Iraq is once again in the news, and, a new but familiar crisis is brewing. Tony Blair is advocating military intervention, voices on the Left, like Owen Jones, are condemning western involvement as the root cause of the current crisis there, and, the majority of the British public are opposed to sending armed forces to the Middle Eastern country. We’ve been here before, haven’t we? And it would be tempting to conclude that, if we allow it, history will repeat itself: a botched Western intervention, complete with myopic planning and suspicious, ulterior motives, will destabilise a country and a region. As the Commons vote on intervention in Syria has demonstrated, the public have grown wary of foreign adventures, and those who most passionately advocate it, such as Tony Blair, have seen their credibility reduced to unconditional admiration by a few cult-like followers – the Blairites. For, no matter the overwhelmingly positive domestic legacy left by New Labour, Blair will always be remembered as the leader who took us into the Iraq War, rather than the Prime Minister who introduced the minimum wage – less a path-breaking Third Way social democrat, more a poodle of George W. Bush.
The Iraq War was a visceral episode in world history. 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,500 Americans were killed and countless lives have been torn apart. The financial cost of both Iraq and Afghanistan in the US has been estimated to be at $5 trillion. Combine this with Bush’s tax cuts and a financial crisis, and the United States, the country that will undeniably take the lead in any military incursion, has haemorrhaged blood and treasure. Regardless, the interventionists in America are calling for war.
But the Iraq War was traumatic in many other ways, too. As Nick Cohen demonstrates, the opposition to the Iraq War was an almighty symbol, and perhaps culmination, of the erosion of the principles of the liberal-Left. While left-wing dissidents and trade unionists in Iraq called for help in the overthrow of a tyrant, the international Left in Britain and Europe disregarded solidarity in favour of criticism of the West. Condemning America and globalization became more important than rallying to the cause of those who needed it. Many on the liberal-left found it impossible, once the war had begun, to support those on the ground praising the war effort and the liberation of Iraq from a genocidal, petit-Stalin, for this would mean allying themselves with Bush and Blair.
Christopher Hitchens revealed the paradox of the anti-war liberal-left: by stubbornly refusing to support or even accept the military intervention in Iraq, and telling us that it should never have happened, are indirectly condemning the Iraqi people to life under Saddam Hussein. A savage and brutal dictator, yes, but there were no terrorists operating in Iraq under Herr Hussein! He killed hundreds of thousands in an expansionist war with Iran, but he was supported by the West, so how dare we condemn him and support his removal by those who supposedly armed him! He might have tried to exterminate the Kurds, but at least he kept order! This is the modus operandi of totalitarianism: the subjugation of entire peoples by a small, vanguard elite through violence and terror is necessary, and desirable, to keep order. Yes, there were no terrorists operating in Iraq before 2003 in the vein of al-Qaeda or ISIS; but there was something much worse: a tyrant willing and able to use the legitimate monopoly of violence enjoyed by his centralized police state to ensure his will was imposed upon others at the pain of death.
The West was complicit in so many of the atrocities committed by Hussein, such were the dynamics of the Cold War and American-Iranian relations. The history of modern-day Iraq has colonial fingerprints all over it, as does so much of the third world. Created in 1920, the borders of Iraq were forged out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire. Molly Greene, an expert on the Ottoman Empire, argues that it was the late Ottoman experience of centralization under the Tanzimat reforms that made the subsequent successor states ill-prepared to repel western colonialism. If the dynamics of European imperialism shaped the origins of Iraq, the turbulence of the Cold War tempered the history of this young country. The resistance to imperialism and the non-aligned movement were embodied in the Arab strongmen that took over in Egypt, Syria and Iraq: Saddam Hussein was one of them after a palace coup launched him to power, so beginning a bloody period of history, not just by the standards of Iraq or the Middle East, but by world historical precedents. The Kurdish minority of Iraq, the people of Kuwait and Iran, as well as the millions of people terrorised by the Baath Regime in Iraq, are all testaments to the brutality of Hussein and his cabal.
But why was the removal of this monstrous individual, whose legacy should rival those of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, really so controversial? Nick Cohen argues that the anti-war movement had become infected by totalitarian sympathises, borne of support for anti-western tyrants and anti-western Islamic fighters and states and a visceral hatred for Israel, their senses dulled to the crimes of Hussein. However, I would argue that the Iraq War was, above all, a supreme failure of planning. If the Bush and Blair administration spent as much time organizing for regime change based on humanitarian grounds, I doubt that the opposition to the war would have become so pervasive. Many forget that interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo were celebrated – see the adoring welcome Blair received while visiting Albanian refugees in Kosovo and the rise in the number of children named ‘Tony’ in the country. Furthermore, the genocide in Rwanda is often portrayed as one of the biggest catastrophes of western foreign policy. The fact that the myth of WMD was exposed as exactly that, the intervention was immediately built on lies. It didn’t help, either, that Colin Powell, a political giant, had his integrity dramatically diminished by others in the Bush Administration. The unsavoury and untimed publicity stunts, like Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ fiasco, further deepened the resentment, as it appeared that western leaders were celebrating their own accomplishments while bloodshed and chaos soon gripped the streets of parts of Iraq, certifying the belief of so many that the agendas of western administrations were not, in fact, married to the desires for peace and stability of the Iraqi people, but were motivated by geo-political strategy.
There were genuine grounds for humanitarian intervention in Iraq: estimates vary, but the casualties of the Hussein Regime are in the hundreds of thousands. Before his execution, Hussein was convicted of crimes against humanity. When African leaders are charged of such crimes, they often appear before the ICJ. Yes, the relationship between the US and the ICJ is complex and sometimes hostile; the point, however, is that legal precedents had been set, whereby the sovereign integrity of any nation is increasingly conditional upon governments and leaders observing certain international norms and guaranteeing international stability. These were the precedents upon which the intervention in Afghanistan was justified, and, as a result, the conflict has been deemed legitimate, even if still wildly unpopular in the United States. The progress in Afghanistan has been undeniable. Could the war in Iraq have been as legitimate if implemented with a similarly broad coalition, if the planning of the operation had been as adequate, or if the aims had been as sympathetic, justifiable, and realistic?
To those who would accuse me of engaging in counter-factual history, my reply is thus: of course I am! But so is every other commentator, observer, analyst, columnist, politician, personality, who are currently arguing that the unfolding crisis in Iraq is the direct result of the invasion in 2003, and, without the war-mongering of Bush and Blair, this would never have happened. This is exactly what Blair has said today.
So, if we are going to allow opponents of the war to engage in a counter-factual reading of history, let us also indulge its supporters. Follow Blair’s reasoning here: if Saddam Hussein was still in power during the Arab Spring, Iraq could have very easily descended into civil war. Is this so hard to imagine? Bashar al-Assad of Syria, like Saddam and his father before him, belongs to the Baath Party. Assad is a power hungry dictator who, like Saddam, was seduced by the Leninist principle of the vanguard party elite leading and controlling the revolution. Assad justifies his repression as necessary to unite such a pluralistic society and prevent sectarian violence; would Saddam not have made the same arguments? Also, ISIS, the organization currently descending upon Baghdad, operates in both Syria and Iraq. Could this detestable group have grown so powerful without the instability created as a result of the Arab Spring in Syria? What if the war had been made on strictly humanitarian grounds and focused solely on the substation of democratic governance for the tyranny of Saddam, would the incorrectly predicted jubilance at the sight of American liberation actually have transpired? What if the former soldiers of the Baath Regime had actually been paid and organized after the invasion? What if the British forces had been more effective? What if the current government in Iraq was less sectarian and more inclusive? All of these are equally as valid as any counterfactual assumptions made by those who opposed the Iraq War.
The time has come to be less petulant: let’s engage with the factual, rather than the counterfactual. ISIS, a group no longer affiliated to al-Qaeda due to their uncontrollable aggression, are seeking to seize Baghdad after gaining control of other regions. The security forces in Iraq seem incapable of resisting. The US and UK governments have pledged to offer assistance and Obama is still considering his options (in political jargon, leaving ‘all options on the table’ leaves the door open to military intervention). Attitudes towards foreign adventures in both the US and UK are increasingly hostile, so the likelihood of an intervention with ground troops seems unlikely. However, I believe the United States and the United Kingdom have the responsibility to maintain democracy, the rule of law, and security in Iraq.
Consider the opposite: the Islamic militants seize Baghdad, a fundamentalist Islamic state in Iraq and Syria becomes even more likely, and the hope of a pluralistic, inclusive, and democratic Iraq is shattered. This should have been the only ambition of the initial invasion; not oil, geo-politics, the financial gains of the military-industrial complex, or anything superfluous to a democratic, peaceful and stable Iraq. Such indulgences, and the numerous mistakes made, have discredited the cause of liberal/humanitarian intervention, something that Blair spent so much energy, blood and treasure trying to promote. The principle was not inherently flawed: it died with the tragedy of the Iraq War. Equally, the Iraq War was not unconditionally wrong: if planned with the same skillfulness and sensitivity on display in post-war West Germany and Japan, and justified with appeals to the humanitarian principles of international law, the intervention could have succeed. If a peaceful transition to a non-sectarian, constitutional government had been made; the support of local armed forces had been won; inclusive democratic institutions had been created, Iraq would have been in a far more envious position to combat the spillover effects of the Arab Spring and the crisis in Syria. And here is the ultimate tragedy: it is the people of Iraq who will suffer the most. If ISIS triumph and Iraq is pushed into the abyss of terror and oppression, the silent majority that want neither Saddam nor Islamic terrorism will be sacrificed. Is our hatred of Blair and Bush really more powerful than solidarity with millions of Iraqis who have endured enough suffering?
Here’s one final counterfactual – if ISIS take Baghdad, Iraq is overcome by civil war, the nation is ravaged and torn apart in the latest episode of Balkanisation, and an Islamic state akin to that of Afghanistan under the Taliban is implemented, what will happen to Iraq? It will, like Afghanistan, become a training ground and rallying point for global jihad. Militants will be trained, mobilized, and dispersed across the world to kill and terrorise to achieve their aim of an Islamic caliphate. If a Western target is hit and thousands killed as a result of the new Iraqi regime encouraging terrorist activity, Iraq will be in direct violation of the same international laws that justified the War in Afghanistan in 2001. Better to intervene now, to prevent the entrenchment of violent Islamism, than wait for it to become entrenched, and sentence ourselves to another quagmire, hunting terrorist organizations in a foreign, unforgiving land. To those who say another round of military intervention will solve nothing, I say this: globalization has made interdependence the norm, and nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East. Struggles, conflicts, and civil wars can no longer be locally contained, if they ever have been. The eyes of the world are constantly focused on regions plagued by instability and conflict. Local struggles will always disrupt the ebb and flow of global developments, and outsiders will naturally gravitate towards these eruptions of violence. Like it or not, we are dependent on oil, and much of it comes from the Middle East, so this region, as long as drills are pumping, will be vital to western, particularly American interests. If so, oil-rich gulf states like Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will continue to fund terrorism without genuine resistance from their ally, the United States.Moreover, the ideas and tactics of these militant groups are available for all to see online, and radicalized individuals from right here in Britain will be tempted and trained to fight in these conflicts.
We are embroiled in the future of Iraq. The struggle for democracy, peace and the rule of law has never been swift or without bloodshed. For some, the French Revolution only ended with the beginning of the Fifth Republic (some will even attest that it is still ongoing); the American Civil War occurred in the century after the Revolution, and equality has still not been won by all, particularly African-Americans, the blood of whom stains the history of the United States; victory of the English (then British) parliament over the crown was centuries in the making. The dream of a democratic, peaceful Iraq will take generations to realize; we are 11 years closer to realizing that dream, we should not let the gains of those years to be undone, and the sacrifice of so many to be in vain.
by: Jack Kelly
photo credit: “Photo Op” by kennardphillipps first shown at Catalyst: Contemporary Art and War exhibition at Imperial War Museum