 |
| The Leader leading the party flock. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com |
David Makinson became a Webdiary contributor in the Iraq war debate and proved a lyrical advocate for not going to war (see, for example, In defence of America). I asked him to guest edit a Webdiary on Iraq a couple of weeks ago, and it’s driven him crazy! David believes the top priority for debate should be how to give the Iraqi people a better tomorrow, and invites your comments. Send you emails to me and I’ll pass them on. David’s done a great job chewing over the themes in the postwar debate – thanks David.
I was going to write about the politics of Carmen standing for ALP president today, but got swamped by capital punishment. Her mega-manifesto on the meaning of democracy is at Ideas to save our withering democracy. It’s a brave piece, not least because she has a big go at the media. Highly recommended. It’s been a big week and I’m way behind on your emails. If you’ve sent a ripper that hasn’t got a run, please resend. Have a good weekend.
***
David Makinson, Webdiary guest editor
I’ll kick off with a topic that perplexes me. For large segments of the media and for many commentators across the political spectrum, the continuing absence of weapons of mass destruction is the key issue of the day.
Those in the pro-war camp vacillate between saying that weapons will be found to asserting that the existence of the WMD does not matter because an evil dictator has been toppled. On the other hand, many in the anti-war camp seem almost triumphant. No weapons, no case for war, seems to be the logic.
But there is little logic in this line of reasoning. In the lead up to the conflict I wrote several pieces for Webdiary arguing that the case for war had not been made. The foundation stone of my position was (and is) that Iraq posed no threat to us or to any of our allies. Because of this, the war could not be seen as a just war, and would set a terrible precedent for the future conduct of international affairs.
It is scant comfort now, but I believe my position was correct at the time and remains correct today. On the other hand, I was completely wrong about one thing.
I believed in the WMD. I accepted as a given that the WMD existed. My argument was always that even with the WMD, Iraq was not a threat.
Naturally, I’m all in favour of the eradication of WMD, but I could not accept that the mere possession of WMD is of itself a threat sufficient to justify a war. If I were to accept this line of reasoning, it would seem pretty clear where the real danger lies.
So yes, of course WMD must be found and destroyed. Hell, I even know where they are. If only more of us were as attuned to the risks of WMD as the people of Anniston, Alabama:
We Found the Weapons
* Liters of anthrax stockpiled by Iraq, according to President Bush’s State of the Union Address: 25,000
* Supposed liters of botulinum toxin Bush claimed Iraq possessed: 38,000
* Supposed tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent: 500
* Supposed number of munitions capable of delivering chemical agents: 30,000
Percent of “top weapons sites” that have been inspected by U.S. forces: 90
Number of chemical agents and weapons that have been found: 0
Pounds of banned chemical weapons currently housed in an Army depot in Anniston, Alabama: 46,830,000 (facingsouth)
The St Petersburg (Florida) Times gives some hints as to what it might be like to live with such a stockpile of death. (There’s some inconsistency on the numbers between the two sources, but you’ll get the general drift).
If the double standards and hypocrisy are hard enough for us as allies of America to stomach, God alone knows what their enemies must think.
Since WMD were not a crucial element of my anti-war position I find it difficult to get too excited that they do not seem to exist. Put another way, even if WMD had been found immediately after President Bush’s declaration of victory my opposition to the war would have been unaffected.
In this sense, the hawks who claim the non-existence of weapons does not matter are in fact partly right, albeit for entirely the wrong reasons. Perversely, I find myself in agreement with Paul Wolfowitz, who said in a recent interview: “I am not concerned about weapons of mass destruction. I am concerned about getting Iraq on its feet.”
The fact that the WMD were not found immediately does prove one thing quite categorically, however: Our leaders did not have sufficient evidence at the time they chose to go to war. Sorry boys, but stumbling on them at some later point just won’t cut it.
Of course, some in the pro-war lobby still want to argue the toss. Look at this recent little gem, WMD doubts are ludicrous from “the most influential foreign affairs analyst in Australian journalism” (well, that’s whatThe Australian calls Greg Sheridan). Note the juxtaposition of the headline and the very first sentence: “THE US has material in its possession in Iraq which, if it checks out, will be conclusive evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs”.
If it checks out. Ay, there’s the rub. Nothing whatsoever has checked out so far in this sad saga, but hey – hope springs eternal. Let’s not even mention the sneaky insertion of the word “programs”. And let’s be kind to Greg and assume that someone else puts the headlines on his columns. Ludicrous? Indeed.
So, even though doubts about WMD are entirely rational and perfectly understandable, I have a fear, now that the war is in an occupation/resistance phase, that the noise from the anti-war lobby about absent weapons and phantom deals with Niger is potentially distracting us from what should be the main game. Yes, our leaders lied to us, yes we must get angry, and yes, they must be held to account. This is necessary if we are to put our own houses in order, and I’ll have more on this later. But what about the Iraqi house that we have torn down? The real challenge is surely to focus on the giving the people of Iraq a better tomorrow. Move on. Focus on the future.
I think the most frightening prospect of all is an American withdrawal any time soon. Having gone in, they must stay to finish the job. Anything other than a long term commitment would be disastrous. If called upon, Australia must support them in this task. When I see calls like this in the American press from one Professor Hubert G. Locke, I begin to get very, very nervous for the people of Iraq:
“We should get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Why not admit that we’ve accomplished little of what was our announced intent – we haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is more likely alive than dead and “democracy” in Iraq is likely to cause as many headaches for the United States as Saddam ostensibly did. Let’s cut our losses, really support our troops and bring them home from the quagmire in Iraq.” (nwsource)
I don’t know Professor Locke and I don’t know what his politics are. But I am reasonably certain that to abandon Iraq now would be one of history’s greatest ever acts of betrayal. I pray that Locke’s views are not, and do not become, mainstream.
In that spirit of focussing on the future for Iraq, my original intention was to use my guest editing spot to highlight the thinking of some who are indeed worrying about the future for Iraq. Having spent quite some time now searching on the web, I’m very concerned that genuine forward looking Iraq analysis is terribly thin on the ground.
Does the Bush administration have any real clue how it is going to fulfil its promise of freedom and democracy? If so, it needs to do a far better PR job both within Iraq and outside, because nobody seems to have much confidence that they know what they’re doing.
We certainly cannot look to the traditional Right for answers. They are too busy spin doctoring uncomfortable truths. Many on the traditional Left are gleefully pointing out the shortcomings of the official position and giving the distinct impression that they are well pleased by the descent into guerilla warfare. This is an utterly contemptible response.
Sadly, when it comes to proposing some workable solutions, the Left continues its impressive track record of profound uselessness.
Perhaps it’s just a failing of my research, and I’d be very grateful to be re-educated on this, but the apparent absence of a sensible – and meaningful – debate on what’s next for Iraq is deeply worrying. I think Webdiary is an ideal place to start to address this, and I’d like to invite Webdiary readers to send in their own thoughts or provide references to source material.
So, having failed pretty much completely in my initial objective, I’ve decided to present a few bits and pieces which address what I think are the key themes of the war and its aftermath. I think that most of these issues should be secondary to the basic rebuilding of Iraq, but these seem to be the issues that make up most of the public debate at the moment.
1. Saddam is Gone
First and foremost, let’s all celebrate the silver lining on this particular cloud. Saddam Hussein is gone, and hopefully for good. The demise of his sons will surely boost the confidence of the Iraqi people that a brighter day is possible, and on the day that Saddam joins them on the mortuary slab, surely the world will be a better place. Whatever your view on the various arguments that surround the war, we can all recognise that this is a huge win for most Iraqis.
But before the pro-war camp gets too self-congratulatory, it’s important to remember that Australia did not go to war to topple Hussein. I can’t help but wonder how the people of Australia would have reacted to a well argued case that we needed to go to war, not because of concocted threats and tenuously imagined links, but in the simple humanitarian cause of removing an appalling dictator.
But we were not asked this question. Instead it was explicitly ruled out by Prime Minister Howard:
“Well I would have to accept that if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, I couldn’t justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I’ve never advocated that. Much in all as I despise the regime”.
I’ve never advocated that. Couldn’t be much clearer. And I think Mr Howard was entirely correct. Here’s Paul Wolfowitz in a similar vein:
“The third one (that is, rescuing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein) by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.”
That’s twice I’ve agreed with Paul Wolfowitz. I’d better stop that. My thanks to a recent piece by Tim Dunlop at roadtosurfdom for reminding me of these quotes.
2. Accountability
So – Iraq was no threat. Iraq had no proven connection with September 11. Iraq had no meaningful links with Al Qaeda. And we did not even know whether Iraq had the weapons we so feared. Our leaders took us to war, a war that it seems is not over yet, despite protestations to the contrary.
At the next electoral opportunities, President Bush, and Prime Ministers Blair and Howard must be made to face their accountability for taking us to war on false pretences. Blair is under enormous pressure right now, and seems to be the most vulnerable of the leaders. He may not even last long enough to be sacked at the next election. There have been calls for President Bush to be impeached. One of the comparisons being made is that of Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about his sex life, which does not seem quite as important as a war. (Though going by some sections of the media, this is obviously a value judgement which is far from cut and dried). Professor Marjorie Cohn:
“An independent commission headed by a special prosecutor should be convened immediately to get to the bottom of this. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex. If it is determined that Bush misled American soldiers into war, the House of Representatives should initiate impeachment proceedings against him. There is no higher crime or misdemeanor”. (counterpunch)
It’s hard to see President Bush being held to account for all this. But it seems increasingly likely that he’ll need a high profile fall guy – or gal. Higher profile than an intelligence head, anyway. I’d say Condoleezza Rice is probably not sleeping too well these nights. And maybe even Vice President Cheney will be looking over his shoulder. In a recent open memorandum to the President, veteran intelligence professionals wrote:
“We recommend that you call an abrupt halt to attempts to prove Vice President Cheney ‘not guilty’. His role has been so transparent that such attempts will only erode further your own credibility. Equally pernicious, from our perspective, is the likelihood that intelligence analysts will conclude that the way to success is to acquiesce in the cooking of their judgments, since those above them will not be held accountable. We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney’s immediate resignation.” (commondreams)
Who knows, perhaps Harry Heidelberg is right in Will Howard beat Bush? and Howard Dean will emerge as a genuine election chance. Certainly it’s a prospect that is gathering some substance. Fingers crossed.
As has been well documented, John Howard floats above the scandal. He acted on advice. He relied on intelligence. Of course, with no Australian troops remaining in harm’s way, Howard does not have to worry about an electorate whose distress grows with every day’s new body bag.
Miranda Devine thinks the PM owes his ongoing immunity to his political enemies, and she may be right – stranger things have happened. Certainly Osama Bin Laden would understand her thinking. Geoff Kitney has a different view on Howard’s immunity: It’s the economy, stupid. I suspect Geoff is a few steps closer to the truth than Miranda, but whatever the reasons, clearly our PM is accountable for nothing.
Of course, Howard’s apparent immunity infuriates the Left, as recent Webdiary pieces by Carmen Lawrence (It matters!) and Jack Robertson (Fisking John) show. I know Carmen and Jack have the very best of intentions, but they are preaching to the converted. Two thirds of Australians need no convincing that they were misled.
Sometimes it helps to see ourselves as others see us: This from American weblog Whiskey Bar:
“SYDNEY (AFP) – Two in every three Australians believe Prime Minister John Howard misled them over participation in the US-led war in Iraq, but support for his leadership remains as strong as ever, a new poll showed.
The latest Newspoll showed more than a third of respondents believed they had been lied to, while just under a third felt they had been “unknowingly misled”. Just 25 percent of respondents said they did not feel they had been misled. But Howard still held a 40 point lead over his opponent …
Reminds me of those Foster’s learn-to-speak Australian ads they were running here in the states a few years ago — particularly the one where the “locksmith” smashes the door down with his head.
Voter: the Australian word for stupid.”
Ouch. Truly, we get the government we deserve. An earlier American President, Truman, said in his farewell address: “The President – whoever he is – has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.” He had a sign on his desk saying “The Buck Stops Here”. He must have taken it with him when he left.
Here’s Antonia Zerbisias in the Toronto Star discussing the deceptions of George W Bush:
“Asked about those infamous 16 words in his State of the Union Address about Iraq shopping in Niger for yellowcake uranium, the leader of the free world replied: “The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power …”
So yes kids! We were all hallucinating when we watched news footage of reporters chasing U.N. weapons inspectors around Iraq last winter. Those were but voices in our collective head when we heard pleas from the likes of Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter to allow the digging around to continue. And we must have all swallowed a giant tab of yellowcake when we read the news of U.N. weapons inspectors scrambling to beat a path out of Baghdad on the eve of the Shock & Awe bombing campaign.
So ask yourself: How come the commander-in-chief shoots from the lip once again and nobody is talking about it?” (commondreams)
Having re-read the last few paragraphs, I wonder if I’m just too idealistic. After all, a sudden attack of honesty from our overlords would buck the trend of history in a big way, wouldn’t it? Phillip Adams gave some great examples of history’s liars in a recent article for The Australian. One quote in particular strikes a chord today:
“I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war, no matter whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging war it is not right that matters but victory.” – Adolf Hitler
Interesting parallel, but there are some differences today. The power of the internet means that the victors are most certainly being asked whether or not they told the truth.
I guess one of two things might happen from here – either politicians will in fact become more honest – gradually – and more accountable, or they will find ways to control the internet. Your guess is as good as mine on which way it will go, but they are going to find controlling the internet extremely difficult. Or will they? See commondreams.
3. Guerilla Warfare
Well, is it or isn’t it? This has been a hot topic in the global media, although I’m not entirely sure why it matters. It’s just a label after all. I suspect this is only a big topic of debate because Donald Rumsfeld said so confidently that it wasn’t a guerrilla war and has since been repudiated by just about anyone with any kind of military credentials. Here’s an excellent summary, courtesy of Whiskey Bar once again:
GUERRILLAS IN THE MIST REVISITED
It’s very small groups – one or two people – in isolated attacks against our soldiers. (Maj. Gen. Buford Blount III, remarks to reporters May 27, 2003)
I believe these are local attacks. I don’t see it on a national level. (Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, news conference June 4, 2003)
We do not see signs of central command and control direction . . . these are groups that are organized, but they’re small; they may be five or six men conducting isolated attacks against our soldiers. (L. Paul Bremer, teleconference with reporters June 12, 2003)
This is not guerrilla warfare; it is not close to guerrilla warfare because it’s not coordinated, it’s not organized, and it’s not led. (Major General Ray Odierno, teleconference with Pentagon reporters June 18, 2003)
There’s a guerrilla war there but we can win it. (Paul Wolfowitz, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, June 18, 2003)
Dangerous pockets of the old regime remain loyal to it and they, along with their terrorist allies, are behind deadly attacks designed to kill and intimidate coalition forces and innocent Iraqis. (George W. Bush, radio address, June 21, 2003)
It’s just weird. It’s totally unconventional. It’s guerrilla warfare. (Capt. Burris Wollsieffer, press interview June 23, 2003)
I think it is worth emphasizing that these guys lack the two classical ingredients of a victory in a so-called guerrilla war if that’s what you want to say they’re conducting. They lack the sympathy of the population and they lack any serious source of external support. (Paul Wolfowitz, Washington Post interview June 26, 2003)
Q: We’ve gone from a traditional, if you will, set of circumstances, rules of engagement, to more of a guerrilla war. Isn’t that accurate?
Rumsfeld: I don’t know that I would use the word. (Donald Rumsfeld, press interview June 27, 2003)
America has to understand that we’ve gone from a conventional war that ended May 1 to an unconventional war. (Centcom spokesman Capt. Jeff Fitzgibbons, Washington Post interview June 29, 2003)
I guess the reason I don’t use the phrase “guerrilla war” is because there isn’t one, and it would be a misunderstanding and a miscommunication to you and to the people of the country and the world. (Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing June 30, 2003)
Q: Are we now into a guerrilla war, do you think?
Sen. McCain: I think we’re in a phase of the reconstruction of Iraq, the installation of the principles and functions of a democratic society, which is incredibly difficult. (Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., CBS Face the Nation June 29, 2003)
We have not been able to detect any sort of coordinated, synchronized, regional or national-level operations that have been conducted against us. (Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, USA Today interview July 2, 2003)
Q: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says this is not a guerrilla war. How would the President describe it?
Fleischer: The President describes this as people who are loyal to the former regime still fighting American forces who are there, and in the process, they are becoming enemies of the Iraqi people. (Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing July 2, 2003)
“Guerrilla and insurgency operations are supported by the people, and I’ve demonstrated to my own satisfaction that the people of Iraq do not support the violence that we’re seeing right now.” (Gen. Tommy Franks, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee July 10, 2003)
Q: How organized is the resistance?
Rumsfeld: There’s a lot of debate in the intelligence community on that, and I guess the short answer is I don’t know. I think it’s very clear that it’s coordinated in regions and areas, cities, in the north particularly. To what extent is it organized throughout the country, I think there isn’t any conviction about that yet. (Donald Rumsfeld, NBC Meet the Press July 13, 2003)
People can call it what they want. I characterize it the way I just did, which is what’s actually going on. I don’t know that that’s necessarily the correct definition of organized resistance or guerrilla war, but it doesn’t make a lot of difference to me. (Donald Rumsfeld, ABC This Week July 13, 2003
I believe there’s mid-level Ba’athist, Iraqi intelligence service people, Special Security Organization people, Special Republican Guard people that have organized at the regional level in cellular structure and are conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us. (Gen. John Abizaid, Centcom Commander, Pentagon Press Conference July 16, 2003)
And so on. I tend to think it doesn’t matter. The debate serves little purpose other than to further embarrass Donald Rumsfeld. He really doesn’t need any help in this regard.
4. Freedom/Democracy for Iraq
This is another aspect of the situation which has me stumped, and I’d like to know what other Webdiarists think.
Forget for the moment all the deceits surrounding the war. One of our key promises to the people of Iraq was liberation and the creation of a democratic society. A fundamental problem here seems to be that any democratic society in Iraq would surely be dominated by the Shiite majority. A Shiite government will surely be an Islamic government (far more so than Hussein’s ever was). And surely Iraqi Shiite government would forge closer links with their counterparts in Iran?
An Islamic state, aligned with Iran? Will America ever permit this?
Here’s Robert Fisk:
“And so there has begun to grow the faint but sinister shadow of a different kind of “democracy” for Iraq, one in which a new ruler will have to use a paternalistic rule – moderation mixed with autocracy, a la Ataturk – to govern Iraq and allow the Americans to go home. Inevitably, it has been one of the American commentators from the same failed lunatic right as Wolfowitz – Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum think tank, which promotes American interests in the region – to express this in its most chilling form. He now argues that “democratic-minded autocrats can guide [Iraq] to full democracy better than snap elections”. What Iraq needs, he says, is “a democratically-minded [sic] strongman who has real authority”, who would be “politically moderate” but “operationally tough” (sic again).” (Zmag)
See commondreams for an analysis of the likelihood that the Iraqis will resist any US-imposed democracy.
Big questions. Few answers. How will the rights of minority groups be protected, if at all? How can democracy really work under the umbrella of Islam? Will Iraq continue to exist as a nation, or will it have to be carved up? Will this work take anything less than decades?
6. Yankee Go Home
Americans seem to be dying on an almost daily basis. Obviously this has impacted morale and will continue to do so. Quite apart from the message being sent clearly by some segments of the Iraqi population, it’s the US soldiers themselves who are saying send us home. See, for example, commondreams.
I have been following a blog maintained by an American soldier on the ground in Iraq. It’s an eloquent personal journal that conveys a strange mix of despair and determination. Check it out and leave a comment in support at turningtables. An extract:
“i hope iraq stands firmly on it’s feet and we are allowed to go home…i hope that iraq is allowed to make up for all the time it has lost…i hope everyone is able to see eye to eye and there will be some bit of peace in this world…because i don’t want my children back over here…and i would really like to make it through a generation with out a war…”
Sorry, soldier. You can’t go home yet.
And, finally:
7. What about the fight against global terrorism?
As we read about the latest attack in Jakarta, we have to wonder what our governments are doing which actually reduces the risk of terror attacks. It seems that whatever it is, it isn’t working. Simon Tisdall in The Guardian:
“The larger question is why, after Afghanistan and Iraq and everything else that has been said and done by western leaders since 9/11, this threat apparently remains so omnipresent – and so scary…
In Afghanistan, nebulous al-Qaida networks posed a complex and subtle challenge. Bush’s solution? Invade the country and overthrow its rulers. The Taliban may have had it coming; but that is hardly the point. This was the old-style “overwhelming force” approach long favoured by US presidents, Daddy Bush included …
The Iraq campaign was conducted, for whatever reason (and many were given), on much the same principle: kick the door down, then charge in – and to hell with the wider consequences. While such behaviour brings quick, short-term results and may be superficially gratifying, innovative or imaginative it definitely is not.
These tactics bear little relation to an effective defence against terrorism in the round, let alone to tackling its root causes. Many al-Qaida in Afghanistan were merely dispersed; now they are returning. As for Iraq, they were never there in the first place.
Deputy Pentagon chief Paul Wolfowitz still insists that “Iraq is the central battle in the war on terror”. In reality, he is now trying disingenuously to redefine all Iraqi opponents of US occupation as “terrorists” – as somehow one and the same as the people who blew up Manhattan. It won’t wash”.
Tisdall is right, of course. But being right is not enough. Pointing out the flaws in another’s position is only one step. Putting forward some practical solutions is something else again. I set myself a goal some months ago of trying to set down some workable way forward on this, but having given it my best shot, I have to concede the task is beyond me.
Ideas, anyone?