Tony Blair in Baghdad

Published on May 22, 2006 By Chakgogka In Politics

As far as the events unfolding in Iraq are concerned, I remain an agnostic. I thought at the time (on balance), that the decision to invade was a mistake, not because it was undesirable to get rid of Saddam Hussein, or that he hadn’t provided more than enough provocation to warrant attack, but because I was sceptical about how clearly the ‘coalition’ had thought about what was to come next, following Saddam’s miltary defeat. More importantly, I had (and still have), real concerns about the use and abuse of war as an instrument of foreign policy. This is not at all from a pacifist point of view - I acknowledge that there are times when war is unavoidable - but I really wasn’t sure if this was one of those times. I see war as a measure of absolutely last resort simply because, no matter how high tech and precision-targetted the weapons, they will still render thousands of innocent civilians – men, women and children – into small blood-soaked pieces; and no matter how highly disciplined the troops, they will still find themselves in situations where discipline breaks down and prisoners and civilians will be abused and sometimes murdered. (It needs to be remembered also that ‘prisoners’ in this confused war situation means anyone from enemy combatants, to international terrorists, to innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time). This will happen even with the most disciplined of armies; it’s an inevitable part of the controlled psychosis we call war, and no slur on any particular nation’s military.

I’ve read with interest the arguments of supporters of the invasion, saying that the number of Iraqi citizens killed or abused during the invasion was far fewer than those murdered annually by Saddam Hussein during his hideous tyranny. That may indeed be so, although a lot of people on both sides have played politics with casualty figures, not just of the coalition troops who have died, but also the Iraqi men, women and children who were fatally ‘collaterally damaged’ during the invasion.

This, however, is all yesterday’s news. Hussein has been removed and is on trial. Iraq has held free elections and just recently appointed a new prime minister - and the way in which he came to replace his predecessor was entirely constitutional and peaceful, even if it occurred against the backdrop of escalating violence in the country at large. If you want more information than the media is giving, you’ll find plenty of bloggers who will tell you either that the sacrifices were all in vain as Iraq slides into inevitable civil war, or that Iraq is about to become an oasis of peace, prosperity and democracy in a troubled region, depending upon which ‘side’ they take on the issue of the invasion. I would hope, however, that all people of good will would reject any notion of ‘wanting’ Iraq to slide into bloody chaos as a ‘vindication’ of the anti-war position.

A lot of blood has been shed to get to where we are now. There are both hopeful and troubling signs. A lot rides on the sincerity of the efforts to stabilise the situation. British prime minister Tony Blair, who has at least impressed me by seeming to agonise more than some hawks about the deaths that have brought us to where we are today, is currently paying a surprise visit to Baghdad to show support for his new Iraqi counterpart Nouri Malik. Even with all the inevitable security around his visit, he is still, to a certain extent, putting himself in the firing line. In a way this is fitting. It is arguable that he has a stronger, clearer vision of what he hopes to achieve, not only in Iraq but in the whole region, than most of the politicians in Washington. It was Blair after all who cashed in the chips won by steadfastly supporting the United States, to move the Bush administration to look towards what Blair sees as a wider resolution of the problems of the middle east.

Blair and Malik held a joint press conference earlier today. According to the BBC, Blair said, “For the first time, we have a government of national unity that crosses all boundaries and divides, that is there for a four-year term and [is] directly elected by the votes of millions of Iraqi people”. Link

Whatever people may hope for, we don’t actually know what the future will bring. It is certain however that if the current Iraqi government is to succeed in bringing peace, prosperity and freedom to the nation, they will need more support of the kind they are receiving today.

Comments

Dr Guy

on May 22, 2006

Excellent Article. Thanks for sharing.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!