>> What are the real reasons behind this United States led attack on Iraq, according to you? 

“I think it is impossible to pin-point just one reason for the US attack on Iraq. The United States is a country with a variety of internal dynamics and varying external tensions. I don’t believe that this war can be reduced to oil or an old vendetta. Rather I think the current aggression is the result of the opinions, perspectives and agendas of the people closest to Bush. Of course, if there was no oil there to finance the dropping of the bombs then I think a decision to pursue regime change would be much less forthcoming. It will be interesting to see who becomes the next target, North Korea or Iran or someone else...”

>> Why couldn't anything or anyone (like the millions of protestors around the globe) convince Bush to call off his war? 

“Quite simply Bush is not concerned with world opinion. If public opinion in the US was more opposed to this war, I think we could see a different situation. US politics is driven by public opinion; you could see it during the build-up to this aggression. Every time Bush made a speech he would give another reason for going to war, after each speech the pollsters got to work to determine whether that was an acceptable reason for war. If the reason wasn’t sufficiently popular it would be changed in the next speech. 

With a presidential campaign coming in 2004, the timing couldn’t be better for Bush. A war, even if not altogether popular, does rally the population of the US behind its leader. It’s not an unusual phenomenon. During conflict it becomes anti-patriotic to criticize the leader. Carry that sentiment on for a few months after this attack (especially if this war is over with few casualties to the US) and it almost assures Bush re-election. Why this did not work for Bush senior, was because he ignored the domestic economy during his war. But we have already seen that this Bush administration is well aware of this and is having Bush appear to be very focused on domestic concerns.”

>> Was there any opposition in the Bush administration, that opposed to the decision of going to war? 

“I don’t think there was and is any strong opposition to war within the Bush administration. If I had to put his advisors on a spectrum, I would place Rumsfeld and Rice on the strongest end and Powell undoubtedly on the other one. While I don’t believe for a minute that Powell is opposed to the war, I do think he is the most concerned with the lack of legitimacy. It was Powell that really pushed for UN support. Not receiving that support was a major blow to his vision of this war.”

>> Do you believe that the US government considered the probable consequences of this war (e.g. inflame the Middle-East region, increase rather than decrease the number of ‘terrorists’, …)? 

“No, I don’t think the US administration has considered the fall-out of their aggression. This, however, should not be a surprise. Bush’s senior advisors all have a mindset from a different. Condeleezza Rice is an expert in Cold War thinking and doesn’t seem to have come to terms with the fact that the Cold War is over. The world doesn’t work like it used to anymore. It is no longer about a balance of power, rather it is about internal conflicts and spillover. I think the US administration really does believe that showing its might will deter future terrorist attacks, at the very least it will deter states from harboring terrorists.”

>> Do you have an idea of those consequences? Are there people or organizations that you know of, that are making predictions? 

“The consequences of this aggression are as unfathomable as they are unpredictable. All that is certain is that there will be consequences. If not now, then later, but there will be consequences. I wouldn’t even want to speculate at the possible horror of the fall-out; I will simply hope and pray that it is limited. 

I think there are organizations that are making predictions of the immediate fall-out, such as the refugee flows and food shortages. In terms of long-term consequences, however, there are vary few organizations that can concern themselves beyond the immediate crisis.”

>> How do you see Iraq evolving after the war? 

“I think in the short term the Iraqi people will benefit from a regime change. The public pressure on the US and the UK will (I hope) ensure this much. I do believe, however, that the US has a short attention span. Once they have extracted enough oil to pay for the war and have made a token effort at rebuilding Iraq they will move on to their next ‘enemy’. We only have to look at Afghanistan to see this played out in a similar fashion, but the history of US foreign policy provides ample examples. 

Immediately following the war I think Iraq will be US administered. The problem with Iraq is there is no simple solution for who should be put in place to lead the country – there is no Karzai who can be appointed. A democratic regime would be the best solution but democratization is not a simple process. A simple vote does not make a democracy. It requires free media, free speech, political parties, and a whole lot more. This could take years to accomplish and I don’t think the US have the patience.”

>> Would you call this US-led attack on Iraq a logic ‘next step’ in their foreign affairs policy, that they adopted after the second World War, aimed at subjecting the whole world (and its resources) to US ‘needs and greeds’? 

“I don’t know if I would put this aggression in that category. Quite simply I think this attack is a result of the terrorist attacks on the US. I think the attacks of September 11th have really shaken US confidence – it has left them feeling vulnerable. They ‘feel’ better if they are being pro-active about the situation (even if it is somewhat a delusion and a dangerous attempt to regain security). 

Iraq is an easy target, just as Afghanistan was, and gives the US administration the appearance of taking terrorism seriously. A war is much quicker than trying to solve the root cause of terrorism, global inequality and social injustice. After this war Americans will once again be able to convince themselves that they are safe, because if anyone dare attack them they will flatten two countries. It’s a delusive way of thinking but it is reality. “

>> What role do the media play in this war? Are they the US puppets they were during the first Gulf War, or will they work from a more independent position?  

“I think the media are playing a prominent role. If the first Gulf War created the ‘CNN effect’, this war is nothing but the continuation of that trend. In fact you could tell the war was about to commence when the BBC et al moved their best reporters into the region. I think the media will be as independent as they ever are – each station has their own agenda and motivations and that will carry over into any war coverage. 

I think because the war is rather unpopular the coverage will include a fair amount of critical coverage. Of course the media reports coming out of Iraq will be monitored by Iraq and the coverage of the military movements will be controlled by the military (who determines which reporters are embedded).

I would not go as far to say that the media will be US puppets, although I do think there are intrinsic limitations in the coverage. Iraq is a big country and there is a lot going on at any time. Add on top of that the limitations imposed by Iraq and by the military and it will undoubtedly result in compromised media coverage. I think the key is to gather information from as many different perspectives as possible and be aware of the limitations faced by each.”  

>> How does this situation make you feel personally?
 
“The situation makes me very sad (it also makes me ashamed of the Australian passport I hold and very proud of the Canadian one). I never wanted this war to begin. Now that it has, I want it to end as quickly as possible while inflicting the least damage as possible. I pray that public pressure will remain strong, that the commitments made to the Iraqi people are carried through and that Bush is not re-elected.”