The hopelessly hopeful

Conquerors always call themselves liberators. Dictatorial rule is often justified as necessary to restore law and order.
Tony Blair said Iraq today is not what he hoped it would be when he opted to invade 10 years ago. However, he insisted that the situation under Saddam Hussein was far worse and the world is safer than it would be if he had remained.
Blair confesses that he has given up any attempt to justify his decision to go to war in Iraq - "I have long since given up trying to persuade people that it was the right decision," he said - yet he still does defend his actions as the Newsnight interview amply proves .
William Hague, the current foreign minister has advised his colleagues not to drawn into the controversial issues of the UK's invasion of Iraq. After all, the Tories strongly supported Blair and would prefer not to be reminded of that fact

SOYMB however won't make it easy on those politicians who prefer to forget the past.

It has been ten years since "Shock and Awe". Blair and Bush now blame flawed intelligence on their supposed motive for going to war - to make Saddam Hussein give up his Weapons of Mass Destruction that turned out to be non-existent. The TV news programmes and tabloid and broad-sheet papers were full of accusations from the UK and the USA about aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium, of Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa and mobile chemical and biological weapon producing trailers. Despite providing actual proof of their existence, Blair and Bush engaged in a carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public opinion to gain approval. They told us that war was absolutely necessary for the security of all. Apart for a few exceptions politicians fell in line (who can forget hawkish Ann Clwyde's war-mongering contributions of imaginary atrocity stories). The media dropped any pretence of investigative reporting and relayed the government propaganda uncritically. Those who now claim they were "misled" about Iraq's alleged military threat have failed to explain why they found the government’s claims so much more convincing than the many other more objective reports made available to them. Despite serious doubts being raised by arms control specialists about Iraq having proscribed weapons contradicting the government claims, politicians in justification of their pro-war votes to authorize the invasion, falsely insisted that Iraq's possession of such weapons was not in doubt and was undisputed and that everyone in the world thought he had them, regardless of the weapon inspectors negative reports. All of the anti-war protesters predictions ended up being exactly what transpired - the invasion of Iraq set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States and Britain from much of the world and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence.


Defeating Saddam's army was however the easy part. After years of sanctions and repeated air attacks to enforce a no-fly zone victory of the invasion was assured but however, the war dragged on. No newsreel scenes of grateful civilians welcoming liberators with flowers except for the staged toppling of the Hussein statue in Baghdad. Sunnis and Shiite engaged in a civil war but both also turned their guns on the invaders. In the years 2006 and 2007, 3000 Iraqis were being killed a month.


As journalist Patrich Cockburn points out the Iraqi political system was in large part a US creation and many of its leaders owed their careers to US backing. This includes Maliki who was appointed as Prime Minister by the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, because he was one of the few Shia politicians acceptable to the US and Iran. “The Great Satan (US) and The Axis of Evil (Iran) had come together. The rule of Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister since 2006, has become a near dictatorship with highly developed means of repression, such as secret prisons, and use of torture. He has sought to monopolise control over the army, intelligence service, government apparatus and budget, making sure that his supporters get the lion’s share of jobs and contracts. One study of Iraqi officials revealed that on average they put in just 17 minutes’ productive work during the average day. His State of Law Coalition won only 24 per cent of the votes in the 2010 election – 2.8 million votes out of 19 million registered voters – but he has ruled as if he had received an overwhelming mandate. Maliki for exacerbates and exploits political divisions to keep power in his hands. As a leader of the Shia, three-fifths of the population, he alarms them by suggesting that their political dominance is under threat from the Sunni, a fifth of Iraqis, once in charge under Saddam but now marginalised. Last year, Mr Maliki sought to unite Sunni and Shia Arabs against the Kurds, another fifth of the population, by massing troops and threatening to invade Kurdish-controlled but disputed areas. Maliki has a million men in different branches of the Iraqi security forces. In most countries this would guarantee government control, but in practice Maliki only has full authority in about half the national territory. He has no power in the northern third of the country held by the Kurds and increasingly limited influence in Sunni areas. Nevertheless he still has the money, the jobs, the army and intelligence services plus the international electoral legitimacy.

Whatever the US and British invasion and occupation of Iraq 10 years ago was meant to achieve it has not created a peaceful and prosperous country. Nor has it achieved security for it neighbour. An al-Qa’ida fighter is a terrorist when he is shooting and bombing in Iraq. But should the same al-Qa’ida member travel a few miles up the Euphrates, cross the Syrian border and fight the Syrian government army, he is transformed into a freedom fighter and benefits from American and British military aid.