"Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. (They make a desert, and call it peace)"
-- Tacitus, Roman Historian
"They support a desert, and call it Greenpeace."
-- 2003, Modern historian
Here's Greenpeace,
"War would have devastating human and environmental consequences. The last Gulf war killed two hundred thousand people and left many of the survivors malnourished, diseased, and dying. Damage to ecosystems in the area remained years after the war ended. What would be the consequences of another war?"
War's over now. And as Best of the Web notes...
"Here are the photos, which, according to the UNEP, "dramatically reveal streams and waterways which have ebbed and run aground over the past decade, surge back to life and drainage canals swollen by an exceptional increase in water flows." Had Greenpeace had its way, these marshes would still be desert."
Yes. So, did Iraq get a lucky bout of rain or something? Not at all, as the Telegraph reports:
"The Mesopotamian marshlands are returning to life as local people tear down earthworks and open flood gates allowing spring waters to surge on to land drained by Saddam Hussein."
Drained in massive, expensive, pointless megaprojects after 1991, built expressly to destroy the entire wetlands ecosystem on which the Shi'a "Marsh Arabs" of southern Iraq depended for their livelihood and sustenance. Just another one of the 10 Plagues of Saddam, and Greenpeace was well aware of it. Oddly, this didn't figure into any of their ecological calculations pre-war. Neither did they seem inclined to protest Saddam's actions much, or make it the subject of any worldwide campaigns. Why is that, I wonder?
As I noted in an earlier post about Amnesty International's Moral Bankruptcy, what we see here is a wholesale betrayal of the principles for which Greenpeace supposedly stands, without apology or acknowledgement. I used to be a member of both organizations. I'm not any more, and stuff like this is why. There are better alternatives.
Can there be a decent left? Still doesn't look like betting odds to me. Armed Liberal was right:
"This is not a question of the Muslim world vs. the West, although the current phase of the conflict involves combatants from the Muslim world. This is a war of philosophies; of an alienated, frustrated, band of would-be warriors who are frustrated by what modernity means to them and mean to respond by pulling down the pillars of the temple."Again, they will make a desert. Again, they call it "peace."
UPDATE: This follow-up post talks about the slow work of restoring their wetlands. See esp. the hyperlink at the end.
Well, yeah. And? Speaking as an anarchist, all I can say is that frankly, if the western powers (UK, USA, the usual suspects) hadn't created Saddam, then the 'cradle of civilisation' wouldn't be in this mess now. As it is, they did, and it is. So what do we do about it? I suggest removing our troops and replacing them with engineers, with volunteers, with helpers, and let the Iraqis rebuild themselves. Better yet, take the opportunity to set Iraq on its feet without interfering at all in terms of politics. But they won't. So my response? Revolution.
But back to your post. Fair enough, Greenpeace didn't comment on Saddam's human rights violations. Amnesty International's comment that using a report on human rights violations to provide an excuse for more is in itself immoral seems to me to be fairly normal. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it was entirely in line with its principles. Back to Greenpeace - it's remit is environmental, not humanitarian. Greenpeace DID condemn Saddam Hussein's draining of the marshes. Also, Greenpeace is not actually a soothsayer. So they were wrong in that the marshes are being re-flooded - but were they wrong in that war is environmentally destructive? No. The Coalition of the Sycophantic fired millions of rounds of DU, which causes cancer, environmental ruination and so on.
Lastly: I'm not a member of either organisation.
No, that's a lie: This is the last: Did you consider that, perhaps, if we'd left Saddam alone he would have gone? The Soviet Union collapsed. The Tsars went. The Roman Empire went. The British Empire went.
Peter... the Soviet Union did NOT "just collapse." Look into the history a bit deeper, and you'll see that it was led to the cliff and then pushed, Not a moment too soon, either... 60 million+ dead is enough, and opportunities like that don't come along every decade. This is true of revolutions as well - so take it while you can, I say.
The thought that "everyone collapses, so let's just wait" to justify inaction... to most people, its foolishness is self evident. Do you promote your own beliefs that way ("oh, it'll all collapse eventually anyway - no point attending that demonstration")? Yeah, right.
None of this, of course, grapples with the moral abdication at the heart of both Greenpeace and AI's positions. The marsh ecology can't be restored UNTIL Saddam is gone, for instance. So even in strictly environmental terms, the damage done to the environment by Saddam's removal must be balanced by the opportunity that presents. Otherwise, it's not really about the environment at all, is it?
I'll add that Greenpeace's remit explicitly includes politics beyond the environment, including weapons of mass destruction. And once again, its record of protesting only Western regimes' plans in this area vitiate its moral standing.
Peter's prescription for Iraq is an anarchists' expected prescription, but except in very unusual circumstances it's utterly inappropriate for a society in which Saddam's Ba'athists are still attempting to enforce their power at the end of a gun barrel.
So what does work? Well, I think Peter is partly right.
It will amuse you to hear this, but I support the Cuban Intervention Model. The engineers and helpers go in, but they're all paramilitary and backed by troops. That has a pretty decent history in conflict-ridden regions of Africa, and while I generally despise Fidel, a good idea is a good idea.