The Osterley Times: Five Years On.....

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Five Years On.....

Five years after George Bush, the least curious person ever to hold his high office, launched his war of choice against Iraq, we have an Iraqi death toll that some suggest exceeds one million civilians, the price of oil has risen from $30 a barrel to $106 a barrel and Iraqis who used to enjoy 16-24 hours of electricity a day under Saddam are now lucky if they receive 7.5 hours of electricity on any given day.

These facts - and the fact that Iraqis continue to flee their country looking for safety - undermines President Bush's claim that the surge is working and that progress is being achieved in Iraq.

To mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, the Independent newspaper has a collection of articles from some of the fine commentators who have consistently been proven to understand what is happening in Iraq with far greater clarity than the occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Robert Fisk reminds us that people like Pat Buchanan predicted before the war exactly how this was all going to play out. Because Buchanan, like Fisk, had taken the time to attempt to put the invasion into it's historical context, something which the Bush administration pointedly did not, believing that history, like reality, could be fashioned to their liking by the sheer force of American firepower.

"With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavour at which Islamic people excel is expelling imperial powers by terror or guerrilla war.

"They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."

Because, of course, the one thing Bush and McCain want to avoid admitting is that like many imperial powers before them, they will eventually be driven from yet another Islamic country. Just as they lied to get the US and the UK into the war so they now lie to keep us in a war that they cannot win.

As Patrick Cockburn puts it in another excellent article:

Mr Cheney was back in Baghdad this week, five years later almost to the day, to announce that there has been "phenomenal" improvements in Iraqi security. Within hours, a woman suicide bomber blew herself up in the Shia holy city of Kerbala, killing at least 40 and wounding 50 people. Often it is difficult to know where the self-deception ends and the deliberate mendacity begins.

The irony is that this collection of tiny men, men who have acquiesced in a Presidency which will rank alongside the very worst in US history, have not only the gall to present their failure in Iraq as a success story, but that they had the nerve to compare themselves to Churchill as they embarked on a war in a region that they appeared neither to comprehend nor empathise with. As Fisk reminds us, Churchill at least told the story of war without the need to spin and deceive:

But we told the truth. When the British were retreating to Dunkirk, Churchill announced that the Germans had "penetrated deeply and spread alarm and confusion in their tracks".

Why didn't Bush or Blair tell us this when the Iraqi insurgents began to assault the Western occupation forces? Well, they were too busy telling us that things were getting better, that the rebels were mere "dead-enders".

On 17 June 1940, Churchill told the people of Britain: "The news from France is very bad and I grieve for the gallant French people who have fallen into this terrible misfortune." Why didn't Blair or Bush tell us that the news from Iraq was very bad and that they grieved – even just a few tears for a minute or so – for the Iraqis?

It has been a war of spin that, shamefully, continues to this very day with Cheney back in Iraq seeing victory just over the next hill, just as he saw the probable death of Saddam as the result of an American missile attack on April 7 five long years ago:

"I think we did get Saddam Hussein," said the US Vice President, Dick Cheney. "He was seen being dug out of the rubble and wasn't able to breathe."

The news of the Iraqi dictator's death, like so much that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth, was greatly exaggerated.

Five years on the newspaper's editorial reminds us that "the objective was a benign and democratic Middle East – an environment in which Israel and the Palestinians could make peace, and energy exports were plentiful and secure."

Now, Bush attempts to define progress by the fact that the surge is producing less Iraqi civilian casualties rather than any of the lofty goals he cited as the reasons for going in.

The editorial states what should be obvious to all:

On the world stage, both the US and Britain are smaller countries.

Five years on, the totality of our failure is clear. But worse even than that failure, perhaps, is the obstinate refusal of our political leaders to learn the obvious lessons.