Iraq: 1 million dead, 5 million refugees and 3 trillion dollars later, what was that all about?

The US declared combat operations in Iraq at an end this week. Given the lack of confetti, streamers and "Mission Accomplished" banners, it's difficult to conclude that even they do not see the war as anything other than a failure.

It has been a war of paradoxes. Tony Blair took the release of his Weapons of Mass Distraction in the form of his memoirs this week to again restate his belief that the greater freedoms that Iraq now has outweigh the deaths and the collapse in security since 2003.

This is at odds with the way he conducted himself as prime minister at home, where he routinely curtailed freedoms in the name of security, with a raft of "game changing" initiatives such as 90 days detention and control orders. This was to counter the terror threat he himself ramped up with his Iraq war.

When Blair spoke to Andrew Marr on Wednesday, he trotted out the line that he used a month before war at the Labour Party conference in Glasgow the same day two million of us were protesting outside and in London:

If there are 500,000 on the march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

Blair repeated these figures this week and said Saddam may have killed this number in the last seven years had he been in power. Even if this did end up happening, the point is that the UK wouldn't have done it. Surely your own direct culpability matters. We don't stop a mass murderer by carrying out his deeds for him. That doesn't count. You can't accuse Saddam of having used chemical weapons on his own people, and somehow make out that it's better that we did it for him.

Another paradox. Iraqis have used their freedom to elect what Blair and his neocon allies have railed against for the last decade - an Islamist regime called the Islamic Dawa Party that recognises the sovereignty of Allah, elected under a constitution that has Islam as a "fundamental source of legislation". This is what Blair had British troops lay their lives down for while the pro-war brigade played games to the media here against contrived "radical Islamic" influences. While looking for Islamists under the bed at home, they had jumped into bed with them elsewhere.

To return to the main theme, there isn't an overall rationale for withdrawal at this juncture. The current situation could just as easily have been cited as a reason to continue. This serves as a pointer to Afghanistan. The facts are still being fixed round the policy, which right now is that our troops will remain there. In Afghanistan we'll get the same end result as Iraq. An arbitrary moment for withdrawal leaving us all wondering what it had all been for.

Comments

[Margaret]

We went to war because a small group of people wanted to. Why they did, is another matter that I don't fully understand.

What troubles me is that we weren't able to stop it. Millions around the world demonstrated. See Democracy Now! reports for 2003 for descriptions.

What should we have done to stop it that we didn't? Is there an answer?

The number of dead and injured is truly terrifying. But it doesn't end there. The country is in ruins and the mothers are frightened of giving birth. We all should be aware of the effects of depleted Uranium by now Democracy Now and The Real News have excellent reports and discussions. Yet we accuse Saddam of using chemical weapons! Even if we did, we are no innocents in this. That word innocent should have a special meaning in Scotland. Wasn't it St Columba who founded the beginnings of Christian Iona where he is thought to have establish the idea of the Law of the Innocents?

And all the while US doesn't seem to be able to stop itself and we, or rather the British Government are there, always there on the podium beside them going along with it, always favouring the wants of a small group of elites and refusing to respect the United Nations, the ideals it should stand for and most importantly the reason why the people of the world created the United Nations.

We have the nightmare of Afghanistan and Iran has been a target for some time, while our meddling in Iraq seems to be far over. Phyllis Bennis: The President has adopted the Bush Iraq narrative on the Real News is worth listening to.
As far as I can see we need an immediate military austerity and we could bring that about, perhaps, by imposing severe austerity on business greed. Our democracies aren't working. I'm not convinced we actually have anything like a democracy anymore.

What are we supposed to do? How can we change and become a peaceful nation promoting peace instead of needless, cruel wars?

I'm so terribly ashamed for what we've done and what looks like we will continue to do as far as I can see.

[joe kane]

Excellent article.

One of the reasons bin Laden gave for his attack on the New York Twin Towers was also claimed by the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, on national American TV as 'worth it' -

Madeleine Albright: "500,000 Dead Iraqi Children Was Worth It"
Gateway Pundit
06 Mar 2008
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2008/03/madeleine-albright-500000-dead-iraqi-children-was-worth-it/

It seems Mr bin Laden is getting the religious governments in the Middle East he always wanted, courtesy of western taxpayers.