Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Four years on... we should remember, this was the Republican Party's war.

Four years ago today the Iraqi misadventure began. Four years ago today Bush launched his ill fated mission "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".

Four years later we now know that Iraq did not possess WMD, Saddam had no contact with terrorists and that 51% of Iraqis say that attacks on coalition troops are justified.

Half of the Iraqis who responded to recent opinion poll said that life was better under Saddam.

Opinion polls in Britain paint a similarly gloomy picture of public trust in their government with 55% of people indicating that they feel less safe because of the Iraq war and a further 51% saying that they would not trust the government were they to claim they needed to take action against a country in similar circumstances.

Only 5% of Brits feel that the Iraq war has made Britain a safer place.

It's a figure so small that it's probably safe to surmise that there are more hot air balloon enthusiasts in this country than people who feel safer as a result of Bush's Iraqi misadventure.

It is also true to say that the past four years have had a hideous toll on British faith in it's political leadership.

If the Iraqis are those who have suffered most grievously, they are not the only ones. The past four years have been bad for the British Army, whose troops have had to fight a war they know almost no one at home backs. Admiration for their courage and commitment cannot ennoble a cause which is not only futile but wrong. They have been bad years for the British political process, reducing public faith in our secret services and, most particularly, the political elite who, as Hans Blix put it recently, removed the question marks from intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and replaced them with exclamation marks. They have reduced credence in the impartiality of inquiries, with the highly politicised investigations of Lord Hutton and Lord Butler, and damaged the reputation of the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, who first insisted that regime change was an insufficient legal basis for war and then mysteriously changed his mind.

They have been bad years for the relationship between Britain and the United States - maintaining which was, ironically, at the heart of the Blair strategy to fly at the wing of a bellicose president who, as one US academic put it, comes across as the quintessential ugly American: arrogant, uncouth, uncultured, ignorant, inconsiderate and aggressive. At his behest, Britain has been complicit in allowing intelligence and facts to be fixed around policy. We have managed to make a martyr out of the loathsome executed tyrant. And yet we have demonstrated no influence in pushing Washington to accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker, who was secretary of state under George Bush's father. Instead, the British and American leaders have flown on blithely, never having even the grace to admit, as did the two US pilots who shot the British convoy in which Corporal Matty Hull died and immediately exclaimed: "We're in jail, dude."

Immune as both men are from the discipline imposed by the need to get re-elected, they blunder on, thinking only of the legacy of history. It will offer a harsh verdict. Iraq has made the United States look much weaker in the eyes of the world. Britain has become almost as anti-American as France has been historically; only one-third of Britons now regard Washington as a force for good.

Against this hellish backdrop, Bush took to the airwaves last night to appeal to Americans to stay the course. He said, "Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult, but it can be won. It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through." He added: "It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that our best option is to pack up and go home. While that may be satisfying in the short run, the consequences for American security would be devastating."

The consequences for American security are, indeed, devastating. I watched a fascinating clip on Crooks and Liars yesterday where Richard Perle - yes, I know, he still has the gall to appear in public without his sackcloth and ashes - demanded that Democrats explain how withdrawal from Iraq is not a defeat. It was fascinating because this point seemed to put the Democrats on their back foot, as even they struggle to somehow describe this debacle as a success. The truth is, despite what even the Democrats may try to say, that the Iraq war is lost. Democrats should stop trying to put a spin on this and start saying that the Republican party have lost their war of choice.

For this was not an American war, this was a Republican war. It was a war that the same people who later surrounded Bush demanded that Clinton undertake in 1998. Clinton had the good sense not to follow their lead, however Bush enthusiastically embraced their flawed ideology.

The results are on display for all to see. The United States is perceived now as weaker than she was four years ago. Iraq, which was supposed to be the example of American military superiority that would make other nations cower in fear, revealed only the limitations of American military might, and emboldened her enemies.

It's a disaster on every imaginable level. It's a disaster for the people of Iraq, it's a disaster for America's traditional role as the world's policeman, and it's a disaster for America's allies - like the UK - who followed Bush and this flawed and immoral policy.

But it wasn't the Democrats who were calling for this war, nor was it the ordinary American voter. The people who led the vanguard and who cheer led this war every step of the way were a small group of neocons.

It was their war. It is their disaster. And any attempt by this small group of ideological nutcases to spread the blame among the populace should be instantly refuted.

Republicans love to talk about taking responsibility. It's time they took full responsibility for the disaster they have brought upon Iraq and America's reputation. They demanded war and attacked the patriotism of anyone who questioned their logic. The fact that the Democrats responded to this fearmongering does not reduce the responsibility of the fearmongerers. They remain the people who endorsed and demanded that others endorse the policy.

It was their policy. It was their war. Four years on, it's their anniversary.

Happy anniversary, fuckwits.

2 comments:

Crankster said...

I don't understand why Americans allow their government to continue this illegal invasion.

I'm Malaysian and everyday I witness the fervent anti-American sentiment increasing.

Most Americans I know are incredible people and I don't want anything bad to happen to them.

Is It Really A War Against Terror?

Kel said...

Crankshaft, I think most Americans are now oppossed to the war as the expressed at the last election.

The problem here is that George Bush isn't big enough to admit defeat. And more Iraqis and Americans will die because he isn't willing to say that he screwed this one up.