Five Minutes To Midnight
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Hello and welcome to Five Minutes To Midnight. This is a personal blog about current events in the world through the eyes of a sixteen year-old youth in Canada. It is also used for a personal reason: to document what is happening from my own perspective, simply so I can read it in the future and wonder if I was truly as sane as I think I am. If you read this and have comments, questions, suggestions, threats, concerns, or anything else, do not hesitate to e-mail me at gryc@rogers.com. I'll reply, whether you like that or not. I am currently hosted at blogger.com, though I am hoping to move to another server and program some customized blogger software in the future - I learned PERL and I intend to use it.
Some may wonder, "Why am I calling this 'Five Minutes To Midnight'?" This is a good question and there is quite a reasonable explanation that deals with the [Atomic] Doomsday Clock. This is a symbolic Cold War era clock that counts down to midnight, which is the end of the world brought forth by our fellow men and women. The clock is a comfortable few minutes away from midnight and I am not sure of the exact time allowance before the world is obliterated; it is definitely not at five minutes. Nevertheless, "five minutes" makes the title a nice, flowing piece of literature. Now onto my first topic...
The war in Iraq came swiftly and painfully to international politics. I won't get into another discussion about the war and its effects, be they good or bad. I will discuss the newest issue dealing with the topic: what to do with post-war Iraq. Although the start of the war signaled a deviation from the much accepted UN-based system of international justice and reprieve, it does not mean the UN should be ignored in the next stage of war. There are many factions vying for temporary and permanent power, all of which cannot be ignored if peace is to take place. The UN knows this better than anyone else and has learned it through experience in many international hotspots of the world.
The problem I have with all of this mainly deals with the idea of who will take care of what. The United States has mentioned countless times that it will take charge of the situation. Britain has supported this, though recent tensions imply that Prime Minister Tony Blair would prefer a UN-backed solution for Iraq, one which would be supported by the rest of Europe. The two are allies - the Coalition - and no doubt will continue to stick together through a peace process that might have to be enacted in as soon as a couple of days.
However, the problem with administering peace in Iraq has been seen countless times before, with the most prominent example in Beirut two decades ago. The Lebanese city had a microcosmic war between the Christian and Muslim residents, a mirror image of the much larger problem in the rest of Lebanon. American forces came in to help with stabilization of the region, only to create increasingly difficult problems by siding with the government backed Christian factions. The result of such an alliance was increased use of what in Gulf War II has been called "unconventional" warfare and terrorism: suicide bombing. In fact, the problem became so large that the US military decided to leave.
The same is true in today's day and age, with the ensuing peace process when General Tommy Franks decides he has won the war. In a worst case scenario, a civil war may erupt between the factions that were supported by Saddam, the Shiites, Kurds, and so on. The US is currently using Kurdish fighters (Peshmerga) as allies in the Northern front. Turkey's recent decision to move more than 40,000 of its troops into and around Iraq to prevent a possible Kurdish uprising has also caused increased tensions. The southern areas of Iraq are still filled with pro-Hussein fighters and factions. Additionally, there is Iraq's Shiites who number in the millions, who have been oppressed by the powerful Baath party, and who may be looking to settle the score.
The fact that the current British-appointed leader of Basra is a former member of the Baath party and an ex-general in Saddam's army doesn't seem to be helping in the fight for peace, either.
All in all, the Iraqi situation is discomforting, to say the least. The problem is not necessarily the war, which after a bit more than three weeks, seems to be coming to an end. Instead, it is the post-war governing of Iraq, which must be done with incredible care.
Sources
¶ 10:53 PM
Some may wonder, "Why am I calling this 'Five Minutes To Midnight'?" This is a good question and there is quite a reasonable explanation that deals with the [Atomic] Doomsday Clock. This is a symbolic Cold War era clock that counts down to midnight, which is the end of the world brought forth by our fellow men and women. The clock is a comfortable few minutes away from midnight and I am not sure of the exact time allowance before the world is obliterated; it is definitely not at five minutes. Nevertheless, "five minutes" makes the title a nice, flowing piece of literature. Now onto my first topic...
The war in Iraq came swiftly and painfully to international politics. I won't get into another discussion about the war and its effects, be they good or bad. I will discuss the newest issue dealing with the topic: what to do with post-war Iraq. Although the start of the war signaled a deviation from the much accepted UN-based system of international justice and reprieve, it does not mean the UN should be ignored in the next stage of war. There are many factions vying for temporary and permanent power, all of which cannot be ignored if peace is to take place. The UN knows this better than anyone else and has learned it through experience in many international hotspots of the world.
The problem I have with all of this mainly deals with the idea of who will take care of what. The United States has mentioned countless times that it will take charge of the situation. Britain has supported this, though recent tensions imply that Prime Minister Tony Blair would prefer a UN-backed solution for Iraq, one which would be supported by the rest of Europe. The two are allies - the Coalition - and no doubt will continue to stick together through a peace process that might have to be enacted in as soon as a couple of days.
However, the problem with administering peace in Iraq has been seen countless times before, with the most prominent example in Beirut two decades ago. The Lebanese city had a microcosmic war between the Christian and Muslim residents, a mirror image of the much larger problem in the rest of Lebanon. American forces came in to help with stabilization of the region, only to create increasingly difficult problems by siding with the government backed Christian factions. The result of such an alliance was increased use of what in Gulf War II has been called "unconventional" warfare and terrorism: suicide bombing. In fact, the problem became so large that the US military decided to leave.
The same is true in today's day and age, with the ensuing peace process when General Tommy Franks decides he has won the war. In a worst case scenario, a civil war may erupt between the factions that were supported by Saddam, the Shiites, Kurds, and so on. The US is currently using Kurdish fighters (Peshmerga) as allies in the Northern front. Turkey's recent decision to move more than 40,000 of its troops into and around Iraq to prevent a possible Kurdish uprising has also caused increased tensions. The southern areas of Iraq are still filled with pro-Hussein fighters and factions. Additionally, there is Iraq's Shiites who number in the millions, who have been oppressed by the powerful Baath party, and who may be looking to settle the score.
The fact that the current British-appointed leader of Basra is a former member of the Baath party and an ex-general in Saddam's army doesn't seem to be helping in the fight for peace, either.
All in all, the Iraqi situation is discomforting, to say the least. The problem is not necessarily the war, which after a bit more than three weeks, seems to be coming to an end. Instead, it is the post-war governing of Iraq, which must be done with incredible care.
Sources
Adams, Paul. "Will Lessons From Beirut Be Applied To Baghdad?" The Globe and Mail [Toronto], 5 April 2003, p. A9.
Karon, Tony. "Why Turks and Kurds Prize Kirkuk." Time Online Edition 10 April 2003. Time. 10 April 2003.
Morris, Steven, and Richard Norton-Taylor. "Iraqis Angry At British Choice for Basra Leader." The Globe and Mail [Toronto], 21 April 2003, p. A10.
¶ 10:53 PM
Morris, Steven, and Richard Norton-Taylor. "Iraqis Angry At British Choice for Basra Leader." The Globe and Mail [Toronto], 21 April 2003, p. A10.
