Oh, what a foolish war 
                  Does Tony Blair cry into his pillow when he thinks of Iraq? It is one of the few questions about the war that remain unanswered. It intrigues, but is now of consequence only to historians and psychologists. The assessment is clear for all to see. In almost every respect, from the early preparations to the present day, this has been a calamity. Three years on, it is worth recalling just how badly mistaken the venture was, and how much of it was foretold. 

Through a combination of hubris and lack of confidence, the Prime Minister decided long before the arrival of George W Bush that Britain had a voice in the world only through its relationship with the United States. National interest and level-headedness were sacrificed to this endeavour. When Blair discovered he had not been consulted about the president's State of the Union address in January 2002 (the one that ordained the "axis of evil"), his resolve to support Bush, come what may, only hardened. Three months later, in Crawford, Texas, the deed was done. The agreement in principle to go to war was given. Everything from that moment on was a scramble, with only one decision in mind. 

The disasters that have ensued must be seen in this con- text. Rarely has a war been fought on such a combination of duplicitous diplomacy and a lack of the most basic planning of the aftermath. Within months of "victorious" US troops entering Baghdad, hopes that the new Iraq would serve as a beacon for neoconservative democratisation across the Middle East began to unravel. John Sawers, Blair's first representative in post-Saddam Iraq, was alarmed by the antics of his US counterpart, Paul Bremer, but as ever in this government's dealings with the White House, lips were bitten and shoulders were shrugged. 

The first serious incident of intercommunal strife came as early as August 2003, with the bombing in Najaf of the mosque of Imam Ali, an important Shia shrine. In the same month, perhaps the only hope of an internationally brokered peace was extinguished when the UN headquarters in Baghdad was destroyed, killing Sergio Vieira de Mello, the organisation's highly respected chief representative in Iraq. 

Since then, the news from Iraq has been unremittingly negative, too much so in the eyes of government ministers and the small but vocal band of commentators and others who cling doggedly to their original support for the war. Some argue that the reports of terrorism and talk of civil war are exaggerated - that life is, in many parts of the country, more normal than it is portrayed. Our two main cover stories, vivid on-the-ground accounts from John Simpson and Zaki Chehab (pages 14-18), will disabuse readers of such notions. Advocates of the invasion insist that a more democratic civil society is being constructed, citing a developing local press, trade unions and other institutions. They are not necessarily wrong in these assertions. They argue, in addition, that the Kurds in the north have a level of freedom not enjoyed for decades. Finally, they cite regime change as justification in itself. The tyrant Saddam Hussein is gone, an angry encaged man awaiting the court's verdict.
 Whatever woes might have befallen the nation since, that in itself, the defenders say, is justification. Leave aside that regime change was not the reason cited by Blair, or Bush for that matter, for going to war; this final argument requires further scrutiny. 

In his impassioned defence of Blair and Bush (page 19), John Lloyd cites inaction in the face of tyranny in Yugoslavia (he could have mentioned Rwanda) as the point at which many on left and right coalesced behind an interventionist banner. In the late 1990s and early this decade, important work was done on defining rules for the use of military force for humanitarian ends. These aims were and are laudable, but rather than enhance them, Iraq has all but destroyed them. 

To anyone who had high hopes for a more ethical and internationalist foreign policy, Blair's terrible mistakes give no satisfaction. Saddam may be on trial, but there is now, thanks to Blair and Bush, no better time to be a dictator and abuser of human rights anywhere in the world. Such is the parlous state of global institutions, that it is hard to envisage concerted moves to promote peaceful democratic change in the Middle East or elsewhere. We have argued before on these pages that an enhanced United Nations remains the best arbiter for determining when military action should be used, as a last resort. Blair's successor should devote more energy to vesting in that body greater credibility and authority. 

The announcement by John Reid of troop withdrawals marks the first concerted move by the UK to divest itself of Iraq. The Americans are doing likewise. The humiliation will soon be complete. Thousands of "coalition" military deaths, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths (the number is not officially counted), an Iraqi economy that has fallen below pre-war levels, an infrastructure in ruins, intercommunal violence on an unprecedented scale, and tensions across the region higher than at any point previously - that is some reckoning. 

And before anyone personalises this tragedy too much, what about the hundreds of backbenchers and ministers who allowed themselves to be herded into voting for a war whose folly was plain to see even at the time? How many of them, too, cry into their pillows? 
                    To read comments on this week's vote click here


			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤