The War in Iraq. For many it is the manifestation of a neo-imperialist, anti-Islamic campaign which ought never to have been contemplated and which has brought untold death and destruction on the cradle of civilisation. For others it was a legitimate action designed to remove a brutal dictator, who was a menace to regional security, and an attempt to spread democracy in a country scarred by autocracy.
Depressingly debate about Iraq often resembles a Punch and Judy show with one side of the argument often determined prove that it was right and grasping to extract a worthless apology from the other side. Often, debates about Iraq fail to address issues about how to increase reconstruction, how to improve security, how to sideline the militias, how to reduce unemployment, how to improve infrastructure, how to eliminate al Qaeda, how to safeguard democracy and the rule of law, how to promote reconciliation, how to achieve peace, how to look forward; more often than not it is in couched in terms of 'I was right, you were wrong'. For most columnists and opinion formers Iraq simply provides the opportunity to make the self obsessed declaration ‘I was right’. Of course this is no great source of solace for ordinary Iraqis.
It matters little who was right and who was wrong. Such judgements do not help ordinary Iraqis to find jobs, such self-aggrandisement does not provide infratstructure for Baghdadis, such self-importance will not guarantee a peaceful and prosperous future for the people of Iraq.
It matters little what I think of the decision to go to war and as far as I am aware I have never written about my opinion on the issue. Yet it appears that, if you want to write about Iraq, you must first issue either a self-imolationary mea-culpa or alternatively, an almost triumphalist assertion that the invasion has killed over 600,000 people, depending on your position on the decision to go to war in 2003. So although it is of no consequence here it is; I disagree with decision to invade Iraq for three principal reasons. Firstly war is hell and once unleashed you may sow the wind that reaps a whirlwind. Therefore I think war should only be used in self-defence (although this could include pre-emptive strikes) and to stop mass murder or genocide, even then war should only be waged if the objectives are clear and achievable. Secondly the War in Iraq impeded the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the destruction of al Qaeda. Thirdly I don’t consider that Iraq posed a threat to regional stability in 2003 and it may not have done so until Saddam Hussein died or was deposed, which might have taken decades.
However I do not know that I am right, nor do I have the authority to claim that I am right. It is certainly possible to put forward a case that the war in Iraq was morally justified, after all it did result in the removal of a genocidal dictator and it has produced democracy in a country scarred by years of totalitarian rule. Tragically at least 100,000 people have died in Iraq since 2003; yet the vast majority of these deaths have been caused by Iraqi on Iraqi violence. It is clear that latent hostility between elements of the Sunni and Shia was fermented by Sadarists and Shi’ites during Saddam’s long rule. Sunni and Shia were at war throughout Saddam’s reign, in fact they have been at war since the Battle of Siffin in 657. Furthermore it is inevitable that Saddam’s regime would have fallen at some stage, probably through when he died of natural causes. In the power vacuum that would have ensued it is likely that a power struggle would have erupted which was similar, or even worse, than that which took place between 2003 and 2007. Indeed it is the coalition forces that protected Iraq’s democratically elected Government from the Sadarists and the Ba’athists who were trying to overthrow it. And while the death of every innocent human is an indescribable tragedy, human suffering does not by itself create an immoral or unjust war. For example the Second World War caused the deaths of around 60 million people but few would argue that the war was immoral. Likewise the Korean War took the lives of at least a million Korean civilians, but when one compares North and South Korea, the moral purpose of the war becomes more justifiable, even if its execution does not. Even the Falklands War, in which a thousand men died for a few square miles of barren, isolated island, seems morally justified on the balance of evidence. That does not mean that Coalition Forces have not committed some reprehensible crimes or appalling blunders during operations in Iraq. For such actions the US and its allies should take full responsibility.
Perhaps the key point is that opinion on the decision to go to war is a personal choice, to be respected. Of course the people who are amongst the best qualified to pass comment on the war are the Iraqis themselves. Yet such is the din caused by our chorus of self-justification that their voice is rarely heard. The BBC recently commissioned a poll of Iraqis about life in their country.
The poll asked:
Q8. From today’s perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong, or absolutely wrong that US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in spring 2003?
Absolutely Right
19%
Somewhat Right
23%
Somewhat Wrong
28%
Absolutely Wrong
28%
Refused/don’t know
2%
So in inspite of everything that has happened in the last 6 years Iraqis themselves are split on whether the invasion was right or wrong with 42% stating that it was absolutely or somewhat right and 56% saying it was absolutely or somewhat wrong. This response has fluctuated since 2004 and it is likely to do so again in the future.
The poll also asked:
Q24. An agreement between the Iraqi and U.S. governments says all U.S. troops are to be withdrawn by 2011. Do you think U.S. forces should leave sooner than that, stay longer than that, or is this timetable about right?
Leave sooner than 2011
46%
Stay longer than 2011
16%
The timetable for withdrawal is right
35%
Refused/don’t know
2%
Again we see a range of opinions with 46% of Iraqis wanting US troops to leave before 2011 and 51% of Iraqis agreeing that the three year timetable is appropriate or even hoping that US forces will maintain a presence in the country beyond 2011.
Perhaps the most encouraging results were as follows:
Q15. There can be differences between the way government is set up in a country, called the political system. From the three options I am going to read to you, which one do you think would be best for Iraq now?
Strong leader: government headed by one man for life
14%
Islamic state: where politicians rule according to religious principles
19%
Democracy: government with a chance for the leader to be replaced from time to time
64%
Refused/don’t know
3%
This is clear evidence, were evidence needed, that democracy and freedom are universal and not Western values and are supported by the majority of Iraqis. However a significant minority maintain support for dictatorship or religious rule, something that may, or may not, cast a shadow over Iraq’s future.
Of course some columnists go beyond self-aggrandisement and, although they class themselves as ‘anti-war’ they support violent resistance and their imposition of their own views on Iraqi society. Seamus Milne, is an editor at the Guardian newspaper. He once described the Iraqi insurgency as a “classic resistance movement with widespread support”. In a recent hoplessly innaccurate and rambling article Milne effectively called for the Iraqi resistance (Iraqis generally use the term ‘terrorists’, but what do they know?) to murder British and American soldiers, (although a Marxist he shows little understanding of international working class solidarity).
Of course Milne did not have the courage to air his views directly and instead employed the classic trick of using a local intelocuter to advocate his beliefs; neatly allowing Milne to disclaim them should the need arise. Milne claims to have spoken to Sheikh Abu Yahya, the leader of a ‘mainstream’ resistance group. Although as the resistance has been reduced to fanatical Islamists and Ba’athists it is unclear who, exactly Sheikh Abu Yahya represents. Certainly he does not represent Iraqi voters as he views the deomcratic process as "illegitimate and corrupt". Instead Milne's article lauds the man who declares "We will continue fighting until the last American soldier leaves Iraq, however long that takes".
Milne concludes:
"There is no question that the US has suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq. Far from turning the country into a forward base for the transformation of the region on western lines, it became a global demonstration of the limits of American military power. But the failure of the resistance to bridge the sectarian divide and become a truly national movement is, as Abu Yahya acknowledges, an achilles heel that could yet allow the US to salvage long-term gains from the wreckage. If Iraq is to regain its sovereignty and control of its resources, and the US is to leave the country altogether, that weakness will have to be overcome."
Of course a democratic Iraqi Government has complete control over its own resources and it has agreed to a phased withdrawal of US troops from its territory (something that hasn’t happened in Germany, Japan, South Korea or Britain). But sitting in the comfort of his London home Milne presumes to know better than the Iraqi Government or the Iraqi people who have made it clear that they have had enough of war and resistance. He advocates that the resistance contnues to wage a war to evict an American army that is already planning to completely withdraw from Iraqi streets by August 2010. Presumably the suicide bombings, the car bombings, the firefights, the murders, the kidnappings, the terror, the destruction, the turmoil; it is a price that Milne believes Iraqis should pay so he can write a victorious opinion piece. It is a shocking and disgraceful article for a supposedly respectable national newspaper to publish. But take solace in this thought. Seamus Milne can claim to be right if he chooses to do so. He may work for a national newspaper and no doubt has a high opinion of himself. But he is a voice in the wilderness; in reality he is a nobody, his words have no more effect on Iraqis than these words. It is the opinions of the millions of ordinary Iraqis that will ultimately decide Iraq’s destiny, provided they are allowed to make their voices heard and people are prepared to listen. However they got there, they may now have that chance.