The Progressive

Yes, but what did the IRAQIS think of the invasion?

In the period up to the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq the media have gone into overdrive to cover every angle of how wrong it all was. There have been Anniversary Specials in the magazines and broadsheets, daily reports from Baghdad, Ten Days to War (or should that be Ten Days of Anti-war Propaganda?) on Newsnight, a similar countdown to war on the Today programme, Iraq -The Betrayal and Battle for Haditha on Channel 4, The Iraq War by Numbers on ITV - the common theme being that the war was a total disaster. Everyone has had their say, the columnists, the presenters, the pundits, the politicians, and even individual Iraqis, singled out to fit in with the standpoint of the interviewer.

What had been missing from the many views expressed was some sort of reasonably reliable survey of how the Iraqis as a whole felt about the invasion five years on. After all it was they who were at the cutting edge of the operation. Last Monday  BBC News remedied this deficiency by announcing the results of a poll of Iraqi opinion  it had conducted in February along with ABC News and other broadcasters. Suprisingly 55% of those questioned said that their lives were good, compared with 39% in a poll taken in August 2007. 63% believed the Americans should leave only after a period during which security and government get stronger and far from Iraq being on the verge of civil war, 66% supported a united Iraq. Unsuprisingly large majorities considered that there was still much to be done to improve security and the public services.

But tucked away at the foot of the BBC's website report was the most significant finding of all - one that was directly relevant to the media's pre-anniverary Iraq fest  referred to above. That finding provided the answer to the crucial question of whether the Iraqis themselves thought that the invasion was right or wrong. Given nationalistic feelings and the terrible suffering that the Iraqis had endured one would have expected very few to say that the invasion was right - 10% to 20% at most. In fact the figure was an impressive 49%. Of those who said the invasion was wrong, the great majority were Sunnis, the minority ethnic group that had been in the ascendancy under Saddam. The full ethnic breakdown of answers to this question was 95% of Sunnis saying the invasion was wrong, 65% of the majority Shia group saying it was right, as did 87% of the Kurds (click on to "The Iraq Survey: Key Results in Graphics" for the full details of the poll).

All in all the survey rather pulled the rug from under all that media coverage lambasting the invasion and its aftermath. So perhaps we can understand why it has received so little publicity. Even the dear old BBC which had commissioned the poll and is mandated to be impartial relegated it to about half-way down its television Six O' Clock News and to bottom of the Ten O' Clock News. Needless to say it was presented as a mix of positive and negative news, glimmers of opimism etc with, scandalously, NO MENTION AT ALL of the key finding about Iraqi attitudes to the invasion.

Am I being too cynical in concluding that the BBC ran the story this way because it tended to undermine the negative spin they were putting on the invasion in their other programmes? I think not, bearing in mind that two months after my complaint to them about their negative coverage of the best crime figures we have had for years (click here for my blog on the matter) I am still waiting for an explanation (despite reminders). The normal waiting period is ten days.

Both stories illustrate how  even what is supposed to be the most non-partisan part of the media can set their agenda against this New Labour government. Until we start taking this media bias more seriously I fear there is little prospect of reversing the swings against us, particularly in bad times.      

Flagging up an Iraq exit strategy

Here's an adaptation of The Red Flag that the cut- and-run brigade might like to sing at their next gathering;

" Though heroes flinch and the trustworthy sneer, we'll keep the white flag flying here."

22 reasons why it was right to invade Iraq

Nick Cohen's controversial polemic What's Left: How Liberals Lost Their Way has reignited the debate about the rights and the wrongs of the Iraq war. In an earlier post I exposed ten lies about the conflict which have shaped anti-war sentiment. I now go further and set out a more comprehensive point-by point case for the war which to my knowledge is fairly unique amongst all the material that's been produced on this issue. I do so because the self-righteous opponents of the war continue to insist that there can be no good argument for the war. Also I believe that the full weight of the pro-war argument has largely gone by default.

Such has been the success of the anti-war lobby in claiming the moral high ground for their views that there are now few on the left who are prepared to challenge them over the whole range of their propoganda. Even Nick Cohen provides only a very narrow justification for the war (the desirability of over-throwing an evil dictator and standing by the Iraqi victims of the insurgency), thereby conceding much valuable territory regarding the other equally valid reasons for the war.

Here then, in chronological order, are no less than 22 reasons why progressives should stand up against the prevailing opinion of the liberal-left on this issue, particularly at a time when their mindset threatens to undermine the chances of Labour winning the next election.

1. The second Gulf war of 2003 followed the first Gulf war of 1991 which resulted directly from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

2. Instead of over-throwing Saddam at that time, the allies gave way to liberal sentiment and left him in power on the basis that he would never be in a position to threaten neighbouring countries again.

3. The terms of the 1991 cease-fire (not a peace settlement, by the way) forbade Iraq from developing WMD.

4. To that end a UN inspection regime was imposed by resolution 687 and several related resolutions, non-compliance with which would represent a breach of the cease-fire.

5. Several years passed during which UN inspections were continually being thwarted.

6. In 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the United Nations and economic sanctions and no-fly zones were imposed.

7. Then came 9/11 which underlined the world-wide terrorist threat and highlighted how failing anti-West states could be used as sanctuaries and attack bases for jihadists.

8. 9/11 also pointed up the dangers of UNDER-reacting to intelligence information.

9 The intelligence was showing that Saddam still possessed WMD and was continuing with his WMD programme, despite the terms of the cease-fire and related UN resolutions.

10. The UN inspectors, most governments, every intelligence agency in the world, and even Saddam's own generals were convinced that these weapons still existed and represented a threat, either directly through Saddam or indirectly if they were to fall into the hands of Al-qaeda. In a post-war interview with the Iraq Survey Group Saddam admitted that he was trying to give the impression that he had WMD for deterrent purposes.

11. If there were any doubts about the intelligence the feeling after 9/11 was probably that it was safer not to take any chances and that anyway why should a tyrant like Saddam be given the benefit of that doubt, particularly if it provided a legitimate reason for getting rid of him?

12. After being given every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions (over a considerable period) Saddam rejected the final demand under resolution 1441 (passed unanimously in November 2002) which called for "an accurate, full and final disclosure of Iraq's WMD's and of all aspects of its WMD programme", and which encompassed presenting evidence that WMD stocks had been destroyed. Opinions differed amongst eminent international lawyers on whether a second resolution was needed for military action. Such differences are quite common in international law since very little is clear-cut in this fairly new and arcane area of the law.

14 To argue that the war was DEFINITELY illegal is not therefore defensible whereas the Prime Minister's parliamentary answer (March 17, 2003) putting the legal case for the war is legally defensible.

15. The ensuing invasion presented an opportunity for (a) finally dealing with the WMD threat perceived at that time (b) removing a tyrannical dictator (c) neutralising Iraq as a potential base for world-wide terrorism (d) demonstrating that the international community could not be defied on such vital issues (e) allowing US troops to be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia and its holy places (which up to that point was one of AL-qaeda's main recruiting causes) and (f) allowing progress to be made towards a Middle East settlement (Saddam was offering 50,000 dollars for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers!).

16. Blair's dilemma was, therefore, this. To go into Iraq meant war with all its terrible consequences. But not going into Iraq meant Saddam defying the international community and literally getting away with murder thus setting an example to other dictators and enemies of democracy. It also meant Saddam proceeding with his WMD programme to a point where he might become invulnerable, possibly passing WMD on to the jihadists, continuing his repression of his muslim population, and continuing to undermine a Middle East peace settlement. Finally the need to keep US troops in Saudi Arabia would continueto give AL-qaeda a cause-celebre regarding the holy places. In other words he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

17  In coming down in favour of the war Blair probably saw this as the lesser of the evils and as the chance to act as a restraining influence on Bush in a way that those opposing the war were not able to do..

18 Far from the invasion being anti-Islamic, the (Islamic) Kurds, anti-Saddam Sunnis and the Shias rejoiced at being liberated from Saddam's tyranny (even now despite the post-war mayhem a recent poll has shown that over 60% of the population believe that overthrowing Saddam was worth the hardship entailed, 75% of the Shias and 81% of the Kurds).

19. Yes, terrible mistakes were made in the post-war period (as in any war). Amongst these was underestimating the sheer depravity of an enemy which seems to be prepared to destroy the country and slaughter its people rather than to see it progress under a democratically elected government.

20 Iraq is NOT under occupation. The occupation was ended in 2004 under UN Security Council Resolution 1546 when the interim Iraqi government took power. Coalition troops have been mandated by the UN to keep the peace. The US government is pledged to comply with a UN resolution requiring them to leave if requested by the Iraqi government.

21. Millions of Iraqis risked death to elect their government. Their government therefore has a greater legitimacy than almost any other government in the world!

22. That government wants our troops to stay as long as it takes to do the job. To cut and run now would be one of the most ignoble acts in our history.


From this perspective then there is no betrayal of what the Labour Party and the liberal-left are supposed to stand for. Quite the opposite. Here we have a courageous Labour leader trying, against all the odds, to uphold the principles of democracy, social justice, humanitarianism, and international solidarity which the Labour Party was founded to promote. To be sure, there is a downside. But those who constantly dwell on these negative aspects without putting them into the above context are simply giving comfort to one of the most despicable enemies we have faced, thereby stiffening their resistance in the belief that western public opinion does not have the stomach for the fight and that one more spate of high-profile suicide bombings will precipitate demands to bring home the troops and thus bring them victory.

Over to you.

Ten lies about the Iraq war

Saddam Hussein's execution has thrust the Iraq war back into the headlines. In typical fashion the anti-war lobby have found an angle to attack the coaltion leaders, notwithstanding that that the execution was soley a matter for the sovereign state of Iraq. Had the West intervened to produce a more "acceptable" outcome no doubt this would have been presented as evidence that the Iraqis were not in control of their own affairs. Yet another example of Blair and Bush being damned if they do and damned if they don't on the Iraq issue.

Underlying this hostility to everything the coalition is doing in Iraq is a mindset that's been cleverly created by opponents of the war (aided and abetted by their many friends in the media) whereby the war is so obviously wrong that it is regarded as the cause of any bad thing happening in Iraq. The mindset makes great play of "the lies" that led us into war. Yet it is itself founded upon a number of fasehoods that have so permeated the public consciousness that they have come to be taken for granted, even by Blair supporters. if there is to be a sensible debate on the rights and wrongs of the war it is essential that we should first sort out fact from fiction regarding its key elements.

So here are the ten most commonly accepted lies which have shaped our attitudes to the war.

Lie 1: The war was fought to rid Iraq of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

The reality:The casus belli of the war was Iraq's serial non-compliance with UN resolutions which were formulated after the first Gulf war to ensure that Saddam would never again threaten the region with WMD. After being given every opportunity to meet the terms of these resolutions (over several years) Saddam rejected the final demand under Resolution 1441(unanimously agreed) which called for "an accurate, full and final disclosure of Iraq's WMD's and all aspects of its WMD programme". Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, confirmed that "Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm". At this point the actual existence of WMD was immaterial since this could only be determined by proper inspection and disclosure.

Lie 2: The war was illegal.

The reality: The legal justification for the war was set out in the Prime Minister's written answer to a Parliamentary question on March 17, 2003. Essentially this argued that non-compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and previous related UN resolutions provided sufficient grounds for military action without a further resolution. Certainly there were differences of opinion on the need for a second resolution. However such differences are quite common in this fairly new area of the law and a challenge to the Attorney- General's advice does not constitute proof of illegality, whether it comes from another lawyer or the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Lie 3: Coalition troops are responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 innocent civlians in Iraq.

The reality: To support their case the anti-war lobby always quote the highest possible number of civilian casualties. In fact, estimates quoted in Wikipedia range from the 50,000 of the Iraq Body Count project to the 655,000 of the second Lancet survey of mortality. As Wikipedia points out the differences reflect differing methodologies as well as differing definitions of the types of deaths counted. In particular  the Lancet study from which the higher estimates are taken includes non-civilians and deaths due to degraded infra-structure and poor health care. There is also the difficulty of distinguishing between between civlilian and insurgent deaths since it is in the nature of this type of warfare for the combatants to melt into the civlian population during and in between battles. And in the case of genuine civilian deaths who is to say who is responsible when insurgents operate from densely built-up areas, in effect using civilians as human shields?

Lie 4: Coalition troops are responsible for the never-ending violence in Iraq.

The reality: The violence is being perpetrated mainly by Iraqi and other Middle Eastern groups. This is being done to settle sectarian scores, to gain power or to prevent the elected Iraqi government from doing its job. Of course the presence of coalition troops will attract fire in certain areas in the way that any peace-keeping force will be resisted by those who oppose peace but such actions are very much in the minority at the present time. In the final analysis the coalition can argue that they gave the Iraqis the chance to govern themselves in a free and democratic manner. If they do not or cannot take that chance the responsibility lies primarily with those who seek to destroy that chance , not with those who gave them the chance in the first place.

Lie 5: The war is responsible for acts of terror elsewhere.

The reality: Acts of terror preceded the Iraq war and have taken place in countries that were not involved in the war (like the Bali massacre) or have been thwarted in countries that actively opposed the war (like the recently announced foiled plots in France). Terrorists will always exploit any grievance to justify their actions, especially where they relate to countries that are resisting them.From this standpoint it can be argued that the main recruiting sergeant for terrorism is not the war but those who continually dwell on its negativities.

Lie 6: Iraq is an Occupied Territory.

The reality: The occupation was ended in 2004 under UN Resolution 1546 when the interim Iraqi government took power. Coalition troops were then mandated by the United Nations to keep the peace. The U.S. government has pledged itself to comply with a UN resolution requiring American troops toleave if requested by the Iraqi government.

Lie 7: Iraq has a puppet government.

The reality: Millions of Iraqis (representing  well over 60% of the population) risked death to choose their government in the two elections of 2005. International monitors concluded that the elections generally  met international standards. On this basis their government has a greater claim to legitimacy than any other government in the world.

Lie 8: The Iraq war was a war against Islam.

The reality: Islamic Shias, Sunnis and Kurds rejoiced at being liberated from Saddam's oppression. Even now, despite the post-war carnage, polls have shown that over 60% of the Islamic population believe that overthrowing Saddam was worth the hardships that followed.

Lie 9; Tony Blair took us to war on lies about the related Iraqi intelligence.

The reality: Two independent investigation, The Hutton and Butler Inquiries have cleared Tony Blair of this charge. A lie is a known untruth. At the time of Blair's decision to go to war the UN inspectors, every intelligence agency in the world, most governments, and even Saddam's own generals were convinced that Saddam was concealing WMD stocks and a WMD programme. In a post-war interview with the Iraq Survey Group Saddam actually admitted that he was trying to give the impression that he still had WMD's, for deterrent purposes.Tony Blair can hardly be blamed for acting on that impression.

Lie 10: Tony Blair was George Bush's poodle on all things to do with the war.

The reality: Since the Americans were bent on war regardless of the British position, Blair's choice was to resist them and to be thereby excluded from the decision making process or to support them and thus gain some influence in that decision making process. By taking the course that he did Blair can be regarded as being more of a guide-dog than a poodle.

The pro-war case emerging from this analysis is that a legally defensible war was fought to uphold UN resolutions designed to rein in an evil dictator, with Blair's role being one of damage limitation rather than supine aquiesence. Yes, mistakes were made in the post-war period but the resulting mayhem has more to do with the determination of Iraq's enemies to thwart the efforts of the democratically elected government of Iraq (supported by UN -mandated peace- keeping forces) than anything else.

An anti-war case can, of course, still be made but stripped of its lies component, I suspect that this will carry far less weight in the final judgement on the war which will form such an important part of Blair's legacy.

Let me be wrong

George Bush spent Christmas thinking over his next steps on Iraq. Anyone familiar with him could have guessed that he was unlikely to take the advice of the whitebeards of the Iraq study group., even though they offered him the easiest way out of Iraq he will ever have. Just as Wild E Coyote always comes up with a yet more elaborate scheme each time he fails to catch Roadrunner, so George W seems to put the failure of force down to the use of insufficient force. If it's not working then do it again, and this time do it harder.

Nor is the argument for more troops wholly unrespectable, albeit far less compelling than it was four years ago. But what seems to be emerging out of the briefing is that Bush will be sending far fewer troops that the 'surgists' orginally promoted. The American Enterprise plan that laid the public ground here talks about a large-scale military engagement of several years that also involves increasing the overall size of the US military. The authors underlined their point in the Washington Post that it can't be a quick and passing injection of a few more troops. A quote:

Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.

Agree or not, the authors are setting out a new programme of several years, a coherent 'reinvasion' to wipe the slate and begin again. Recent news reports suggest that the White House is looking at something 20,000 troops.

So why has Bush not got it, why doesn't he understand? Let's hope that is the right question. Let's hope that the question being asked at the White House is 'how do we win?' If so, then they are guilty of coming up with the wrong answer. It could be worse than that. They could be asking the wrong question. That question is 'how do we push the Iraq problem 2 years into the future, so that it is the next president's problem'. The answer to that question would, of course, look like what is expected to be announced on Wednesday.

John Kerry's fighting talk

According to media reports, Senator John Kerry has thrown a potentially big spanner into the Democrats' steady progress towards victory in the mid-term elections next Tuesday. The party's presidential nominee two years ago told an audience of college students in California on Monday that if they didn't study hard they could end up 'stuck in Iraq'.

The Republicans have responded with a lovely line in mock outrage, epitomised by President Bush:

Even in the midst of a heated campaign season, there are still some things we should be able to agree on; and one of the most important is that every one of our troops deserves our gratitude and respect. The senator's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and shameful.

This from a party which has spent the last week engaged in one of the filthiest smear campaigns against its opponents in recent US political history.

But while the Republicans' response was predictable, Kerry's counter-attack will come as a bit of a shock to those who remember the slightly lame way the senator responded in 2004 to the attacks on his Vietnam war record by the Bush-backing Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Describing those who had attacked him as 'right-wing nut jobs', Kerry went on:

If anyone thinks a veteran would criticise the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have

If Kerry had shown a little more of that kind of fighting talk two years ago, it may well have been him, and not Bush, sat in the Oval Office today.

Not the time to cut and run

Iraq is at a crucial point and is faced with difficult choices, but there are no quick fixes ... getting Iraq right is key to the rest of the Middle East ... this is not a battle to be lost ... this is a war of ideas … tyranny, dictatorship and terrorism or democracy.

Not the words of Tony Blair, though I’ve heard him express those views many times. The words of Barham Salih, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, speaking to Labour MPs during a recent visit to the UK. As a member of a party affiliated to the Socialist International, alongside the Labour Party, he is a well known figure amongst Labour MPs.

Hearing this articulate, Cardiff-educated Iraqi talk about the problems of Iraq turned upside down my usual perspective. It was the realisation that we spend our time discussing Iraq from a particular point of view – what it means to us, to our electoral popularity, what we could/should have done.

Whilst listening to him describe governing the country, it became clearer to me just how much Iraq is a country in transition, and that it continues to need our help and support. It was a dictatorship for 35 years, during which its political and social fabric was degraded completely. The current journey of transition cannot be anything but demanding and painful.

To those who call for the withdrawal of coalition forces, he says that this is not the time to cut and run. He wants more security to be handed over to Iraqis, but believes that the coalition needs to stay in support of government forces for a while longer. He added that by the end of the year over half the provinces will be under Iraqi security control.

For those who believe that democracy in the Middle East is nigh on impossible, he’ll tell you that they can do it, they did it. He was Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government from 2001 to mid-2004, governing part of the northern region of Iraq thanks to the Allied Coalition No Fly Zone.

Barham Salih holds no illusions about the difficult situation in Iraq – “it’s a tough neighbourhood”. The failure to establish a democratic Iraq will see the subjugation of the peoples of the region continue. It is precisely that subjugation that has led to the religious radicalisation that is behind so much of the terrorism we see today.

Some of his words echo those of democratic politicians all over the world. “The Government needs to deliver on the promises, we’ve achieved a great deal but not enough.” The demands of different religious and ethnic groupings and the issues of federalism are added to the mix. Salih stressed that all the politicians in the Iraqi government carry both the expectations from their own constituencies, but they are also engaged in building a country.

The MP sitting next to me said that he wouldn’t be a politician in Iraq now for all the tea in China. Barham Salih is a politician who for half an hour one Monday evening helped us to look at Iraq from his vantage point. No-one could have failed to admire his fortitude and determination – how many of us could or would carry on under that constant pressure and personal danger. All those fighting for a democratic Iraq deserve our support.

It's not civil war, just a little local difficulty

Hilary Benn held his line on Iraq as well as anyone could on the Today Programme. Ever-growing violence, military mutterings and some powerful journalist from Basra meant it was always going to be tough but he remained largely as humane and intellectually honest as is his trademark. He did however, resort to an emerging theme amongst invasion apologists which, though it sounds respectable, is misleading. That is the statement that the violence in Iraq is limited to just a few parts of the country. So it is not a civil war, just a few violent areas.

On that basis, of course, there was no American Civil War, there was just a little local difficulty in Kansas, Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee. There was no World War One, there was just some trouble in Belgium and Northern France. The argument is at least crass and could easily become callous. It should be discarded. When supporters of the Iraq war start propping themselves up with such casuistry, their picture of an emerging democracy starts to sounds as false as 1930's apologists' descriptions of Soviet social conditions.

Blunkett admits 'we were not in charge' in Iraq. So was the government right to put British troops at risk?

After weeks of headlines about Afghanistan, this valet has been reflecting on what it is and is not reasonable to ask of the members of our armed services. Coming from a family with a history in the armed forces, I am sure of one thing: that the bravery of those who volunteer includes a conscious commitment to hazard their life, if necessary, in the service of their country. This, in turn, confers an awesome responsibility upon the nation’s leaders. Politicians have a sacred trust: Men and women have placed their own lives in their hands.

Obviously, this means that the government of the day needs to look after troops in the field. They must have sufficient equipment. Tony Blair has shown a still acute antenna in picking this up.

It is vital that Labour does not screen out the concerns of officers, even if they do often insist on airing them in blustering tones in the pages of the Telegraph… The concerns raised in the Sunday Mirror that territorial army soldiers are losing their employment while on assignment demands immediate action. It is also vital that we take a look at pay, especially for those who are deployed in war-fighting, or peace-keeping in a hostile environment.

However, there is a far greater duty that politicians owe service personnel too. That is, put simply, to ensure while they may undertake actions that risk the lives of soldiers, sailors, marines and aircrew, they never gamble with them. David Blunkett said, in a Guardian interview about the failures of Iraq’s occupation: 'All we could do as a nation of 60 million off the coast of mainland Europe was to seek to influence the most powerful nation in the world,' he said. 'We were not in charge.'

Blunkett is being superbly honest but he misses the fact that what he describes is not acceptable. If Britain is as powerless to influence the strategic situation as he suggests, then we simply should not have sent in troops. To commit troops, without having a grip on the strategic situation, is to gamble with their lives. There is a difference in kind between the moral burden of risking lives in a cause and that of gambling them in some one else's cause.

This difference requires that we test our involvement with the US in Iraq, and NATO in Afghanistan. What are the realties of both deployments? Are we, as a nation, sufficiently happy with the overall strategy? Is each sufficiently resourced? If we are not happy with that both deployments pass this test, then perhaps the time has come to look at doing one, doing it right and doing it in our own terms. For those are the only terms under which we can hazard the lives of our troops.

We should also look to develop a doctrine, as a medium-sized military power, that we only commit to the use of force when we are authoring the whole strategy, or where we are part of an international effort that has transparent decision-making process, and agreed aims.