16 Feb 2003
Invading Iraq
Updated, 2008: My support for the invasion was predicated on there being some kind of
reasonably concrete and well-thought-through plan for what to do in the
country afterwards. Stuff like introducing swift improvements in things
like security, politics, power, sanitation and education. But it seems this somehow
was not the case. The initial act of tyrant-toppling was swiftly and
well done, but a jawdoppingly inept lack of adequate plans and actions
in its wake has squandered that opportunity in just about the most expensive and bloody way
imaginable.
Updated, 2007: well that didn't go as I'd hoped.
I don't like it, but I think we should
Yesterday saw enormous demonstrations all around the world against a possible war against Iraq. Opinions differ about quite how many people turned up in London - the police say 750,000 and the organisers say 2,000,000. Either way, that's an awful lot of people. So, as everyone else seems to be venting their opinion of this subject, I'll vent mine.
I think we should back the US and help them invade Iraq.
I don't want a war, I don't want to invade a country whose people have never hurt me, but I think we should do it. And the people of Iraq will be considerably better off as a result.
I wish that the whole sorry mess which is Iraq would just somehow magically clear itself up, in some way which doesn't involve anybody getting hurt. But, regardless of what any protest banners might say, a nice cup of tea isn't going to solve anything and in practise I can see only three possible things that can be done about Iraq.
- Keep things as they are, with the sanctions in place and Saddam Hussein still in power. But this is a pretty murderous course of action. Apparently the sanctions, Saddam's rule, or some combination of the two are killing an awful lot of (100,000 is sometimes mentioned) Iraqi children per year through malnutrition and preventable diseases. So we'd better accept that keeping up the sanctions will make sure that huge numbers of Iraqis continue to die.
And as an aside; will people please stop calling the sanctions "British and American sanctions", with the implication that all those dead Iraqi children are somehow our fault? Because they aren't - they're United Nations sanctions.
- Don't topple Saddam Hussein, lift the sanctions. Food and medicines flood into Iraq, there is peace, love and prosperity for all, birdsong fills the air. Except not, because with the sanctions gone there is nothing to stop Saddam from re-arming, restarting biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes and going on to generally act like the aggressive bastard he is. And while I'm on the subject of Iraq's armaments I'd like to point out that the Iraqi army drives Russian tanks, carries Russian rifles, uses Russian anti-aircraft missiles, drives Russian, French and a few American armoured personnel carriers and their air force flies Russian and French jets. So the cry of "America and Britain armed Iraq" really ought to go "America and Britain sold some arms to Iraq but so did the French and Italians and Chinese and you should have seen the amount of stuff the Russians sold them". But that doesn't trip off the tongue quite as easily.
- Depose Saddam and then lift the sanctions. This is where invasion comes in, because I can't think of any practical way of deposing Saddam which does not involve an invasion. Opposition within Iraq can't do it because making subversive mutterings to the wrong person wins you a quick trip to the execution chamber (if you're lucky). The opposition parties outside Iraq can't do it because they're... well... outside Iraq, and as soon as they try to do anything inside Iraq they start winning trips to the execution chamber. I'm open to other suggestions, but I can't think of any practical way of deposing him and I haven't seen anyone else give any (including people who say "There are other ways of removing him" and then don't elaborate), other than invading.
Yes, invading will cause civilian deaths. It's absolutely unavoidable, although I am certain that every effort will be made to minimise them (and Dianne Abbot, interviewed on 'PM' yesterday was talking out of her ar rubbish when she says "The pentagon's war plan for this war includes carpet-bombing of Baghdad"). As sure as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning our invasion of Iraq will kill civilians, including women and children and the elderly. Iraqi soldiers will also be killed, though they have some choice in the matter because instead of fighting they can always throw down their arms and run away before our forces reach them. But as well as counting those who will be killed by the invasion we must also count those who will live because of it. It is simple arithmetic that if deposing Saddam and lifting the sanctions will prevent the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis every year it doesn't take long before an invasion results in a net saving of life.
The other effect of an invasion will (probably) be an eruption of fighting, struggling for power and grudge-settling among the various populations, factions, interest groups and parties within Iraq. It could be like Yugoslavia all over again. But that's going to happen anyway whenever the existing government falls - be it in a month's time when we invade, or in ten year's time when Saddam dies in his sleep, or in twenty year's time when someone assassinates Saddam's successor. At least when we invade it happens at the same time as a powerful foreign army arrives, offering some possibility of detering violence and keeping some sort of order. Otherwise what will happen is a new Yugoslavia / Rwanda / Sierra Leonne will unfold while the "international community" does nothing for months on end except wring its hands and hold conferences about how awful this is and what ought to be done.
All three of the possible courses are messy, bloody and dangerous. There is no clean, pure, moral way out. Invasion is simply the least bad available course of action.
And post-invasion Iraq? Make sure it gets a proper government - an actual democracy. Not another Saddam or a Shah or another replacement dictator, but a decent government (however one might define that) with the interests of the country's people at heart.
