Writing after the end of the Second World War, George Orwell canvassed the
various possibilities for the postwar order. At one end was nuclear
annihilation in a third world war. At the other was democratic Socialist
(Orwell always capitalised "Socialist" in that phrase) revolution in both
the West and the USSR.
In the middle was the prospect of a deadlocked system of power blocs, with
no war, but no prospect of radical change.
"This almost seems a worse result than war," Orwell concluded. "Such a
system could remain stable for hundreds of years."
"British troops were soon comparing their street-by-street struggle against
paramilitary groups to Northern Ireland. This proved prescient, for the
subsequent occupation of Iraq was like Northern Ireland, only worse.
"A large majority of Iraqis were delighted to be rid of Saddam; this did
not mean they welcomed a colonial administration imposed by Washington,
headed by a retired American general and including a minister of finance
who was a former head of the CIA.
British forces prided themselves on being more subtle than the Americans in
winning the 'hearts and minds' of a restless population, but they
underestimated the depth of historic resentment directed specifically
against Britain, the former colonial power in both Iraq and Palestine.
"A relatively small number of Iraqi paramilitaries and suicide bombers
compelled the Anglo-American occupying forces to use tactics that, seen
throughout the Arab world on al-Jazeera television, reminded Arabs
everywhere of Israeli soldiers' behaviour in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
"Nor did it help that the American viceroy of Iraq, General Jay Garner,
conceded far-reaching autonomy to the Kurds in northern Iraq, who had been
valuable American allies on the northern front of the military campaign
against Saddam, and who were the only group in Iraq to remain unambiguously
pro-American under the occupation.
"Critics of the war had predicted that, in the sombre words of Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak, it would produce a hundred new Osama bin Ladens.
These predictions did not entirely come true. But in the aftermath of the
war, there were renewed Islamist terror attacks, especially in Europe,
whose large Muslim population provided excellent cover for al-Qaeda and
other groups.
"As the human, political and financial costs of occupying Iraq mounted,
while the American economy plunged further into recession, criticism of the
Bush Administration grew in the United States. Moderate Republicans
privately agreed with Democrats that the Administration had led the country
into a morass in the Middle East, while alienating many of America's
friends around the world. This applied particularly to Europe. Even
Britain, America's most stalwart ally, was incensed by the lack of any
serious progress along the 'road map' to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
"After George Bush narrowly lost the November 2004 election (ironically,
after a recount in Florida), the new Administration hastened to change
course. In an attempt to mend fences with both the Arab world and the
Europeans, it withdrew its troops from Iraq, handing control over to the
Iraqis and Kurds, and started exerting serious pressure on the Sharon
Government in Israel to come back to the negotiating table with the
Palestinians.
"From his hideaway, Osama bin Laden (or someone claiming to be Osama bin
Laden) gloated that 'the heroic Jihad that began on September 11, 2001, has
triumphed with the establishment of an independent state for our brothers
in Palestine and the withdrawal of infidel forces from Iraq'.
On the face of it, this was a crushing defeat for the group of US
policymakers, identified particularly with Deputy Defence Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, who had seen the invasion of Iraq as the beginning of a
democratic reordering of the whole Middle East.
The only moral response here to this illegal and corrupt war is continued
violent civil disobedience, as a testament, however limited, against the
American juggernaut.
