suburbanmusings

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.

The Times today carried an article about Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay who was released after assuring, first the Americans and then the Afghans, that he wanted nothing more than to live out the rest of his life at peace and with his family. The Taliban has since confirmed that Zakir is now its top commander in Helmand Province. The Times reports that Zakir was captured in the lead car of a convoy of top Taliban leaders in December 2001. Subsequent evidence has suggested that he is a master bomb maker and his release from custody coincides with a nearly 300% increase in IED attacks in Helmand Province, which have resulted in the deaths of 44 British soldiers.

I have already written about the fact that many of those in Guantanamo are pretty nasty characters, indeed five high-profile detainees recently signed a statement which delcared that they were terrorists to the bone. It is clear that Zakir is of the same sinister ilk. However, no matter how evil a person is, there is no moral legitimacy in locking them up without trial or representation and the use of torture is a particuarly abhorrant stain on America’s moral reputation. We also know that the clumsy and brutal use of ‘Gitmo’ has helped America to lose crucial support on the Arab street and has played straight into the hands of Islamist recruiting sergeants.

Of course the now defunct and utterly discredited Bush/Cheney Doctrine maintained that torture and detention without trial were necessary tactics in order to protect the lives of thousands of innocent people. The sophistry of the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario was often wheeled out to provide philisophical support for such an un-constitutional doctrine. But if there really was a ‘ticking bomb’ it seems the last people we would want to rely would be the CIA. Even though Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted to planning 9/11 from ‘point A to point Z’, we are yet to see this (self-confessed) mass–murderer and his co-conspirators put on trial in a civillian courtroom because the abundant evidence against them has been tainted by the pointless use of torture. Worse, it is now evident that the CIA, with all its devlish interrogation techniques, cannot spot a master terrorist from two feet; 44 British soldiers may have paid the ultimate price for such manifest incompetence.

So not only was the Bush/Cheney Doctrine illegal and imoral, it has now been conculsively shown that it does not work. Bush is not the ‘World’s Number 1 Terrorist’, far from it, but his incompetence, arrogance, insouciance and disregard for basic morality and the US constitution during eight years in power, have created problems which may take many years to resolve.

In lieu of having anything interesting to say, here's a great song.

The last two weeks have provided stark evidence that the world, which will always be challenged by difficulties and disagreements, is, in essence, divided between two competing ideologies. Those who believe in using violence and murder to impose their political views on others and those who use peaceful and democratic means to achieve their aims.

Iraq is struggling to shake off the last vestiges of the civil war that nearly ripped the country apart in 2006, but recent progress has been real, tangible and is, perhaps, becoming irreversible. However some of those who imposed Ba’athism on Iraq for three decades and in recent times have murdered soldiers, police, intellectuals, Government workers and those Iraqis deemed to have ‘sinned’ against Islam, continue to employ extreme violence in order to achieve their hateful aims. Today in Baghdad at least 33 people were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up at a conference aimed at securing national reconciliation and a peaceful democratic future for Iraq. The BBC reported that an Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, insisted after the bombing that there would be "no going back" from the path of reconciliation in Iraq.

"Reconciliation is the response to the devilish acts that try to wreck nationalist efforts between Iraqis,"

It took the Iraqi militias six years of civil war to understand that political violence destroys society. Unfortunately there are those in Ulster who have still failed to learn that lesson in spite of 40 years of bloodshed. The Republican splinter groups, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA, know that they do not have a fraction of the resources of the Provisional IRA, which failed to achieve its objectives after 30 years of war. Therefore it is evident that their rationale, and murderers can all too often be extremely rational, is to provoke retribution and to draw the army back onto the streets. Such is their arrogance and lack of humanity that they want to re-ignite a bloody conflict in order to achieve their own narrow and pointless political aims. Indeed they consider it to be worth sacrificing the blood of innocent humanity in order to achieve their goal of swapping the passport of one prosperous democratic state for that of another prosperous democratic state.

At least in Ulster and Iraq we can see the light at the end of the tunnel and the majority of citizens appear to have turned their backs on political violence. In Pakistan, where the Sri Lankan cricket team was recently attacked by teenage gunmen, there does not appear to be a tunnel. Since the attack on the cricket team, the Pakistani Taliban has blown up 16 music shops, it has destroyed the shrine of a Sufi poet in Peshawar because it was visited by women, it has beheaded two supposed ‘spies’ and it has murdered 14 captured Pakistani soldiers. And of course the Pakistani Government has surrendered the Swat Valley to the terrorists, who will now impose their backword and brutal version of Sharia law onn the territory, and all that that entails for women and those who want to pursue a free life.

In Ulster and Iraq we can be confident that the collective will of societies now committed to democracy and political reconciliation will, one day, triumph over the evil ideology of the gunmen. In Pakistan on the verge of bankruptcy, with a population that the state cannot feed, educate or provide employment for, it is unclear which ideology will carry the day.