Segacs’s World I Know

For most of the Arab world, it’s a mantra of “Saddam bad, Americans and Zionists worse”, as they watch in disbelief the toppling of the Iraqi regime:

“It is irrelevant whether Saddam is dead or not. His memory will live on to inspire many Arabs to stand up against all the injustices committed by the U.S. and its friends in Israel,” Belqees Hamood, a university student, said.

“Saddam was not an angel to his own people but he will be missed since many Arabs see him as a leader who was not afraid to challenge the American and Israeli aggressions over Palestinians,” said Juma Backer, a businessman.

[ . . . ]

“Saddam is a terrorist but he’s not alone. Bush too is a terrorist but Saddam is weak and Bush is strong. That’s why he has won, because no one opposes a strong person,” said the 33-year-old Saudi government employee.

“How wonderful the world would be without Saddam and without Bush!”

This moral equivalence between Bush and Saddam is nothing new. The anti-war crowd loves to shout similar slogans during their protests even here in North America.

But the disbelief and shock with which most of the Arab world is watching the destruction of Saddam’s regime is another story. It brings to mind Germany’s shock and disbelief at losing World War I in 1918. Both disappointments were the result of controlled media and highly-successful government propaganda. Until this week, I have no doubt that most of the Arab states – especially those without a free press – were convinced that Saddam could and would win!

This is perhaps the largest tragedy of all. Because it has much broader implications. People don’t form their opinions in a vacuum. They listen to the news and the information that they obtain, and all of that serves to influence the opinion of the “street”. It is a lot easier to understand why so much of the Arab world hates America and Israel when we realize that they’re being fed propaganda and false information every single day.

72% of Canadians think we should have backed the U.S. (via Jerry at LGF).

According to a poll in today’s National Post, 72% of Canadians think that we should at least have offered “verbal” support to the U.S.’s initiative in Iraq, and 31% think that we should be helping militarily too. Either way, these people think Canada’s name should be on the list of the Coalition of the Willing.

A large majority of Canadians — 72% — believe Canada should have supported the U.S. at the start of the war against Iraq, according to an exclusive National Post/Global News poll.

The COMPAS survey shows 41% of people believe Canada should have given verbal support to the United States two weeks ago while 31% said the backing should have come in the form of both words and troops.

Still, only a slim majority, 56%, agreed with the U.S. decision to launch an invasion to bring down Saddam Hussein, while 34% opposed the attack.

The ambiguity between these numbers can be explained by the fact that the status quo changed – there’s a difference between people who agree with the war, and people who think that we should support our allies anyway. Besides, 56% is still a significant majority over the 34% opposed. If this was 1995 and those were referendum results, the PQ would have long declared sovereignty, that’s how strong a majority that is.

Politicians have been quick to spin this, saying Canadians are reacting with fear that our largest trading partner will be angry. But that excuse hasn’t been supported by the poll results:

Asked to choose a reason for joining the war effort, 42% of people said it would be because Saddam and his allies are a threat to the West.

Toppling Saddam to stop Islamist terrorists was chosen as a reason by 15%, with 14% choosing “Americans are our friends.”

Only 13% cited the U.S.’s position as Canada’s biggest trading partner as the reason to support the war.

[ . . . ]

Opposition to the U.S. war on Iraq centred around a “pacifist inclination,” according to Conrad Winn, chief executive of COMPAS Inc.

The statement “all war is bad” was supported by 31% of the people who answered a question about reasons to oppose the war, while 40% said better diplomacy would have solved the problem.

The poll, not surprisingly, also showed a major difference between anglophone and francophone Canadians. 49% of anglos wanted Canada to show more support for the U.S., but only 14% of francophones felt that way.

And on the same note, the Globe and Mail reports that the U.S. is urging Canada to help rebuild Iraq. In a speech by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, he said that Canada’s relationship with the United States is currently strained, but that we may have an opportunity to heal it somewhat:

“While we are disappointed that Canada did not join us and the other coalition members in liberating Iraq, now we must move forward and align ourselves once again in shared, creative efforts that serve the Iraqi people,” he said in a speech to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, host of the two-day summit.

I can’t imagine why Canada would turn down this eminently reasonable request. My questions are more about why the United States would offer it in the first place.

Bush and Blair said that the United Nations should play a “vital role” in post-war Iraq:

“We are of course agreed… that there will be a vital role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq,” Blair said after holding talks with Bush.

Bush used the same words, before spelling out their vision for the two remaining stages after U.S and British forces take administrative control in the immediate aftermath of war.

Analysts are saying that these promises are likely to anger many U.N. countries, especially in Europe, since Bush and Blair only see their role in a humanitarian capacity, as opposed to promising them the wider powers of administration and interim rule.

But shouldn’t they be happy about this? I mean, this lets them off the hook, doesn’t it? All that whining about “imperialism” and “colonialism” – surely they wouldn’t want to take part in what they find so distasteful. Most of Europe gladly let the U.S. and Britain do their dirty work for them so they could keep their hands clean. (Canada has been, too, but that’s besides the point). So why wouldn’t they want to stick to humanitarian aid, while letting the U.S. and Britain sort out the post-war politics and security? That way, U.S. could continue to be the convenient scapegoat it has been all along through this crisis.

Simply put, countries such as France and Belgium feel left out of the party. Before the war started they were absolutely opposed, but now that Chirac’s buddy Saddam shows absolutely no sign of being able to survive this thing, they’ve changed their colours. This isn’t exactly a surprise – everyone predicted it. And Bush and Blair are likely to go along with it at least somewhat in order to gain “legitimacy” in the eyes of the world, and to try to begin to heal the giant rift that has erupted within the United Nations.

Elie Wiesel spoke out yesterday in support of the war in Iraq. Speaking at an international youth leadership conference hosted here in Montreal called ImagineMontreal, Wiesel repeated his oft-quoted theory that peace is an ideal, but pacifism is the wrong way to achieve peace:

“The danger which threatens the world is terrorism; nuclear terrorism, chemical and biological terrorism,” Elie Wiesel said at a news conference in which he acknowledged his views on the Iraqi conflict are paradoxical.

“I believe war is a blasphemy, but I’m not a pacifist. A pacifist is someone who would never bear arms. I would have fought against Hitler. That was a just war.

”The last just war probably was against Hitler. Since then we have had necessary wars, not just wars,” he said during the IMAGINE International Young Leadership Conference organized by ProMontreal and the United Israel Appeal Federations Canada.

Wiesel said he supports the current military intervention in Iraq because he believes the “reliable sources” in Washington and Israel who contend weapons of mass destruction are concealed in the ravaged country.

“If not for that, I wouldn’t support the coalition for intervention. I support the coalition. I am not for war,” said Wiesel whose efforts to avoid deadly conflict in the world’s hot spots have earned him wide recognition.

Wiesel, the celebrated author of books such as “Night”, “Dawn”, and “A Begger in Jerusalem”, Wiesel is a Holocaust survivor who remembers all too well the effect that appeasement had on Europe during World War II. He also received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He claims to hate war – all war – but concedes that it is sometimes necessary. And this, he says, is one of those times:

The United Nations tried to disarm Hussein but didn’t – or couldn’t – succeed, he said.

“I believe that if certain European countries had applied as much pressure to Saddam Hussein as to (U.S. President George) W. Bush, there wouldn’t have been a war,” he said.

This was a powerful message, coming from a highly respected man. And it is a message that is gaining recongnition in many circles.

I’ve added a search function to this blog.

Since it’s free, it’s not all that great, but at least now there’s a way to search the archives. Which is good, cause they were getting clunky. It will appear on the lefthand side of each page, under the archives links, so check it out if you’re trying to find that brilliant analysis of world affairs I wrote last month (hah!).

I just got the book The D’oh of Homer, a philosophy book about the Simpsons. Can’t wait to read it!

Woohoo! HBO is bringing back Dennis Miller.

For the record, I think it’s pretty low of HBO to cancel his weekly show, and then try to boost ratings by bringing him back for a “special”. But on the bright side, the show’s bound to be hysterical.

Canadians showed their support and friendship for our neighbours to the south today, as 1,000 people attended a pro-US rally in Toronto. Speakers included Ontario Premier Ernie Eves, and Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper:

”Canadians, friends of America – that is who we as Canadians are,” Eves told the crowd.

”Our American neighbours, our friends, our colleagues, our Allies have always supported us, they’ve protected us, they’ve helped us and they’ve stood by us and now we should be standing by them.”

Harper thanked the crowd for ”opening your hearts” and ”saying to our friends in the United States of America, you are our ally, our neighbour, and our best friend in the whole wide world.

”And when your brave men and women give their lives for freedom and democracy we are not neutral,” Harper said.

”We do not stand on the sidelines; we’re for the disarmament of Saddam and the liberation of the people of Iraq.”

Of course, the counter-protesters and hecklers showed up. And the crowd was likely smaller than anticipated due to a freezing-rain storm, and Toronto’s preoccupation with the outbreak of SARS.

Still, one can hope that this pro-US movement will gain some momentum. We’ll know it’s a true success when there’s a pro-US rally in Montreal (hah!).

Update: The Toronto Star has more, including a photo. And Friends of America, the organizer of the rally, has a link on its website to an online petition that Canadians can sign to show their support for the U.S.

Second update: See lots more pictures at InstaPundit.