ANOTHER VOICE
Unlikely to be quite such a field day for the punishment freaks
AUBERON WAUGH
By the time this article appears I will be in Czechoslovakia on a short holiday, unless international events conspire to prevent me from going there. Even if they do not so conspire, events may well have overtaken everything I have to say, but at any rate none of you will be around to see my blushes or hear my stammered retrac- tions. If British forces are engaged in a ferocious war in the Gulf, the time will have come to make different noises entire- ly, or none at all. Perhaps an opportunity will arise between now (5.30 p.m. on Sunday 13 January 1991) and the time of my leaving for Prague (Thursday morning) to alter or tone down some of my com- ments, but I shall not take it. These, for what they are worth, are my thoughts in the last few days before the 'United Na- tions ultimatum' runs out. I, at least, shall be interested to see how they re-read when the episode is finished. Meanwhile, if hostilities do break out in the Middle East, Czechoslovakia may prove a good place to watch one of the most interesting consequ- ences, which will be how the Ukraine reacts to the Soviet Union's inevitable crackdown and re-occupation of the Baltic states.
For the present, however, I find it almost impossible to believe that President Bush will do anything so rash as to launch a ruinous war against Iraq for the re- occupation of Kuwait. To be more precise, I will offer three to one against that development within the next ten days. It is always possible that Saddam Hussein's nerve will crack, and he will agree to withdraw, but I think it improbable and offer three to two against over the next 20 days. It is also possible that Saddam will attempt a pre-emptive strike, whether against American forces in Saudi Arabia, or against Israel, or both — or even that Israel will set the ball rolling with a pre-emptive strike against Iraq — but I would offer ten to one against either of those possibilities within the next ten days.
The most likely development once the 15 January deadline has run out, as it seems to me, is that President Bush will name another deadline, and then another, but in such terms as will make it plain that the United States is in fact relying on a policy of blockade. The final resolution, or ba- lance of the compromise settlement, is anyone's guess.
Perhaps my estimates are influenced by
a natural optimism, a reluctance to believe that the grotesque postures we see being adopted by our politicians, the foolish support they receive from the quality newspapers or the sadistic drooling of the gutter press can ever really be translated into a full-scale modern war. It must be apparent to Mr Bush that America has nothing to gain from a successful war, and everything to lose from an unsuccessful or partially successful one. Whether or not, as some believe, it was Mrs Thatcher who put him up to this foolishness, or whether he convinced himself by his own rhetoric appeasing Hitler, the threat to Israel, and to world peace, nuclear danger and the rest of it — he must by now realise that this was a minor squabble between Arabs in which he had no business to be involved.
If that is true of the American position, it is true of our own many times over. If the whole of Arabia became one Ba'athist republic under the leadership of Iraq, with its tiny population of 16 million, it would not inconvenience us in the least. Kuwait, with its indolent way of life and reckless habit of disregarding Opec agreements, was a plum waiting to be picked. Our proper response was to commiserate with the Emir, offer him a villa in Ascot for his retreat, and welcome Saddam Hussein as the new supporter of sterling in the area. Sabah or Ba'athist, the quantity of oil available will continue to be determined by whatever price produces the greatest re- venue. With Kuwait under his belt, Sad- dam would have been influenced to sell it cheaper, but even if he had chosen to cut off his nose to spite his face, it would be no disadvantage to us.
Israel is a separate problem; even if the Israelis had not proved themselves time and again capable of looking after them- selves, it is not our problem. The rest of the case for our own participation in this desperate venture is so much froth and bubble: little Kuwait and big Iraq; the monster Saddam who, like Hitler before him, eats babies for breakfast; good against evil; the spirit of the United Na- tions charter; aggression must be punished. Sadly enough, it is the froth and bubble, produced by leader writers and FCO press officers on autopilot whenever required, whether against Nasser, Amin, Ojukwu, Galtieri or the unfortunate governing council of Anguilla in 1971, which seems to have convinced the majority of the British people that we have a duty to fight.
Underlying the high moral purpose, as I suggested a few weeks ago, there is a joy in chastisement or punishment of any descrip- tion which is particularly strong among the British working class, for reasons which I shall not presume to guess. 'So let there be war,' declared the Sun leader on 10 Janu- ary.
There is only one guilty party, the Iraqi leadership. The time has come for them to be punished. There can be no turning back. Iraq and Saddam Hussein must be destroyed once and for all. For months, America and its allies have tried to talk sense into the Iraqis. In return we have listened to lie after lie. The talking stops here. Iraq now pays the price.
Iraq, too, must be destroyed? It is not always easy to distinguish this high moral line from the simple pleasures of sadism. I do not, myself, take a high moral line against the simple pleasures of sadism, so long as they are all in the imagination. Pow! Woof! Two hundred Iraqis are turned into green gelatine. But I doubt whether the event will quite come up to the imagining of it. Last week John Keegan assured us that Western forces can easily win a war against Iraq, and many others have given similar assurances, but they all seem posited on total air superiority for the West and an ineffectual, purely defensive role for Iraq. They do not take into account the stress likely to be suffered by American troops in particular, but also by the rag-tag and bobtail of other nations, when confronted by a resourceful, deter- mined enemy. I have no doubt the British forces will acquit themselves well. They nearly always do. But is it unpatriotic to express reservations about the likely con- duct of American forces under strain?
The Americans are very good at throw- ing heavy, explosive objects over long distances. Mercifully, the infantry will not be required to move until the way has been cleared, so we may be spared the sight of American troops refusing to move, shoot- ing their officers and burying themselves in the sand. But all these armchair strategists seem to suppose that Iraq's 850 combat aircraft will remain on the ground, waiting to be blown up by ingenious devices from above. I would not like to say how the US air force and armour will respond to the same treatment, which seems to me every bit as much a worry as how the American public will respond to the body bags.
Previous page
