were acts of al-Qaida's revenge for Iraq. Who's next to play host to that war? A year after, the Americans and their allies,
for all their strenuous efforts, have yet to come up with proof that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. Lately,
Americans have been known to admit quietly that Iraq, most likely, did not have
WMD before the war. Why did they go to
war then?"
BELGIUM: "One Year
Later"
Chief commentator Yves Desmet editorialized in
conservative Christian-Democrat Gazet van Antwerpen (3/20): "What did a year of Iraq bring us,
except bombs in Madrid and a stimulus for and the penetration of terrorism into
our living rooms? Iraq itself was not
really waiting for a Western model that was imposed manu militari and more
soldiers have been killed during the occupation than during the actual
war. Hatred against the United
States--and the West--has increased and a growing number of cells are preparing
themselves to continue their holy war under al-Qaida's trademark.... Public opinion in the allied countries tends
more and more to believe that the official reasons to go to war without an
international mandate were exaggerated--to say the least--and that, in the
worst case, they did not even tally with the truth. Even convinced America supporters like
Poland...said this week that they feel misled by the Bush regime.... It would be a mistake to fall into
anti-Americanism and to lend an indifferent or benevolent eye to the Islamic
regimes where democracy still has to be invented, where there is no secular
constitutional state, where the rights of the individuals are nonexistent, just
like the equality between men and women.
However, after one year of Iraq it is becoming alarmingly clear that
George Bush's regime is losing all its credibility at express-train speed and
that Europe is hoping that on the other side of the ocean a new leader with a
new foreign policy will stand up very soon."
"One Year After, a Mixed Balance
Sheet"
Baudouin Loos judged in left-of-center Le
Soir (3/20): "It is already one
year since the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies began. We know the context that led to that
war. The United States, deeply hurt by
the September 11 attacks and ruled by leaders who intended to take advantage of
people's emotion to impose their views on the world, decided that Iraq would be
the next target after the end of the Taliban and Afghan adventures.... For the first time, the United States and its
allies were occupying an Arab country.
They unsuccessfully searched for the prohibited weapons that had
justified the invasion. That is why,
suddenly, Bush and Blair claimed that they were in Iraq to bring
democracy!... Washington is now doing
its utmost to get the UN to involve itself in Iraq, probably before begging
military assistance from NATO. One
should not rejoice at the Americans' problems.
But their methods and their lack of preparation led to a result that is
the opposite of what they had in mind:
terrorism has probably and lastingly found a new ground in Iraq. The Iraqi 'laboratory' can lead to several
threatening scenarios: at the worst a
civil war, at the best a democracy, which is very likely to give power to
Islamic radicals. Uncle Sam has reasons
to be worried."
"A Rightful Combat Led Astray"
Foreign editor Gerald Papy concluded in
independent La Libre Belgique (3/20):
"After one year of occupation...it still has not been demonstrated
that the Saddam Hussein regime possessed weapons of mass destruction that were
a threat to its neighbors and to Western countries or that it had relations
with al-Qaida terrorists. George Bush
and Tony Blair will one day owe an explanation to their fellow
citizens.... But the sanction that was
inflicted to the Spanish Prime Minister and his party should already make
Washington and London think.
Misrepresenting the truth--not to say lying--always backfires. Yet, this suspicion on the reasons for waging
the war in Iraq should nevertheless not conceal its immediate results: the fall of one of the most brutal regime of
the 20th century. The war undoubtedly
brought an end to human rights abuses, it authorized political freedom, and it
paved the way to the country's reconstruction.
But the cost of this 'liberation' is high, with innocent Iraqis and
policemen accused of collaborating with the Americans being the preferred
target of terrorists. Terrorist attacks,
from Baghdad to Madrid, and the hunt for the al-Qaida number two in Pakistan
highlight how much George Bush deceived people when he said that the war in
Iraq was part of his war on terror. He
has opened another center of blind violence in an Arab-Muslim world that had
already enough of those, and he has monopolized means that could have otherwise
been more efficiently used for the real fight against terrorism."
BULGARIA:
"A Year After the Iraq War"
Center-right daily Dnevnik
commented (3/22): "It should
be noted that no Western country that has opp
