Britain’s involvement in the new Iraq war is a doomed and dangerous gesture

With no proper strategy, the return to conflict will only reinforce the
politics of fear that is the grimmest legacy of the Blair era

*         

*         <http://www.theguardian.com/profile/simonjenkins> 

*         

o   Simon Jenkins <http://www.theguardian.com/profile/simonjenkins>  



Illustration by Satoshi Kambayashi 

This is the moment in any war when peace goes dumb. The cause is just. The
enemy is in our sights, and the provocation is extreme. Blood races through
tabloid veins. It is white feathers for dissenters. The British government’s
evident eagerness to bomb Iraq will be put by David Cameron to the House of
Commons
<http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/24/parliament-recalled-endorse
-uk-airstrikes-iraq>  on Friday. With an election in the offing, Labour’s Ed
Miliband dares not disagree
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/25/miliband-foreign-polic
y-pm-labour-leader-iraq> .

The prime minister’s case, made to the United Nations on Wednesday
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/david-cameron-urges-unity-isis
-evil-uk-prepares-strike-iraq> , is that the Islamic State (Isis) rebellion
is “an evil against which the whole world must unite”. No one would quarrel
with that. Unlike Cameron
<http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/30/cameron-mps-syria> ’s
abortive bid to bomb Syria last year, legality is covered by an invitation
from Iraq’s hapless rulers in Baghdad and a refusal to bomb Syria. Past
mistakes in Iraq, says Cameron, should not be an excuse for inaction. “We
must not be so frozen with fear that we do not do anything at all.”

Nor should we be so intoxicated by war fever as to do the wrong thing. Iraq
has been chief bomb target for western electoral machismo since Bill
Clinton’s  <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7390.html> “Monica
Lewinsky” air strikes in 1998. They initiated a decade of mendacity. Saddam
Hussein’s weapons arsenal was declared eliminated, then it was not. After
killing hundreds of civilians, Tony Blair and his cabinet declared that Iraq
still posed “an imminent threat to Britain”. The subsequent war was said to
have installed freedom and democracy in that country, another untruth. As
the Royal United Services Institute concluded in a recent survey
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/uk-military-operations-costs>
, far “from reducing international terrorism … the 2003 invasion [of Iraq]
had the effect of promoting it”.

Those demanding a resumption of the bombing should explain how things are
different this time – or be guilty of willing mission creep. So far they
could hardly be less convincing. An indication is their resort to adjectival
hysteria, Isis being variously repulsive, genocidal, atrocious, monstrous,
unspeakable, satanic. Everyone seems to accept that air strikes “alone”
cannot win. Yet everyone also asserts that there is no question of following
them with ground attacks, which is the essence of coordinated war. They are
merely to “degrade Isis assets”, mostly by demolishing empty buildings at
vast expense. They are sending “a message” to someone or other.

Cameron’s strategy is apparently to leave local Iraqi forces to deliver
victory. That might be reasonable, given that they are the most expensively
trained troops on earth. But they have shown themselves useless. They have
been given intensive bombing cover by the Americans for seven weeks
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/us-begins-air-strikes-iraq-isi
s> , and Isis is firmly in place. Meanwhile, Cameron refuses to hold his
nose and form a tactically vital alliance with Assad of Syria and with the
Iranians. He appears not to want to win.

If Britain intends victory, Cameron should do what George Bush and Tony
Blair did last time in Iraq and go full tilt at the enemy with planes,
troops, tanks and guns galore – and to hell with the consequences. There is
no logistical hurdle. Baghdad is begging to have British troops fighting
alongside his army. So why is Cameron tying his own hand behind his back? It
looks suspiciously as if this is all for domestic consumption. The new Iraq
war has no strategy, not even tactics. It is a show, a token, a pretence of
a strut on the world stage.

This dispute has all the menace of religious hatred down the ages, leading a
retreat into tribalism and fear. Western intervention stirred it by
undermining the secular, mostly Ba’athist, regimes that emerged after the
second world war. The best hope now – indeed, the only hope – is that the
regional powers can assert order, as Syria’s dictator did in Lebanon after
the failure of western “policing” in the 1980s. Every corner is stiff with
armies and weapons, including Turkey, Iran, the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. All
are more threatened by Isis than is Britain. The Saudis have more than 700
jets, enough to bomb everywhere in sight. They should need no outside help.

Sooner or later Isis must disintegrate into its warring factions. The
caliphate is an implausible construct. These horrors pass. Even the
extremist Taliban in Afghanistan were mutating into a less vicious regime,
until Bush and Blair came to their rescue by invading their country in 2001
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/07/politics.september11> . In
Iraq a pincer movement of Syria, Iran, Kurdistan and Iraq itself should one
day grind Isis into submission. In doing so a new balance of power should be
established in the region, the stronger for being self-generated.

Western air strikes are supposed to aid that disintegration. For once,
British bombs are at least propping up an established government rather than
toppling one. But they are far more likely to help Isis, by recruiting
volunteers and turning Muslim opinion once more against the west. The resort
to drones and the consequent killing of civilians will also win little
political ground. Even the hawkish former US representative to Nato, Kurt
Volker, warns that
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-need-a-rule-book-for-drones/2012/
10/26/957312ae-1f8d-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_story.html>  drones nowadays
“allow our opponents to cast our country as a distant, high-tech, amoral
purveyor of death. It builds resentment, facilitates terrorist recruitment
and alienates those we should seek to inspire”.

The return to war will reinforce the politics of fear – which is the
grimmest legacy of the Blair era in Britain. It has Cameron popping in and
out of his Cobra
<http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/05/david-cameron-cobra-floods-
help-south>  bunker like a rabbit in a hole. Every government office, every
train, every airport welcomes visitors to Britain with terror warnings and
alerts. Cameron does this because he knows he can only get Britons to go to
war by portraying Isis as a “threat to Britain’s national security”. Some
Isis adherents may have criminal intent, but that is a matter for the
police. Britain survived a far greater menace from the IRA without
crumbling. Its existence is not threatened by jihadism. The claim is
ludicrous. Cameron must have no faith in his own country.

The contrast between Asia’s eastern and western extremities is now stark,
the one booming, the other descending into catastrophic instability and
medieval horror. It is impossible not to relate this to two centuries of
western imperialism and meddling. It strains belief that further
intervention – through the crudest of all forms of aggression – can bring
peace and reconciliation.

Islam’s wars are not Britain’s business. We owe their human victims all the
aid we can to relieve suffering. We do not owe them our incompetence in
trying to recast their politics. That is a task for the Arabs and their
neighbours, not for Britain’s soldiers and taxpayer

                    Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in
anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni
katika machafuko"

 

_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet

UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to