[Peace-discuss] Lying their way out

[C. G. Estabrook]

[We might debate aspects of this -- e.g., I don't think the US lost the 
war in Vietnam, nor do I think the US is about to leave Iraq -- but 
Younge is surely right about the cover story that the US and UK 
governments are constructing in order to neutralize the majority antiwar 
sentiment in both countries.  --CGE]


They lied their way into Iraq. Now they are trying to lie their way out
Bush and Blair will blame anyone but themselves for the consequences of 
their disastrous war - even its victims
Gary Younge
Monday November 27, 2006
The Guardian

'In the endgame," said one of the world's best-ever chess players, José 
Raúl Capablanca, "don't think in terms of moves but in terms of plans." 
The situation in Iraq is now unravelling into the bloodiest endgame 
imaginable. Both popular and official support for the war in those 
countries that ordered the invasion is already at a low and will only 
get lower. Whatever mandate the occupiers may have once had from their 
own electorates - in Britain it was none, in the US it was precarious - 
has now eroded. They can no longer conduct this war as they have been doing.

Simultaneously, the Iraqis are no longer able to live under occupation 
as they have been doing. According to a UN report released last week, 
3,709 Iraqi civilians died in October - the highest number since the 
invasion began. And the cycle of religious and ethnic violence has 
escalated over the past week.

The living flee. Every day up to 2,000 Iraqis go to Syria and another 
1,000 to Jordan, according to the UN's high commissioner for refugees. 
Since the bombing of Samarra's Shia shrine in February more than 1,000 
Iraqis a day have been internally displaced, a recent report by the 
UN-affiliated International Organisation for Migration found last month.

Those in the west who fear that withdrawal will lead to civil war are 
too late - it is already here. Those who fear that pulling out will make 
matters worse have to ask themselves: how much worse can it get? Since 
yesterday American troops have been in Iraq longer than they were in the 
second world war. When the people you have "liberated" by force are no 
longer keen on the "freedom" you have in store for them, it is time to go.

Any individual moves announced from now on - summits, reports, 
benchmarks, speeches - will be ignored unless they help to provide the 
basis for the plan towards withdrawal. Occupation got us here; it cannot 
get us out. Neither Tony Blair nor George Bush is in control of events 
any longer. Both domestically and internationally, events are 
controlling them. So long as they remain in office they can determine 
the moves; but they have neither the power nor the credibility to shape 
what happens next.

So the crucial issue is no longer whether the troops leave in defeat and 
leave the country in disarray - they will - but the timing of their 
departure and the political rationale that underpins it.

For those who lied their way into this war are now trying to lie their 
way out of it. Franco-German diplomatic obstruction, Arab indifference, 
media bias, UN weakness, Syrian and Iranian meddling, women in niqabs 
and old men with placards - all have been or surely will be blamed for 
the coalition's defeat. As one American columnist pointed out last week, 
we wait for Bush and Blair to conduct an interview with Fox News 
entitled If We Did It, in which they spell out how they would have 
bungled this war if, indeed, they had done so.

So, just as Britain allegedly invaded for the good of the Iraqis, the 
timing of their departure will be conducted with them in mind. The fact 
that - according to the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett - it will 
coincide with Blair leaving office in spring is entirely fortuitous.

More insidious is the manner in which the Democrats, who are about to 
take over the US Congress, have framed their arguments for withdrawal. 
Last Saturday the newly elected House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, 
suggested that the Americans would pull out because the Iraqis were too 
disorganised and self-obsessed. "In the days ahead, the Iraqis must make 
the tough decisions and accept responsibility for their future," he 
said. "And the Iraqis must know: our commitment, while great, is not 
unending."

It is absurd to suggest that the Iraqis - who have been invaded, whose 
country is currently occupied, who have had their police and army 
disbanded and their entire civil service fired - could possibly be in a 
position to take responsibility for their future and are simply not 
doing so.

For a start, it implies that the occupation is a potential solution when 
it is in fact the problem. This seems to be one of the few things on 
which Sunni and Shia leaders agree. "The roots of our problems lie in 
the mistakes the Americans committed right from the beginning of their 
occupation," Sheik Ali Merza, a Shia cleric in Najaf and a leader of the 
Islamic Dawa party, told the Los Angeles Times last week.

"Since the beginning, the US occupation drove Iraq from bad to worse," 
said Harith al-Dhari, the nation's most prominent Sunni cleric, after he 
fled to Egypt this month facing charges of supporting terrorism.

Also, it leaves intact the bogus premise that the invasion was an 
attempt at liberation that has failed because some squabbling ingrates, 
incapable of working in their own interests, could not grasp the basic 
tenets of western democracy. In short, it makes the victims responsible 
for the crime.

Withdrawal, when it happens, will be welcome. But its nature and the 
rationale given for it are not simply issues of political point-scoring. 
They will lay the groundwork for what comes next for two main reasons.

First, because, while withdrawal is a prerequisite for any lasting 
improvement in Iraq, it will not by itself solve the nation's 
considerable problems.

Iraq has suffered decades of colonial rule, 30 years of dictatorship and 
three years of military occupation. Most recently, it has been trashed 
by a foreign invader. The troops must go. But the west has to leave 
enough resources behind to pay for what it broke. For that to happen, 
the anti-war movement in the west must shift the focus of our arguments 
to the terms of withdrawal while explaining why this invasion failed and 
our responsibilities to the Iraqi people that arise as a result of that 
failure.

If we don't, we risk seeing Bono striding across airport tarmac 10 years 
hence with political leaders who demand good governance and democratic 
norms in the Gulf, as though Iraq got here by its own reckless 
psychosis. Eviscerated of history, context and responsibility, it will 
stand somewhere between basket case and charity case: like Africa, it 
will be misunderstood as a sign not of our culpability but of our 
superiority.

Second, because unless we understand what happened in Iraq we are doomed 
to continue repeating these mistakes elsewhere. Ten days ago, during a 
visit to Hanoi, Bush was asked whether Vietnam offered any lessons. He 
said: "We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the 
task in Iraq is going to take a while ... We'll succeed unless we quit."

In other words, the problem with Vietnam was not that the US invaded a 
sovereign country, bombed it to shreds, committed innumerable 
atrocities, murdered more than 500,000 Vietnamese - more than half of 
whom were civilians - and lost about 58,000 American servicemen. The 
problem with Vietnam was that they lost. And the reason they lost was 
not because they could neither sustain domestic support nor muster 
sufficient local support for their invasion, nor that their military was 
ill equipped for guerrilla warfare. They lost because it takes a while 
to complete such a tricky job, and the American public got bored.

"You learn more from a game you lose than a game you win," argued the 
chess great Capablanca. True, but only if you heed the lessons and then 
act on them.

gary.younge at guardian.co.uk