"The best lack all conviction," WB Yeats
wrote in his poem The Second Coming, "while the worst are full of passionate intensity".

As the world contemplates war with Iraq, there is much passionate intensity. Most is from the anti-war side, though there is passion too from
those who insist that something must be done about Saddam Hussein, even if that means going to war without further United Nations mandate. Yet more probably still lack conviction, the majority that Prime
Minister John Howard thinks have not yet made up their minds. Many probably never will, at least until hindsight kicks in, because the questions are so complex and the answers so uncertain.

And on the fundamental question -- can there be a just war? -- there is no right answer because it will depend on individual moral viewpoint. Most people, however, would probably say World War II was just
-- though would the Allies have gone to war if Hitler had confined his atrocities to within his borders? Most would probably say Vietnam was not.
Our Prime Minister, Mr Howard accepts the concept of the just war. Given that, he's right to say that the question is whether the concept applies to Iraq.
The next question is probably: Will the cost in human life and misery be greater without war? This cannot be answered with certainty because it requires
predictions, but that doesn't mean that honest and expert attempts should not be made.

In Iraq's case, George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard say yes because Saddam Hussein has dreadful weapons which he may use on his neighbours or, worse, give to international terrorists -- a truly terrifying prospect. If we don't act now, they say, the cost of acting later will be much greater. There is, in this argument, a seductive parallel with World War II.

The world has been so deluged with information, and hefty doses of rhetoric, about Iraq's weapons. It is too much, too complex; it may sound compelling, but it is beyond most people's capacity to analyse with confidence.

What do we need? Some geopolitical equivalent of the criminal justice test of proof beyond reasonable doubt? It's possible we have something approaching that on the questions of weapons; almost certainly we do not on the second leg
of the argument, the danger of them falling into terrorists' hands. Evidence of Iraq-al-Qaeda links look tenuous.

There are secondary justifications for war. The main one -- which for political reasons gets a lot of
emphasis, though none of the main advocates claim to be a sufficient cause -- is the terrible things Saddam Hussein has done to his own people. Here the parallel with Rwanda, where the world shut its eyes and a million people were slaughtered, is compelling. But do you go to war over past sins, however heinous? And how sure are we that the death and misery from war will be less than
the Saddam's future atrocities? Or, how much faith have we in the smart technologies of death that are supposed to spare civilians?

The other important reason is the integrity and effectiveness of the United Nations as the world's main guardian of its security. Here the parallel is with the collapse of the League of Nations as the world slipped towards World War II. The argument this time goes beyond Iraq. As Mr Howard says, if
the UN can't deal with Iraq, what hope is there of its dealing with North Korea? But should ordinary Iraqis and the soldiers of many nations die for an institution, or because of a threat from the other side of the world?

The other worrying question is American motives.
Oil, though central to the first Gulf War, may be a red herring. But what of vengeance, post-September 11? Christians are told that vengeance is the province of the Lord. Yet there is, in the
American psyche, a religious fervour that overlaps with public policy and is a source of both strength and danger. Jihads, under other names, are not an Islamic monopoly.

In pondering all this, and no doubt much more, it's hardly surprising that there is much uncertainty -- or that, when there is uncertainty, the verdict is against war.

The leaders, of course, have no such luxury. They must make a decision and argue it, whatever private doubts they may have.

By Don Woolford AAP dw/sb/cd/ts
21.2.03

You’ve posed the question ‘do the American’s manipulate the world for their own interests?’ Yes, at their worst they are venal, duplicitous and self-serving and I have to admit that I retain a healthy scepticism concerning their current motives. Yet, I also believe we cannot afford to let such regimes go unchallenged nor can we allow such arms to proliferate. Something has to be done. But, it is clear that the US will be one of the major beneficiaries in the region. It will enable Washington to obtain a strategic opening, create a buffer zone and reinforce its partnership with conservative states. Considering the years of massive reconstruction, Iraq will require substantial Western investment and support; one has to admit they will be well-poised to meet future events. In assessing the strategy from the perspective of US interests the outcome, on balance, will be positive and will provide the US with further opportunities to expand and further legitimise its regional role.

Has Saddam provided himself with some critical breathing space? I’ve tunnelled through motives, burrowed beyond weaknesses and faults and I remain uncomfortable. I am left with many doubts and unanswered questions. Saddam has been feeding the fires of revolt. There is a certain fear and resentment. He’s a dangerous man. He is deceitful, cruel and aggressive and bears a hatred and contempt for the US. He’s a shrewd bastard. Perhaps more than all else, is the recklessness lurking beneath Saddam, ready at any instance to burst open in a madness. The man is not only stupid but also wicked. He is nothing save his ambition.

I’ve asked myself - why is it happening, why is he pushing the US (and for that fact UN) to the limit? Has he convinced himself that the fault lies with the West? Does his honour demand revenge? What is he trying to prove? What is he contriving? I would be extremely wary - he must surely have knowledge of something closed and hidden, undiscovered and not yet interpreted, which is enabling him to remain threatening. What lies behind it - even I am not quite sure but it rings alarm bells in my mind. I believe there are inadequacies in present information as to his capabilities. Saddam may go further than we expect and suffice to say future events may lead to an appalling combination of circumstances. The risk is not hard to analyse nor quantify.

Yes, it’s a delicate issue and divisions open up every time it comes into the open. Consensus agreement in the UN regarding US proposals may not eventuate but they can’t walk away from such a threat - Saddam is too dangerous for that. There will always be those who are critical of the US and there’s nothing wrong with that. Problems of diplomacy and ethics have become sharper and compromises with standards of objectivity and niceties are now more likely to be made.

At present they are caught in a dangerous flux of tension and in the development of conflict. The American’s are keeping things underwraps vis-a-vis informational flow. Military intervention, is the goal, and there are no are limits to the means they would deploy. I believe intervention is only justified if it is directed at change for the better, in the environment, or in the structures which determine and influence that environment. One has to ask if escalating military moves prove effective? I watch the build up of tension and military hardware and remain extremely concerned as to where it will end. May be such a military build-up and maneuvering is meant to show Iraq the force they can expect to face and is a form of rational persuasion, which has nothing to do with coercion but is it strong enough to stand on its own? Saddam is being backed into a corner and there is now greater pressure on Saddam to employ measures that address growing concerns over chemical/nuclear capabilities. Whatever the eventual outcome, I understand that we cannot allow the prudential safety and stability of the region to be weakened in anyway nor can we allow him to threaten the world with mass destruction.

Certainly Saddam is a man who can lash himself into a fury, which feeds on his own rhetoric and unpredictable rages. He is nothing but a strutting peacock, a clown, a sly ruthless politician who plays one colleague off against another. He’s terrible in anger, pitiless in action, but he can also be a courteous and sometimes wily diplomat, charming even to his enemies. But above all else, his most terrifying feature is his unpredictability. He can change in a moment, from good humour to towering rage, from kindness to cruelty. All such men have a touch of madness in their make-up, an extra charge of imagination or a single mindedness, which makes them dangerous and difficult. Saddam is unendurably arrogant. He has a long memory and long knives. He’ll never forget nor forgive.

I’m not a pacifist. I have some understanding of the logic of deterrence. Yes, perhaps I have lost sight of how personal war can be. I don’t truly understand the hatred involved. On the other hand what are my convictions worth if I don’t know what war really is? Without setting foot on a battlefield, I can understand the fear and raw intensity of human beings killing one another. All I know is that it is a hell on earth but I guess that doesn’t matter. War is supposed to be hell. Civilian deaths are seen as being regrettable but irrelevant. They have no direct relation to the prosecution or outcome of war. I’ve asked myself – what lies behind it? What does it truly accomplish? Why are men such bloody-minded creatures and why is it that I believe there must be a better way to solve problems?

Perhaps I have a too muddle-headed perspective of war. The pictures change my fundamental belief – I see the futility of violence and war. They also reveal to me something worse than war – or perhaps a new kind of war – a war of mankind upon itself. A self-consuming madness that can only end in complete annihilation! All I know is that a wise man should love peace better than war and a wise man should choose his battles if he can.

Yes, I believe in reason, in the essential goodness of man but I don’t believe we’ll ever conquer evil or that this world will ever live in peace. Perhaps I’ve come to know too much about the true nature of humanity through the pictures. We’ve made wrong into right and right into wrong so many times who is able to tell good from evil any more? Biological and chemical weapons are silent, invisible, and deadly; they are weapons with the power to destroy not merely cities but whole societies. I’ve read the words thoughtful men have spoken about their futility but compared to the pictures portrayals, such words mean nothing. They are merely aggregates of letters, symbols of the futility of language in the face of deeds. I keep telling myself that even in the crucible of human depravity commonsense will prevail and that some measure of hope of human integrity survives and such weapons will remain unutilised but sometimes I don’t know what to believe any more. All I know is that we seem to be headed hell bent for leather towards the frightening world foreseen.

How do you play it? Resistance? Retreat? Acquiescence? Conflict? None of them really work or have been seen to work previously have they? Thousands of years have passed and men seem to have learned little in the interim, seem doomed to repeat ancient mistakes. We once again mass arms, material and troops. What’s war about but killing and dying. Wars are not fought with guts or even with weapons. In the end they are struggles of consciousness. Whatever happens it is a choice that has to be made, made out of a certain consciousness. I ask myself, how do we know if the choice is right or wrong? I tell myself that peace can’t grow out of violence yet it did in Japan after they dropped the atomic bomb. They forced peace on the Japanese by clearing away the underbrush to make space and light but was it morally right?

Sometimes it seems to me that we go over the same arguments. Violence or non-violence, how to struggle, where to draw the lines. Debate after debate, while around us violence continues to rage unchecked. War is a great waster, much in the preparation as in waging it. The end never justifies the means. I’ve come to understand that the means shape the ends. Force seems so clear, so simple, so direct. But meeting force with force produces nothing but what is already known and planned for and expected. It’s what’s already been done over and over before. We become what we do. If we do this, how do we become something better? How can we make them build something together through the force of arms? Will it change things for the future? Or will not the same problems exist?

Iraq has turned into a military and political quagmire and has become an incurable disorder in the eyes of the world. The struggle has assumed an ominous pattern, bouts of tension as the US threatens invasion. It is my belief that the US will take whatever steps are necessary and they will continue to move towards armed conflict. At best it will be turbulent, violent and de-stabilising.

War condemns everyone who fights, win or lose and it leaves behind all the wrong things, pain, dissatisfaction and revenge. How retarded we have become if we are unable to solve problems except by conflict. It allows men to go about their business of killing and being killed. Why should people be allowed to kill each other first? Is that how it must always be? It may allow a new Regime to be put in place but at what cost?

War of any nature, no matter how brief or however small has become the ultimate horror. It has become the truth of the all too familiar human condition. It is an expression of all the tensions and confusions and passions provoked by history and man himself. Man has little to be proud of. Is this all we can offer one another? Danger and evil is faced by so many. You don't have to see them or experience them to know that they are there. Perhaps we ourselves are the greatest tragedy of all. It is a desperate relentless battle for so many for survival. The world is a slaughter house. We've become detached from the commandments, detached from morality it's not easy to find goodness in this world. What we have in abundance is hate, discord and horror. I guess we have ethics of a sort, just as we have human souls of a sort.

Surely, there must be an easier way than war? Why does it have to cost so many innocent lives? I've come to understand that there are something's in which you can't help; men bring their destiny upon themselves. Everyone knows about the tyranny of the powerful, but there is something worse. It is worse when you cannot understand it. You feel too guilty to fight it and you cannot define it until it has taken what it wants from you. It is the tyranny of the suffering. William Blake wrote in his poem the 'Divine Image' that "Cruelty has a Human Heart, And Jealousy a Human Face, Terror, the Human Form Divine and Secrecy, the Human Dress." How truly he understood mankind.

There is no doubt in my mind that war will only lead to further tension and weapons proliferation throughout the Middle East which will lead to further conflict within the region.