Iraqis have paid the
blood price for a fraudulent
war -
The crudely colonial nature
of this enterprise can
no longer be disguised
Seumas Milne
Thursday April 10, 2003
The Guardian
On the streets of Baghdad
yesterday, it was Kabul,
November 2001, all over
again. Then, enthusiasts
for the war on terror
were in triumphalist mood,
as the Taliban regime
was overthrown. The critics
had been confounded, they
insisted, kites were flying,
music was playing again
and women were throwing
off their burkas. In parliament,
Jack Straw mocked Labour
MPs who predicted US and
British forces would still
be fighting in the country
in six months' time.
Seventeen months later,
such confidence looks
grimly ironic. For most
Afghans, "liberation"
has meant the return of
rival warlords, harsh
repression, rampant lawlessness,
widespread torture and
Taliban-style policing
of women. Meanwhile, guerrilla
attacks are mounting on
US troops - special forces
soldiers have been killed
in recent weeks, while
11 civilians died yesterday
in an American air raid
- and the likelihood of
credible elections next
year appears to be close
to zero.
In Baghdad and Basra,
perhaps the cheering crowds
have been a bit thinner
on the ground than Tony
Blair and George Bush
might have hoped - and
the looters and lynchers
more numerous. But it
would be extraordinary
if many Iraqis didn't
feel relief or euphoria
at the prospect of an
end to a brutal government,
12 years of murderous
sanctions and a merciless
bombardment by the most
powerful military machine
in the world. Afghanistan
is not of course Iraq,
though it is a salutary
lesson to those who believe
the overthrow of recalcitrant
regimes is the way to
defeat anti-western terrorism.
It would nevertheless
be a mistake to confuse
the current mood in Iraqi
cities with enthusiasm
for the foreign occupation
now being imposed. Even
Israel's invading troops
were feted by south Lebanese
Shi'ites in 1982 - only
to be driven out by the
Shi'ite Hizbullah resistance
18 years later.
Nor does the comparative
ease with which US and
British forces have bombed
and blasted their way
through Iraq in any way
strengthen the case for
their war of aggression,
as some seem to have convinced
themselves. Not even the
smallest part of the anti-war
argument rested on any
illusion that a broken-backed
third world regime could
win a set-piece military
confrontation with the
most technologically advanced
fighting force in history.
Rather, the surprise has
been the extent of the
resistance and bravery
of many fighters, who
have confronted tanks
with AK 47 rifles and
died in their thousands.
In reality, the course
of the conflict has strengthened
the case against a war
supposedly launched to
rid Iraq of "weapons
of mass destruction"
- but which has now morphed
into a crusade for regime
change as evidence for
the original pretext has
so embarrassingly not
materialised. Not only
have US and British forces
so far been unable to
find the slightest evidence
of Saddam Hussein's much-vaunted
chemical or biological
weapons. But the Iraqi
regime's failure to use
such weapons up to now,
even at the point of its
own destruction, suggests
either that it doesn't
possess any - at least
in any usable form, as
Robin Cook suggested -
or that it has decided
their use would be militarily
ineffective and politically
counter-productive.
So great is the political
imperative to find such
weapons, it seems hard
to believe they won't
turn up in some form.
This is after all the
coalition which used forged
documents to implicate
Iraq in the purchase of
uranium for nuclear weapons
from Niger. But, short
of a last-ditch deployment
in Tikrit or Mosul, the
main pre-emptive pretext
for war has already been
exposed as a fraud.
As the price that Iraqis
have had to pay in blood
has become clearer - civilian
deaths are already well
into four figures - Tony
Blair and his ministers
have increasingly had
to fall back on a specious
moral calculus to justify
their aggression, claiming
that more innocents would
have died if they had
left the Iraqi regime
in place.
What cannot now be disguised,
as US marines swagger
around the Iraqi capital
swathing toppled statues
of Saddam Hussein with
the stars and stripes
and declaring "we
own Baghdad", is
the crudely colonial nature
of this enterprise. Any
day now, the pro-Israeli
retired US general Jay
Garner is due to take
over the running of Iraq,
with plans to replace
the Iraqi dinar with the
dollar, parcel out contracts
to US companies and set
the free market parameters
for the future "interim
Iraqi administration".
Shashi Tharoor, UN under
secretary-general warned
Britain and the US against
treating Iraq as "some
sort of treasure chest
to be divvied up",
but the Pentagon, which
is calling the shots,
isn't listening. Its favoured
Iraqi protege, Ahmed Chalabi
- scion of the old Iraqi
ruling class who last
set foot in Baghdad 45
years ago - was flown
into Nasiriya by the Americans
at the weekend and, almost
unbelievably for someone
convicted of fraud and
embezzlement, is being
lined up as an adviser
to the finance ministry.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair
is once again seeking
to provide a multilateral
figleaf for a policy set
by Washington hardliners.
"Democratisation"
in Iraq could only have
legitimacy if security
were handed over to a
United Nations force of
non- combatant troops
and elections for a constituent
assembly held under UN
auspices. But nothing
of the kind is going to
happen, when even Colin
Powell insists on "dominating
control" by the US.
The "vital"
UN role Blair has secured
from the US president
appears to be no more
than humanitarian aid
and the right to suggest
Iraqi names for the interim
authority.
The most that could eventually
be hoped for from US plans
is a "managed"
form of democracy in a
US protectorate, with
key economic and strategic
decisions taken in advance
by the occupiers. Given
the likely result of genuinely
free elections in any
Arab country, it is little
wonder that the US would
have such problems accepting
them - just as they collude
with torture and dictatorship
by their client states
in the region. Anyone
who imagines the US is
gagging for independent
media in the Middle East
should ponder Tuesday's
attacks on the al-Jazeera
and Abu Dhabi TV offices
in Baghdad.
The wider global impact
of this war was spelled
out by North Korea's foreign
ministry this week. "The
Iraqi war shows,"
it declared, with unerring
logic, "that to allow
disarmament through inspections
does not help avert a
war, but rather sparks
it", concluding that
"only a tremendous
military deterrent force"
can prevent attacks on
states the US dislikes.
As the administration
hawks circle round Syria
and Iran, a powerful boost
to nuclear proliferation
and anti western terror
attacks seems inevitable,
offset only by the likelihood
of a growing international
mobilisation against the
new messianic imperialism.
The risk must now be that
we will all pay bitterly
for the reckless arrogance
of the US and British
governments.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
|