Some of the critical commentary on the war in Iraq seems to show the same lack of concern for human life that the accusers level at “warmongers” such as George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.
The AFR’s Geoffrey Barker described as hardline Howard’s June 4 speech to the Washington Press Club, where Howard said that there was no alternative but to stay the course in Iraq and to help the country become democratic. Others after hearing it described Howard as having become a “neo-con”.
But as Howard says in his speech – even if you disagreed with the war in the first place, what now is the alternative to seeing the situation through? The answer is another failed state, with yet more waste of human life, as well as the wasting of the lives that have already been lost. If we are not all “neo-cons” on this issue now (using it in the incorrect sense it is used above), then there is something wrong with our moral view of the world.
To want something other than peace and democracy (in whatever form the Iraqis choose) for Iraq either means that one does not believe in human rights, or at least the right of Iraqis to enjoy them; or that a desire to see the “neo-con” project fail is so overwhelming that no price is too great to pay as long as it fails.
I can see how someone might argue the latter, but I know of no-one who could do so with any consistency in argument. One could argue that we cannot afford anymore unilateral pre-emptive adventurism on the part of the USA, and that the loss of life entailed in a failure now of that adventurism is justified if it ensures it is less likely to occur in the future. But if one argued that, then one would fall into the same category as those who argued that while toppling Sadaam might cost lives it would ultimately save more than it cost.
Anyone who argued that there should be “no blood for oil”, or that the UN sanctions were wrong, simply because they caused some Iraqis to die, could not possibly advance that argument with any credibility. Yet I suspect that the attitude of some to the Iraq situation is shaped by that very argument, even if they are not prepared to verbalise it.
Instead they have their own version of WMD. Rather than talk about their desire that the experiment fail they accuse it of being something other than it is. So, they argue that the war was an act of imperialism and that the US, Britain, Australia and the rest are neo-colonialists; that they are only in it to rape the Iraqi economy; and that they massacre, torture and oppress the Iraqi people. As a result they demand that the now former occupying powers leave immediately, knowing full-well that the result will be mayhem for the Iraqi people.
One can only hope that this attitude will start to dissipate now that the Interim Iraqi Government has taken over, but I am not holding my breath. When the Iraqi Governing Council was first instituted there was widespread optimism amongst the populace – as measured by opinion polls. That same optimism is around at the moment. It is hard to see why. In essence, little has changed. Iraqis have some more say over their destiny, but through a government that was selected, not elected, and where the only stable coercive force is supplied by 140,000 US troops.
I am not saying that the situation hasn’t improved as a result of yesterday’s handover, just that the improvement is incremental not exponential – a course for tentative hope rather than optimism. At least the US appears to be learning about increments. The invasion was very exponential culminating in George Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” sign on the bridge of the USS Abraham Lincoln. This handover was very low key, and deliberately camouflaged so as to minimise the risk from insurgents.
And things have changed in substance. The UN and NATO are both now involved. The US cannot act unilaterally, although having the largest purse in the region it still has significant purchase. There is an Iraqi army and police force of sorts, and plans to enlist more. Some insurgents, such as Moqtada al-Sadr have decided to become part of the democratic process, giving hope that others may see the wisdom of involvement. So in terms of governance things have changed.
There must also be a greater confidence that fears that the US was only in the war to confiscate Iraqi assets or to set up a client state were only fears. Of course many will continue to run the line that this is all a sham, but that line will become increasingly difficult to run as it more and more becomes apparent that the war has not delivered the US control of Iraqi assets, such as oil. As a result there should be greater confidence in the independence of the government that is now in place.
Will the success of the Iraqi project lead to more adventurism and unilateralism? I doubt it. Politicians of this generation have received a lesson in the electoral dangers of attempting to police the world. The US has been stung, and will be more careful, or at least consultative, next time.
If it is successful, will we see more inteventions? I think so.
I was always agnostic on the question of whether the Iraq war would achieve the result that the US wanted. If the intervention had been proposed 10 years ago, I would have vehemently opposed it. However, something intervened to change my mind, and that was the 1999 intervention by NATO in the former Yugoslavia. That intervention was “illegal” in the sense that it did not have UN approval. It also resulted in the commission of war crimes – the bombing of Belgrade for example. But in the end, and despite the refusal of NATO to put many men on the ground, the intervention was successful.
Since then there have been democratic elections in the states that once constituted Yugoslavia; and even though foreign soldiers are still stationed there, no-one levels any accusations of neo-colonialism against them. Indeed, last weekend Serbia had an election for President which was won by liberal (in my sense of the word) reformer, Boris Tadic, beating an ultra-nationalist who wanted a return to the “good old days”. Democracy appears to be working in an area that was very recently riven by insurgents and state-sponsored terror, just as Iraq was.
If it had not been for the experience of Yugoslavia, I doubt whether the US would have gone into Iraq. Now it has gone into Iraq, if Iraq successfully transforms, then it shows that at least a space can be cleared by force for democracy and good government to grow, even if they cannot be imposed by force.
The challenge for the near future is how we organise the world so that the coercive powers of the world’s one super power can be harnessed in a way which is less divisive. Yesterday was the end of the beginning for Iraq. It is also another incremental step along the way to modernity by the whole world. Whatever our original stance on the war, we should wish the Interim Government well.
June 29, 2004 | Graham
Iraq – the end of the beginning.
6 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Graham says:
Some of the critical commentary on the war in Iraq seems to show the same lack of concern for human life that the accusers level at “warmongers” such as George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.
Gary says:
Ok Graham – why the scare quotes around “warmongers”? Surely even you would concede that the evidence of a desire for and of a rush to war is now undeniable. Right winger after right winger has revealed that.
But of course you dare not admit the truth here.
Graham cites:
Others after hearing it described Howard as having become a “neo-con”.
Gary Says:
Howard is merely treading the same. old same old path of Australian leader after Australian leader. Loyalty – total and absolute and craven to the big power, which will act as Australia’s protector. There is nothing ‘neo’ about it.
Graham says:
But as Howard says in his speech – even if you disagreed with the war in the first place, what now is the alternative to seeing the situation through? The answer is another failed state, with yet more waste of human life, as well as the wasting of the lives that have already been lost. If we are not all “neo-cons” on this issue now (using it in the incorrect sense it is used above), then there is something wrong with our moral view of the world.
Gary says:
Come on Graham. The only moral thing to do in this situation is to stop the killing. Britain and the USA are not in Iraq for the good of the Iraqis. That is the only thing that makes sense out of this terrible fiasco. How can you say that bombing (often totally indiscriminate), free fire spasms when panic and hatred takes over, destruction of infrastructure, looting of personal property, imprisonment without trial, torture, misappropriation of oil revenues are designed to build a better freer, more democratic Iraq (not to mention a better world)?
Graham be honest here and do not try the moral thing if you are in any way behind Bush, Blair and Howard. And you are even though you squirm around that point.
Graham argues:
To want something other than peace and democracy (in whatever form the Iraqis choose) for Iraq either means that one does not believe in human rights, or at least the right of Iraqis to enjoy them; or that a desire to see the “neo-con” project fail is so overwhelming that no price is too great to pay as long as it fails.
Gary replies:
Graham I want to see a defeat for American imperialism. Most neo-cons have rehabilitated that word, but it still sticks in your somewhat old fashioned throat. I also want to see peace on earth and good will to men (and women!). I do not agree with killing of any kind. However I will not from behind my lap top lecture those who seek to resist violence with violence.
The main arguments in favour of violent resistance are that the clearest threat to world peace is not American unilateralism, but the very existence of the American army. A defeat for the American Army makes the world safer. Already the resistance in Iraq has made a murderous invasion of Syria and Iran much less likely.
There is truth in these arguments, but as I have said I will no longer have any part of them. The cycle of killing is just too much.
Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind as to who the aggressors are in Iraq. They are the foreigners and I do not mean the Arabs who have come from other countries to fight along side fellow Arabs. It is up to the aggressors to cease their aggression, and to ask the Iraqis how they can help undo the terrible damage they have done. The latest poll reveals that 80% Iraqis would suggest that Americans make a beginning by ceasing to patrol. That would be a small start but a significant one.
Then we could start elections. America has already prevented local elections. They should be allowed to proceed. Then there should be a genuine shift of wealth from America to Iraq. Not some faked “aid” whereby the likes of Halliburton makes a fortune from Iraqi oil revenues, repairing damage caused by American bombs.
I could go on and one, Graham. But the point is this. If Bush, Blair and Howard genuinely mean well for Iraq then they need to drastically change present policy. Of course they do not mean well or anything like it.
Now what of the present situation? You see progress. You are wrong and events will prove that. We now have the makings of a dictatorship supported by American firepower. Resistance to it will continue for years. Read Debka.com on Allawi. Again it is refreshing to see right wingers embrace the truth, rather than attempting to hide behind liberal platitudes.
Allawi may be replaced by the leader of the Da’awa party, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who is currently Vice-president or he may crash through to become the Mobutu of the new Iraq- a pro-West dictator. Alternatively the assassins may well get him. Certainly they will be trying. In any case, there will be no democracy and Negroponte – the new American power behind the scenes – will continue to attempt to ensure that American interests predominate.
So those are the real choices, Graham. Do we pretend that there is something to be rescued from this imperialist adventure, or do we set about to build a genuinely newer world. The conservatives, liberals and right wingers will not do so. They will continue to hold onto power. And humanity will continue to suffer and the dream of universal peace will remain just that – a dream.
Regards
Gary
Comment by Gary MacLennan — June 30, 2004 @ 8:54 am
Gary,
You say “However I will not from behind my lap top lecture those who seek to resist violence with violence,” but that is in fact what you are doing. The US, British and Australians resist violence with violence and you condemn them, even though this is done more closely in accordance with the laws than any previous conflict I can think of.
Yet you accept as legitimate the actions of people who deliberately target civilians with violence in cowardly violation of any laws I am aware of or ethics and morality I would accept as legitimitate.
In this debate you are the conservative with quaint old-fashioned ideas. You are using tools of political analysis developed by Marxists in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. They weren’t particularly good tools for the most part then, and they work even less well now that the world has moved on.
The most dangerous threat to the world isn’t so-called American Imperialism (which empire exactly do they run, they’re really just a big head office town?) but the readiness of human beings to enslave themselves to utopian ideas which run counter to human liberty, of which I’ll instance fundamentalist Islam as one, and communitarianism as another.
Comment by Graham Young — June 30, 2004 @ 10:30 am
Graham,
I agree that everyone should give the new Iraqi authority a chance to work organizing the elections. Having said that, I’m not optimistic. The Iraqi people do deserve better than what Saddam or the US have offered them, and hopefully the elections will go some way to providing that. But the consequences of the Iraq “project” go much beyond its borders. This “project” cannot be judged a success if Iraq eventually gets its free and democratic government whether pro- or anti-US, but at the same time has convinced other countries to develop nuclear deterrents, escalated the arms race around the world, created some quite scary precidents for other would-be superpowers to follow, led to a massive increase in human rights abuses under the pretext of fighting terrorism, allowed democratic rights to be eroded, increased anti-US public opinion around the world, scared us all into cocooning and getting fat in our homes, motivated thousands to be recruited into groups sympathetic with Al-Qaida, and made many countries no-go zones for westerners. The expression “win the battle, lose the war” comes to mind.
But I have a question for you. What if the events of 2003/4 occurred in a parallel universe where the superpower invading Iraq was not the US but China; the former but declining power lending a hand was not Britain but Russia; and the other country tagging along was not Australia but Indonesia. And say that this alliance was responsible for what has transpired: the failed UN resolution, the lies about WMD, the innuendo about Al-Qaida links, the shock-and-awe campaign, Baghdad Ali sans limbs, the vilification campaign against the French who dared to voice disapproval, the threats, the media manipulation, the depleted uranium “dirty bombs” scattered around the countryside that will continue to kill and cause birth defects for a long time to come, the failure to prevent looting, the systemic torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, the wedding party massacre, The siege of Fallujah, the disregard of cultural and religious sensitivities, the puppet appointments, the dodgy contracts, the mercenaries, the failure to compensate innocent victims … and on and on and on, on your TV every night.
Would you still accept that such an alliance could be trusted to look after Iraq’s best interests, or would you be thinking the war was about oil, bases or a part of a sinister plot for world hegemony? Would you heap praise on this alliance for removing Saddam, or would you have had a gut-full and hope for a speedy exit? There’s no right or wrong answer, but I suspect even Andrew Bolt would be anti-war in this parallel universe. This leads me to conclude that in this Iraq debate, there are two kinds of people. Those that think America can do no wrong even when the harm they are doing is ultimately to themselves, and those that don’t.
Comment by Mark — July 1, 2004 @ 9:56 am
With regards to this parallel universe of yours Mark, you’d need to tell me a few more things before I could give you an answer. For example, would China, Russia and Indonesia be the same countries that they are today? Would China be still a one-party state, occupying countries like Tibet and oppressing organisations like the Falun Guang?
Would Putin be in control in Russia, having just arrested one of the richest men in the country for financing his opponents? Would Indonesia have illegally seized East Timor?
I think you can see where I am coming from. In this parallel universe, unless the countries you were talking about were countries that believed in open and transparent government, democracy and human rights, with a history of intervening in wars against tyrannies, then my answer would be, “No, I could not support their invasion”.
Comment by Graham Young — July 2, 2004 @ 12:13 pm
Graham,
The answers to all of your questions: Yes. The Bush admisistration an open and transparent government? Right. Democracy and human rights? Florida, Guantanamo Bay. Is a government truly democratic if they behave in a democratic fashion when day-to-day issues are concerned, but totally ignore public opinion and mis-lead the public on the really big issues like Howard has on Iraq? Is there a big step from this to ignoring public opinion about everything? Are some looking at our government or the US’s through rose-coloured glasses?
OK, fast-forward a few years. China has progressed significantly, having a new two-party government and popular presidential elections. The president is an immensely wealthy pro-capitalist Dick Cheney clone. A pro-Beijing govt similar to the one the US installed in Chile is in Tibet. Tibet is essentially independent, and the Chinese have some big mining businesses there which heaviliy fund the ruling party. Falun Gong is decriminalised, but irrelevant. Russia let the Yukos guy free after he decided to pay Putin instead, but this scandal was not quite as large as the Enron one in the US. Indonesia now uses the CIA model for “influencing” regional politics, rather than using an overt army presence. All of a sudden, Iran is deemed a “threat” because of WMD and suppoesed terrorist links. Much of the world suspect that this is a ruse. Others, having been left on the outer by the US, support it. The new coalition invades. There are no WMD or terrorist links. The brave Chinese military ruthlessly crush any resistance, which comes from former regime elements and foreign terrorists (apparently). Torture happens. Some of the Iranians support the removal of their former leaders, others think the occupiers are worse. Mass graves are found, but almost all are more than 10 years old. And so on. 16 permanent military bases are constructed facing off against the 16 on the other side of the border. You would support this? You would prefer that the new coalition should “get the job done” rather than get out and let the UN go in?
Is your support of the current occupation qualified by the assumption that only the US has the right to behave this badly, or should more countries start behaving just like the US, just because they could? This is the precident we are setting. We just hope no-one will use it. But what logic will you use to explain your position when someone does?
Comment by Mark — July 6, 2004 @ 7:51 am
Mark, your comments are way over the top. I don’t approve of everything the US does and I see the handling of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as wrong. It appears to be likely to be a view held by the US Supreme Court as well, and the US Supreme court will have the last say, just as it did on the Florida issue. The Bush government will abide by the rulings.
Your implication that somehow the US is equivalent to China or Russia because of this is quite wrong.
Let’s abandon your thought experiment about China and Russia. It’s not getting you anywhere. The question is whether I would take the same view if a country which was similarly dedicated to democracy as the US took these actions, even if it wasn’t an ally. The answer is yes, but none of your examples goes close to meeting those criteria.
I do not accept either that the US is behaving badly. In fact, I think that the US has behaved better than most of the protagonists.
Comment by Graham Young — July 7, 2004 @ 7:06 pm