Avoiding the reality of war

Sorry - hang on - Kathy Sheridan is just looking for those darn moral compasses.

Sorry - hang on - Kathy Sheridan is just looking for those darn moral compasses.

You know, the pesky things that 100,000 of us dropped somewhere between the Garden of Remembrance and Dame Street, around the time 70,000 body bags were being shipped to Iraq in advance of the American GIs, and Barbara Bush was telling Good Morning America that she had no intention of watching any war coverage: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many and what day it's going to happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Barbara, you are beyond wise. All those armless, legless, skinless Iraqi children fighting for dignity and life or rotting in hospital gardens; the countless wives and mothers, sons, brothers and fathers, blown apart by bombs and guns or dead from disease, plague or lack of blood.

Why should they disturb your immaculate mind, when the only weapon likely to assail your own draft-dodging offspring is a pretzel?

READ MORE

By some quirky self-selection, he shares that draft-dodging tendency with several of his most warrior-like underlings, such as John Ashcroft and Richard Perle. "I had other priorities at the time," is how super-hawk Dick Cheney explained his own little Vietnam avoidance scheme.

But all doughty men, you'll agree; men willing to send others to do what they feared to do themselves. Men hopelessly compromised by conflicts of interest (Perle and Cheney), with much to gain in the event of war. Men willing to back a thief and embezzler, Ahmed Chalabi, as the Pentagon-anointed successor to Saddam, while keeping the UN out.

Men who lied repeatedly to persuade us of their right to invade and never blinked as the excuse du jour, "nuclear weapons", withered and morphed into "weapons of mass destruction", then into "regime change", and finally into "liberation".

Remember the risible "proof" of a link between Iraq and 9/11, involving a claimed meeting between the hijacker, Mohammed Atta, and an Iraqi agent in Prague?

Or the "proof" - based on forged documents - that Saddam was building nuclear bombs with 500 tons of uranium bought from Niger? Or the long-awaited, crack British intelligence expose, promising absolute final "proof", which turned out to be culled from a 10-year-old thesis on the Internet?

Now we learn from Newsweek that Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a company which sold nuclear reactors to North Korea - yep, "axis of evil" North Korea - less than three years ago. Rumsfeld, need we add, "does not recall" this stunningly sensitive, political issue being discussed by the board. So forgive me, chaps, if my moral compass wobbled wildly at the spectacle of these same men insisting that only immediate and terrible war would suffice - involving 250,000 soldiers, 70,000 body bags, more than 10 million gallons of fuel, and tens of billions worth of Moabs, daisycutters and cluster bombs - to invade and occupy a ruined, demoralised, oil-rich country. Didn't yours? For all the gloating at the wimpish peaceniks, I'd guess that few of the people on those monumental marches were of the pacifist - at all costs variety. For myself, I carry only fond memories of those soldiers of the Irish Guards and their comforting, big tank lumbering up a road towards us, in a volatile little outpost of Kosovo, a few years ago.

It would be an odd fish indeed who did not wish for, and rejoice at, the crushing of a murderous, tawdry tyrant and his henchmen.

Why the endless lies, deception and obfuscation? How did the world's sole, omniscient superpower get its intelligence so spectacularly wrong in every respect? Why, as coalition-appointed weapons inspectors frantically comb Iraq for evidence of WMDs, (unhindered now by fear of compromising their intelligence sources), do those fabled weapons remain beyond reach? Was this illegal, $100 billion war ever necessary, against resistance so pathetically rotten and hollow as Saddam's? Come to think of it - where is Saddam?

Back in the US, the freeing of the seven US soldiers swamps every other news story and Rumsfeld glares meaningfully at Syria - though less so at North Korea. (We understand, chaps; those darned Koreans really do have nuclear weapons).

In Baghdad, Major Don Broton, the marine in charge of turning the power back on sometime soon, pauses to fix up flag-flying, former colonel - turned - Fox TV reporter, Oliver North, with a story about US medics helping a kid with a broken arm. Museums are looted (probably to order) and all 1,300 vehicles of the water and sewage authorities are stolen under the marines' compliant noses.

Meanwhile, men in dark robes occupy a hospital, break a doctor's nose, move to control the streets, order women to cover their hair with hijabs. A Guardian reporter asked Maj Broton what would people say when they looked back at the first week of the occupation of Baghdad: "I think people will go: 'Oh my God, look how fast those people collapsed'." So, Barbara, back to you. Anything here strike you as "relevant" at all?