[Peace-discuss] Is there any good reason for staying in Iraq?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Christopher Hitchens, erstwhile leftist, is now an avid
supporter of the Bush wars in the Middle east.  He has a
brother, Peter, who has written for years for right-wing
journals in the UK. Here's Peter Hitchens on withdrawal from
Iraq, from the conservative paper The Mail on Sunday. --CGE]

   Is there any good reason for staying in Iraq?

Here is an imagined conversation between a normal human being
and one of those people who still thinks our troops should be
in Iraq.

"Q: Why did we invade Iraq?

A: To stop Saddam Hussein developing and using 'Weapons of
mass Destruction'.

Q. But he didn't have any, did he?

A: No, but he might have done, and why are you complaining, do
you think brutal dictators are good, is that it? Are you some
kind of Fascist?

Q: Hang on a minute, I only pointed out that the main reason
for the war turned out to be fake. What do you say to that?

A: Well, I generally try to change the subject, and I will now
do so again. The great achievement of the invasion was to
establish a true democracy in Iraq.

Q: Ah, well in that case, why can't we just leave this nice
new democracy to get on with running the country?

A: Don't be silly. Haven't you noticed that there is virtually
a civil war going on in Iraq?

Q: I'm asking the questions. But yes I have noticed. Why is
there a civil war if it's a democracy? Surely the whole idea
of democracies is that the people's will can be expressed
without violence?

A. Er, yes. But we did not foresee the resentment of the
Sunnis at being ruled by the Shia majority they used to control.

Q: Really? It sounds pretty predictable to me. But leave that
for a bit. Can our troops, or the Americans, contain or
control this civil war?

A: Actually, no. It's far too widespread and in many places
we've already handed over control of the streets to Iraqi
militias.

Q: So if our troops cannot stop the civil war, what exactly
can they do?

A: Well, what they are mostly doing now is defending their own
bases against attack.

Q: So what difference would it make if they left, except that
British families would not be suffering the loss of their
sons, brothers, and fathers?

A: We can't possibly leave. That would be completely
irresponsible. What would the world think?"

You will see that I have skewed this a bit, and made the
pro-war person a good deal more honest about the Iraqi reality
than most of them are. What makes me grind my teeth is that
these chancers, who bamboozled two great free nations into a
wrong and unjust war, had made almost no plans about what to
do once they had won it, and had hardly any idea of what sort
of country it was. It is hard to think of anything more
irresponsible. How dare they use this word - as they always do
- of those of us who opposed the war and call for the
withdrawal of troops.

Many of them are stupid, and able to fool themselves as stupid
people so often are. Others are just cowards, afraid to admit
they were wrong. Even where they have been proved to do so.
Our Prime Minister, absurdly, is sometimes described as
'brave' for sending other men's sons into battle and backing
George W. Bush when everyone else was backing away from him. I
don't think so. He was advised by the Foreign Office to stick
as close to the White House as he possibly could - which is
what they always say. When he realised that there was
definitely going to be war, even though there was no
justification for it, the courageous action would have been to
say "Sorry, but this is where we get off".

The courageous action now would be to persuade the Iraqi
government to ask us to leave within six months, and to do so.
It would strengthen that government, stop exposing our men as
targets to terrorists, and would concentrate the minds of the
Arab world and of Iran, and of Turkey, who have all - I
suspect - been irresponsibly stirring the Iraqi pot in the
hope of getting something out of it. As long as we remain,
they can blame us for the trouble. Once we go, they will need
to seek peace. I doubt very much if Iraq will become a
law-governed democracy anyway. All we can hope for now is that
the new dictator who emerges from the mess we made will not be
any worse than Saddam was.

  ###