The Pot and the Kettle: the Iraq War.

People living in Western liberal democracies have short memories. That makes them self-righteous. Perhaps a stroll down memory lane is due.

This week was the twentieth anniversary of the Iraqi War. Use your memory, my friend.



Twenty years ago your TV screen was showing that or something very much like it.

As a consequence of that war, the whole Arab world, from the Tigris River in the east, to the Atlantic Ocean in the west, was destabilised. Already poor countries lost valuable infrastructure. Millions of people were displaced or left disabled, orphaned or destitute.

But let’s talk about deaths only. Nobody knows how many people died in that war. The lowest partial death estimates range from some 100 thousand to 113 thousand civilians killed between 2003 and 2021. A higher estimate shows some 600 thousand civilians and combatants killed between March 2003 and June 2006 alone (roughly two thirds of them, civilians, including women and children).

How did we get there?

----------

Let’s go back in time a little earlier, to the beginning of the War on Terror.

“Rescue workers climb over and dig through piles of rubble
from the destroyed World Trade Center as the American flag
billows over the debris.” [A]

The 9/11 terrorist attacks were a powerful motivator. After them, the US was riding an understandable wave of international solidarity. The American Bush II Administration didn’t need to argue their case: images spoke for themselves. The UN Security Council’s recognition of the US’s right to self-defence (UN SC Resolution 1368, September 12) was proof of that: the PRC and Russia could have vetoed it, but didn’t.

The US also demanded from the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership – all very reasonable and entirely within their rights. In short, the American Government was ostensibly acting within international laws and a peaceful, civilised solution to the crisis seemed possible.

The Taliban, however, refused thereby giving the US Government additional justification for a direct military intervention. The result was Operation Enduring Freedom. It started less than a month after 9/11, initially as a bombing campaign.

Days later, with bombs raining over Afghan soil, the Taliban relented and offered Bin Laden. It was the Americans’ turn to refuse. That was a lot less reasonable, but charitably one could say that emotions were running too high on the American side. Regardless, ground operations began.

Canadian and Australian troops joined the Anglo-American forces already deployed. Soon many others followed.

This table below shows the countries contributing combat troops:

It shows more than that. It shows that the invasion of Afghanistan was not a purely American thing: many took their side. Together with Resolution 1368 that made the invasion a legitimate matter. Think of it this way: if you wanted to argue the American President launched a war of aggression, you’d need to argue all those heads of state/government also launched a war of aggression.

In a matter of weeks the Taliban regime collapsed. This was no surprise. At one hand, Taliban fighters were little more than glorified brigands having no foreign support. On the other hand, this was in all but name the first extra-European NATO war. Although the US did by far the heavy lifting, virtually all NATO members as of 2001 (plus overseas partners) sent troops. That’s saying a lot: as Australian Army Major General (ret.) Mick Ryan loves to remind us, those are the world’s most professional militaries, led by the most competent officers – extremely expensive, too, I’d add.

However, by 2003 la crème de la crème of militaries had failed to achieve their stated goal: the original targets of the invasion – Bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leadership, and the Taliban chieftains were neither captured and brought to justice, nor killed.

Worse still: the Taliban had suffered terrible losses, but were still fighting.

----------

By 2003 the Bush Administration decided to take advantage of Islamophobia’s demonstrated motivating power.

Enter Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Against usual recollections, the American case against Iraq was based on three allegations:

1. The Iraqi regime was linked to al-Qaeda (“Saddam had an established relationship with al-Qaeda, providing training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons” – Vice President Dick Cheney, October 2003).
2. The most remembered rationale: they had developed and stockpiled weapons of mass destruction (“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” – President George W. Bush, March 17; “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more” – Secretary of State Colin Powell, February 5) and they or the terrorists they sponsored were ready to unleash them against the Western world.
3. Saddam Hussein was a bastard, so Iraqis would welcome his ousting, no matter what (“Of course there is no doubt that Iraq, the region and the whole world would be better off without Saddam” – UK PM Tony Blair, September 24, 2001).

The first allegation was outrageously absurd: Hussein and Bin Laden may have been evil bastards, but evil bastards who despised and feared each other. This may come as a shock to Western talking heads, but there’s no universal brotherhood of evil men. Their mutual loathing was founded: the former was a sexually promiscuous atheist, drunk, and thief, the latter was an ascetic religious fanatic hellbent on imposing a medieval morality on others. Nonsensical as this allegation was, it was a transparently deliberate attempt at exploiting Islamophobia. After all, that worked brilliantly two years earlier, it was worth a try now, I suppose.

The second one was only a little less absurd. It was easier to falsify in real life though: the UN WMDs inspection team, led by Hans Blix, had left no stone unturned and no evidence of WMDs was found. Nada.

Of the three allegations the third was the most plausible: Iraqis would be glad to see Saddam Hussein’s back. It was also the least compelling: okay, Iraqis despise Saddam, so it follows that Western powers should spare no effort to remove him? Seriously?

It was plain to see – even at the time – the whole thing was out-and-out baloney.

But even many unwilling to dismiss outright the whole case still opposed the new American adventure on other grounds. For example, because the most professional militaries in the world were already in deep doodoo, stuck in the Afghan quagmire. In short, it was inconvenient from a military standpoint.

There were other misgivings. ONA intelligence analyst and former Australian Army Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wilkie (currently independent MP for Clark):

“I think that invading Iraq at this time would be wrong. For a start, Iraq does not pose a security threat to any other country at this point in time. Its military is very weak, it's a fraction of the size of the military at the time of the invasion of Kuwait. Its weapons of mass destruction program is very disjointed and contained by the regime that's been in place since the last Gulf War. And there is no hard intelligence linking the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda in any substantial or worrisome way.” – March 12.

To recreate the universal support Americans enjoyed for the invasion of Afghanistan was now impossible.

Unsurprisingly, unlike two years earlier, the UN Security Council did not pass the resolution the US wanted, authorising their invasion of Iraq. Worse, France – an important ally of the US, indeed, their first ally – joined Russia and Choina voting against the resolution.

Resistance against the pro-war Borg was futile, however. Either out of stupidity or dishonesty, or both, Australia’s then COALition Government stubbornly parroted their American masters’ cheat sheets:

“Iraq’s continued defiance of the UN and its possession of CBW (chemical and biological weapons) and its pursuit of a nuclear capability poses a real and unacceptable threat to the stability and security of our world.” – Prime Minister John Howard, March 3.

“Possession of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons by terrorists would constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people.” – PM Howard, March 18.

“Saddam Hussein does have proven links to terrorism. The combination of his weapons of mass destruction and the determination of terrorists to acquire them is for this government an unacceptable threat.” – Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, March 18.

In spite of the hawks, this time few countries sided with the Yanks:

Eventually Denmark, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic, South Korea, and Japan were persuaded to also contribute in a way or another. Compare the list of attendants to the Iraq “party” and the list of those attending the Afghanistan one. Quite a difference, uh?

Clearly that difference means something, but what exactly?

ABC agenda-pushers in foreign affairs have become very fond of the words “humiliation” and “isolation”. Well, that list says both, humiliation and isolation: the invasion of Iraq was to be an American thing. Unlike the UK, Australia and Poland, even moderately decent and civilised governments would not take part in that war.

It says more than that. That made of the invasion of Iraq, waged without the approval of the UN Security Council, an illegal war. To be blunt: it was a war of aggression, a war crime in itself.

Don’t take my word for that. Ask the then UN Secretary General:

Koffi Annan, UN Secretary General (source)

Or ask Geoffrey Robertson, KC.

Twenty years after America’s Iraqi adventure started – twenty two after NATO’s Afghan one – the elite of the world’s militaries saw their highly professional, magnificently equipped and trained, expertly led and expensive asses kicked by a bunch of quasi illiterate, lousy half gangsters/half medieval anti-crusaders, untrained, undisciplined, lacking any support from overseas and equipped with whatever museum pieces they could lay their dirty hands on. Twice, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Aussie soldier poses with 1880 rifle seized from Taliban (source)

Australian talking heads – like the ABC’s John Lyons – never mention it, but what you saw on your TV screen 20 years ago was the beginning of a war of aggression. The Australian Government enthusiastically joined in that enterprise. Perhaps that explains those people’s reluctance.

To use the words willingly amnesiac Aussie pollies love (I’m looking at you, Albo): the governments of the UK, Australia, and Poland were America’s main accomplices in that unprovoked, brutal, criminal war of choice. Those, Albo, were not autocracies, but four Western liberal democracies (if you can call Poland, a nation ruled by bigots, xenophobes, racists, homophobes and woman-haters – equivalently, fundamentalist Catholic religious fanatics – a liberal democracy).

When it comes to the Iraq invasion, two evil autocracies were on the side of the angels. And a select group of Western liberal democracies, with their mighty militaries, were on the opposing side; on top, they were the losers. I don’t know about you, but that makes me see the arch-villains of today – Russia and Choina – in a more charitable light.

----------

Three of those four Western liberal democracies subscribed to the Rome Convention and fall, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In particular, Australia and the UK, where John Howard and Tony Blair live, did sign the Rome Convention.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. That is something Aussies, particularly politicians and journalists, should keep in mind. Get off your high horse, mate.


Image Credits:
[A] “Rescue workers climb over and dig through piles of rubble from the destroyed World Trade Center as the American flag billows over the debris.”. Author: Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo. Source: WikiMedia. File in the public domain. Nobody endorses me or my use of the file.