Today, Britain finally concluded its mission in Iraq, roughly eight years after the invasion in 2003. The vast majority of troops were already pulled out in 2009, a handful however remained to help with naval training of the Iraqi army.
With hindsight, the war deeply divided the international community, the country and the Labour Party. Mistakes have been made, especially in the aftermath of the war, and it is important to acknowledge and learn from them.
176 brave British service personnel and 110,000 Iraqi civilians tragically lost their lives in the conflict – 110,176 innocent souls too many. Most of them were killed not by American and British soldiers but terrorists, the same fanatics we are fighting across the entire Middle East.
But it is worth remembering that less than ten years ago, Iraq was ruled by a brutal, genocidal dictator and his crime family, responsible for the death of almost two million people. Abduction, persecution, torture, rape and assassinations were common practices under Saddam’s reign of terror.
Despite the UN’s oil for food programme, Iraqis were starving and the country had an infant mortality rate equal to Congo with 130 per 1,000 children under the age of five. That equated to about 90,000 deaths per year. Today, the figure is down to 40.
Iraq is now a fragile yet relatively stable democracy. It has a new constitution, the first democratic one in its 80-year old history. Elementary rights such as the freedom of expression, religion and assembly are guaranteed by the constitution and generally respected in practice. The process of post-war recovery is expected to achieve annual growth of 11.7 per cent during the next five years.
Elections have taken place twice, in 2005 and 2010. International and domestic monitoring groups described them as free and fair, turn-out was extremely high (up to 75 per cent) and the government now represents people from all different religious and ethnic backgrounds. In 2008, the Iraqi parliament already passed legislation to bring Sunni Arabs back into the political process, former members of the Ba’athist party were permitted to retake their jobs, the largest Sunni bloc returned to government and six Sunni ministers joined al-Maliki’s cabinet.
John McTernan eloquently pointed out in Thursday’s Daily Telegraph that “there may be only one country in the world today where a majority – the vast majority – of the population still support the invasion of Iraq: but that country is Iraq itself.”
Taking all that into account, the Iraq war was – on balance – a success. It is something Britain should be proud not ashamed of. The removal of murderous dictators is morally sound. It would have been right in Rwanda and Bosnia, was right in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Iraq and is now right in Libya.
The narrative of the anti-Iraq war brigade has not quite turned out the way they predicted. The doctrine of humanitarian interventionism is not dead, it was not buried in the sands of Iraq and future political leaders were not demoralised by the carnage of the aftermath.
Dan Hodges was right: Libya isn’t an embarrassment for Tony Blair. It’s his validation.
Alleged intentions and rosy spin (distortions about the reality) are irrelevant.
“Japanese fascists apparently did believe that by ravaging China they were laboring to turn it into an “earthly paradise.” We don’t know whether Hitler believed that he was defending Germany from the “wild terror” of the Poles, or was taking over Czechoslovakia to protect its population from ethnic conflict and provide them with the benefits of a superior culture, or was saving the glories of the civilization of the Greeks from barbarians of East and West, as his acolytes claimed (Martin Heidegger).”
– to quote one anti-war commentator.
Either we endeavour to stick with international law or we don’t. If we don’t object to military attacks on other countries, then, +if+ Iran chose to attack Israel (due to the perceived threat that Israel posed – infinitely more tenable than the fantasy that Iraq posed a threat to US/UK), then in principle we could not object.
The first sentence from the anti-war commentator is historically inaccurate as well. There was no plan for an earthly paradise behind the Japanese invasion of China. Just a plan for a Japanese colony where an upper stratum of Japanese landowners, farmers and merchants ruled over a terrorised population of Chinese serfs.
As for that idiot’s comment about Germany and the Poles/Czechs, he missed the best comparison – Barbarossa. But again, the intention of destroying “Judeo-Bolshevism” (and coincidently, wiping out most of the Russian population) was not a universal benefit but of a feudal state of German rulers and Slavic serfs.
As for international law, I refer to Hobbes.
“And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep them, when he can do it safely), if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men.”
International law is a covenant without the sword as the sword is not wielded by a higher power but by states in the place of men, by whose common agreement law is upheld, or by whose dissension law is disregarded and overthrown. Ultimately the law of arms reigns supreme and we would do well not to forget this for by the law of arms did Saddam fall from power.
It seems Richard is in agreement with me because he says: “Ultimately the law of arms reigns supreme and we would do well not to forget this for by the law of arms did Saddam fall from power.”
That’s my point. Julie is arguing that the Iraq invasion was a moral enterprise, whereas Richard is pointing out the fact of life that, ultimately, ‘might is right’, morality is irrelevant, outcomes are determined by brute force, not laws, and history is written by victors. And Julie merely gives self-serving moral justifications for military aggression. But my point is that everyone (e.g. Hitler) can easily paint their project as a moral crusade (e.g. protecting the world from the threat to civilisation posed by Jews, if allowed to continue living and breeding).
That’s why the professed good intentions carry no information: everyone professes them – relief workers and mass-murderers alike. That’s why, when judging any action, we should ignore whatever the perpetrator says to morally justify it, and we must apply some independent metrics, e.g. international law, outcomes. (Julie distorts the humanitarian outcomes, e.g. deaths as a consequence of the invasion-occupation are well over a million, as established by several studies, e.g. from Lancet, MIT, Johns Hopkins, ORB, not merely the 100K that Julie cites.)
By the logic of Bush and Blair (and Richard), Iran really +ought+ to be building its military capacity, nuclear and other, because, as Hobbes says, “covenants, without the sword, are but words”.
On morality, such an enterprise is at least partially dependent upon the subjective element. Since morality is a human construct, underpinned by certain unconscious impulses (Freud/Jung) then Julie is perfectly right to argue from her moral framework that Iraq was a morally correct decision and outcome.
Professed intentions may miscarry, such is the human element, however the criticism made of Iraq (as invasion and political project) is that it was an immoral decision. This assertion rests upon two grounds, international law and the death toll arising from the invasion.
I would argue that the first is irrelevant as a law without a supreme force is no more than a moral canting between the pious and a useful fig-leaf for the cynical. A deeper insight would enable us to disregard international law as a fiction which has long since outgrown its capabilities. International law works best when it serves the interests of a majority of powerful states, which can enforce this law upon recalcitrant and piratical states and peoples. An example is the Hague/Geneva Conventions which are upheld by fear of mutual mistreatment as well as a common cultural bond in the case of the former imperial powers.
The anti-war protesters argue that international law possesses such implicit virtue (from their own moral standpoint) that this ought to ensure that international law is both upheld and correct. Julie has repeatedly argued to the contrary that international law which either permits or facilitates other breaches of international law (such as the Genocide Convention) loses the force of law and can no longer be upheld.
The second point of anti-war mythology is the Lancet/MIT/JH/ORB 1 million or higher casualty figures. These have been roundly debunked many years ago, given the Lancet methodology was completely unsound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
The standard accepted figures of 110,000 or higher come from the Iraq Body Count project, which is a non-partisan project. Also, I would question the million+ accusation on the grounds that such a number of killed would produce far greater social dislocation than witnessed by Iraqis, Coalition soldiers or journalists on the ground.
Additionally, a quick glance at publicly available figures shows the 2009 Iraq population estimated at 31 million, one million higher than in 2001. Unless Iraq saw a population growth rate of higher than average 3% in those years (and the bulk of the killings took place between March 2003 and 2007), the million+ thought by the anti-war camp to be missing would have required an average birth rate of 6-7%, far higher than known to be the case.
Finally, as Julie and others have repeated pointed out but the anti-war camp still attribute as the responsibility of the Coalition, the bulk of the 110,000 deaths resulted from terrorist (Baathist and Islamist) attacks and the near civil war between Sunni and Shia. There is a case to make that the Coalition failed in its duty under the Geneva Convention to provide adequate security to maintain public order and safety but this was brought under control by late 2007 when the US Army, USMC and the Iraqi Security forces retook control of the streets together with the Sunni “Sons of Iraq”. The greatest criticism should be reserved for the British government and especially the British Army for abandoning southern Iraq to the Islamist gangs and refusing to fight back (except for a brief attempt in 2007). Yet, even this failure could be attributed in part to the corrosive effect of what was and remains a morally selfish anti-war constituency in Britain which refused to press the government of the day to do its duty by the Iraqis and to the media which refused to pick up on the stories which local Arab media were reporting of gang violence and attacks on British soldiers.
Morality is indeed a human construct but actions are never by themselves a neutral occurrence. The foolish repetition of “might makes right” is a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of power in society. Power may rest upon force but the application of force (even in not applying force, which is in itself constitutes an act) becomes a moral act when it intends an outcome. The intention of the invasion of Iraq was to remove a regime hostile to the interests of the Coalition, its own people and neighbouring countries. To understand that actions are in themselves morally selective does not invalidate the concept of moral actions.
A deeper understanding of Hobbes statement about covenants without the sword is to realise that concepts of interest and morality come into being with the creation of the society and thus the state. The commonwealth is the embodiment, not of the ideal state, but of the state that exists. This state is necessarily comprised because it is not a state that can exist as a pure thought experiment but instead as an agreement between men.
If international law is a fiction maintained between states, then it remains a useful fiction as it is an articulated concept in words of the potential of force to compel desired behaviour between states.
It is in the interests of those actors in the Middle East that Iran does not become a nuclear armed state. It would be a moral decision to prevent this, either through destruction of the means or the regime because the outcome of the fulfilment of Iranian (regime) interests would be the radical compromise of other states’ interests including the safety of their peoples. Given that Iran has repeatedly declared its aggressive intention to annihilate Israel, Israel’s interests are thus directed towards the defeat of the Iranian means of aggression.
While force may be the ultimate argument, it is also the most risky. Any student of Clauswitz or Thucydides should realise this to be true. Accordingly, if Iran were to make peace with Israel (as Egypt and Jordan have done), the states currently feeling threatened would cease to be so. However the moral nature of the regime, as like that of Nazi Germany, renders this an absolutely impossibility given the foundational basis of anti-semitism. I spoke earlier of the act of non-action constituting as much a moral choice as an action might present and in this context, acquiesce in the face of Iranian armament with the possible consequences of success would constitute such a threat to Western, Israeli and Arab interests (outside of Syria) as to override the cant of non-aggression in international law.
It comes back to the old question, do you wait for the maniac next door to carry out his threats or do you wait (as a moral actor) for the event to pass?
Phew!, Richard; that’s a lot to take in.
Maybe in amongst all that you did answer the following question of mine (and I simply missed it), but could you, simply, answer this?
If Iran decided to execute a military first-strike against Israel, arguing that that was necessary to avert pre-emptively an imminent attack from Israel, what would be the basis of our objection to that?
It seems to me that we would have +no+ basis for objecting because Iran would simply be employing exactly the argument that we posited with respect to Saddam.
Swords cut both ways. If Iran attacked Israel, then Israel and her allies would be entitled to consider themselves at war.
I would object to an Iranian attack because our interests, both diplomatic and national are not served either by an Iranian attack or by its likely consequences. This is realpolitik in action. Israel is cultural kin and an ally.
Actually the argument about Iraq used by the Americans and ourselves rested upon international law. I personally hold little regard for the sanctity of international law but the governments do.
The argument (which is legally correct) is that sanction for war was reactivated by the breach of several previous resolutions leading back to 687 which authorised military action. That was considered in suspension while Iraq was in breach of the weapons programme related UNSC resolutions. 1441 was the key.
“If Iran attacked Israel, then Israel and her allies would be entitled to consider themselves at war.”
Iraqis can consider themselves at war with America, by that logic. Moreover, Iraqis would be justified in sending agents to assassinate Bush or Blair, as America did with bin Laden.
“I would object to an Iranian attack because our interests … are not served … by [that]. This is realpolitik in action. Israel is cultural kin and an ally.”
So you agree that US/UK foreign policy is based on our “our interests”; morality or legal principles don’t come into it.
However, in your subsequent para, you see fit to labour an argument (flawed and/or dishonest) that international law +does+ provide justification for the Iraq invasion.
Your principles (which are those of Bush and Blair) are clear: international law should be ignored when it does +not+ serve “our interests”. But it’s useful to cite (even if done so dishonestly – ‘no serious international lawyer argues that the invasion was legal’ (Philippe Sands, QC)) when it might seem to justify a crime that we have already decided we will commit.
For all your pseudo-intellectual verbosity, your simple-minded thug’s mentality soon emerges from beneath the layers of disingenuous ‘philosophy’: we do what we want, bomb anyone who opposes us, and we ignore the law except when it suits us not to.
I think that over 110,000 – mostly civilian – dead cannot be a ‘success’ anyway.
This was an invasion carried out on the cheap, accompanied with an extremely stupid policy that required the demobilization of the Iraqi Army plus ruling Baath Party in the absence of a well-established occupying force in a huge terrain.
Strictly speaking the Iraqi war was won in a few weeks time with very few casualties, yet it was immediately lost by the Coalition Provisional Authority which crippled the Iraqi statehood and left it in a bloody civil war.
I think that it is a simplification to call this civil war as ‘acts of terrorists’. The counter-insurgency that took so many lives on all sides is a consequence of this policy, which is, of course, has very little to do with the Mr Blair’s government. The ‘surge’ was needed because of the vacuum created by the the war plus the policies of the CPA.
Most of the decisions, especially the fateful decision authorized by Paul Bremer, was not taken by the British or other NATO governments but the American-controlled CPA.
It would be interesting to hypothesize about the blame game if the Germans had indeed implemented their plans to fight on after the war.
Pingback: Question to The Independent: If not us – who WILL stand against terror and dictators? « Tony Blair
It is so much easier to justify the war in Iraq than to justify the decisions of the CPA. Germany, Japan, or for that matter Bosnia and Kosovo were properly occupied. In Iraq, the army and the government structures were destroyed but in the beginning nobody wanted to commit anything really to running the country. That cost so much human capital, money and political credibility in the next seven years. The ‘surge’ was just a belated correction of these mistakes.
Your post has drawn an interesting debate, Julie. I’ve linked to it at my place – http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/question-to-the-independent-if-not-us-who-will-stand-against-terror-and-dictators/
Tht trouble with all this emphasis on “international law” (apart from the obvious fact that many non-democracies, ALL dictatorships & certainly every terrorist have no regard for such a concept) is that it can only lead one way: International law right=my interpretion of it right=your interpretation of it wrong.
I recall Tony Blair shifting the debate onto “values” at one time in an effort to persuade the doubters over Iraq that some things are worth fighting, yes, and dying for. (And yes, sending amed forces to do the same – that IS what they’re there for – to fight and risk dying!)
Of course in the naysayingworld the “values” argument could never work. Some of them actually believe – they do, honestly! – that the values of those who wish to destroy the west are better and more principled than ours. Such moral relativism is a joy(!) to behold.
I notice now that “values” is raising its political head again. As I also notice that Cameron/Obama – the new special relationship – are talking exactly the same language as did Blair & Bush, Thatcher & Reagan. But don’t tell Clegg – the head naysayer.
Plus ca change, except in the minds of those who wish to see real evil in Blair and Bush.
There may well – MUST have been many mistakes made over Iraq. But the idea that we invaded Iraq with the intention of bringing on the deaths of hundreds of thousands is vacuous. Why on earth would any western leader say – “Right let’s go in there and bomb the life out of them for the next 8/9/10 years. That’ll make us popular with the voters and with that country”?
There’s a poll at my post (linked above) which such as The Independent invariably choose to ignore. It shows that despite the deaths (most caused by Iraqis & neighbours, btw – ongoing today) most Iraqis think it was worth the invasion in order to remove Saddam.
When the day dawns that the Independent and other such headline with that kind of information I will resume my respect for their anti-Blair/anti-US bias.
Keeptonyblairforpm says, “I recall Tony Blair shifting the debate onto “values” at one time … ”
The problem, though, is that Tony Blair does not practice the “values” he professes to hold. One such value professed by Blair is that radical Islam and Muslim dictatorships should be opposed. But then he doesn’t condemn the regimes of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Yemen (for example); and, moreover, positively embraces the dictator Gaddafi. Also, Blair had +nothing+ critical of Saddam to say when Saddam was at the peak of his crimes (e.g. Halabja) in the eighties; when, in fact, George Galloway was at the peak of +his+ condemnation of Saddam (which fell on deaf uninterested ears in parliament).
Incidentally, Blair’s professed rationale for embracing Gaddafi was to ‘bring him in from the cold’; and, if we suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend he is being honest, then that is actually fair enough, because embracing people, even the most odious ones, in an attempt to resolve conflict with them is always better than attempting to bomb them into submission. But then the Blair-disciples, in their hypocrisy, recoil in toddler-tantrums at the sight of Galloway attempting exactly that with Saddam.
When it did finally dawn on Blair to condemn Saddam as a brutal dictator (twenty years later than Galloway), he had nothing to say about the equally brutal leader of Uzbekistan (Islam Karimov), who is famous for dealing with political opponents by throwing them into vats of burning oil. (In fact, he sacked Craig Murray, his diplomat there, because Murray +did+ highlight Karimov’s crimes.) So this is just one (of many) examples demonstrating that Blair does not hold the values he professes. But Blair is an intelligent rational man, so there must be +some+ value at work, and, indeed, there is, and it is quite clear: some dictators are allies, others are not; so acts of butchery by the former or +not+ worthy of condemnation (not even comment), but those by the latter are.
Keeptonyblair also says that the Iraq invasion was “worth fighting, yes, and dying for”, thus echoing, and plumbing the same depths of cowardice and hypocrisy as, his great leader. Both Blair and keeptonyblair are fully aware that the fighting and dying that they ‘bravely’ call for will have nothing to do with them: it will only affect soldiers and thousands of civilians with whom they have no connection.
@keeptonyblairforpm You can find plenty more polls from Iraq here: http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/ (but yours is the most straightforward).
I got plenty of hate when I wrote in Hungary two pro-Iraq war articles back then. (We new NATO members we also supported the coalition with a small force).
A very highly held intellectual magazine even published my article with a paragraph delete in the press so that he international law professor could file a reasonable counter-argument. (I got an apology years later from the editor-in-chief). The core of the debate was around motives. This guy claimed that actually nobody wanted to ‘liberate Iraq’ and it was just an excuse afterward and I pointed out to a few policy documents from the 90s that he misquoted.It was astonishing back than that an professor of international law goes out to misquote public sources in order to claim that Bush and Blair are lying in a country that is remotely connected to the conflict. This is an extremely emotional issue for the opponents of the war, and they can go very far against the facts and proofs.
The second issue was even more stupid in a way, because it was about the WMD issue. For a lot of people the fact that the WMD Saddam Hussein used to threat with was never to be found and they could not believe with their own eyes that the UN Secretary General himself acknowledged the fact that WMD was an issue because Saddam Hussein had a track record of using them in the 80s. This is a blind spot of the anti-war camp. It was never the question that the Iraqi dictator possessed and used WMD, but that it was not in fact an ‘imminent’ danger and it was never found.
And of course it is a big problem that the WMD was never to be found, not necessarily because intelligence was ‘sexed up’ as they like to say but because we have no intelligence on what happened to the Iraqi stock.
Sorry for the misspelling late at night in the previous post.