A truly foolish adventure

November 17, 2003



The Iraq invasion has proved a gigantic disaster by almost every measure.

Seven months ago, neoconservative supporters of the war on Iraq proclaimed a stunning victory. Now, as the military situation in that country deteriorates, it is time to attempt a balance sheet on the progress of the invasion and occupation thus far.

Concerning the justification for the invasion, overwhelmingly the most important fact is the failure to find even one "weapon of mass destruction". Oddly enough, it is now obvious that Iraq's oft-repeated pre-war claim - that it did not possess WMDs - was true. One of the most important questions the Anglophone democracies must now face is how and why their citizens were so comprehensively misled.

At present, best evidence suggests the near-total politicisation of the intelligence process by a Washington pro-war cabal, whose leader was US Vice-President Dick Cheney. It is now known that this cabal created its own intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans; that stale or worthless intelligence, supplied either by carpetbaggers or Iraqi exiles, was re-analysed to get the required results; that the pro-war group overrode the more cautious judgements of intelligence professionals; and that, in the end, they convinced not only President George Bush but even more intelligent people, such as the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, of the deadly danger of Saddam Hussein's vast WMD arsenal.

What has been the human cost of the invasion? The most authoritative estimate of Iraqi civilian war deaths puts the figure at between 7376 and 9178. Since the formal end of hostilities a further 2200 or so Iraqi civilians have died at coalition hands. Strangely enough, no one knows, even approximately, how many Iraqi soldiers were killed. The humanitarian group Medact recently suggested that the number might be as low as 13,500 or as high as 45,000.

What is truly astonishing is how little the US military knows about the enemy. It does not know whether or not Saddam is involved.



Coalition casualties are precisely known. More than 400 soldiers have died. Recently, the Pentagon revealed that 9000 US soldiers had been evacuated as a result of serious injury or illness, 2000 because of war wounds, 500 because of psychiatric breakdown.

What, then, beyond their casualties, have the Iraqi people experienced since the invasion? According to US occupation authorities, supplies of electricity and clean water have now finally reached their (dismal) pre-invasion levels. Urban Iraq faces massive unemployment. According to one common figure, 60 per cent of young men in Baghdad have no work. Health problems of Iraqis seem even worse than before the invasion; that is, after a decade of crippling economic sanctions.

These problems are overshadowed in the daily life of urban Iraqis by something quite new. Before the invasion Saddam Hussein set free 100,000 hardened criminals. The occupying powers subsequently dismantled Iraq's army and most of its police. Iraq is awash with weapons. The consequence of all this is the near-total breakdown of law and order. In a recent Gallup poll, 94 per cent of Iraqis said they felt more insecure now than under Saddam; 86 per cent said they or their families felt fearful about leaving their homes at night.

An enterprising American journalist, Jerry Fleischmann, visited the Baghdad morgue in September. He discovered that while before the invasion the morgue investigated 20 firearms deaths a month, in August 2003 it investigated 581. A British journalist, Suzanne Goldenberg, recently examined the post- invasion situation of women in Baghdad. She heard story after story of vicious assault and rape. "Under US occupation," she concluded, "working women have reordered their lives, wearing hijab for the first time, or travelling with male relatives. Some barely venture out at all."

Through opinion polls we now know a great deal about what the people of Iraq think of the invasion of their country. According to the recent Gallup poll, 43 per cent believe America invaded to "rob Iraq's oil"; 37 per cent to get rid of Saddam Hussein; 6 per cent to change the Middle East in the interest of Israel; 5 per cent to assist the Iraqi people; 4 per cent to destroy WMDs; 1 per cent to introduce democracy.

And what do they think of the occupation? Seventy per cent believe life will be better in five years. Most are pleased Saddam is gone. Only 40 per cent, however, believe democracy can work in Iraq. Two-thirds want American and British troops to leave within the year. A sizeable minority thinks attacks on US and British troops are sometimes justified. About a third think the US will "help" Iraq over the next five years. Half think it will do "harm". As US pollster John Zogby puts it: "Only one thing is clear: the predicted euphoria of Iraq has not materialised."

Since the occupation the military situation has steadily deteriorated. In May, attacks on coalition troops were rare. In the Iraqi summer they averaged 12 a day. At present the daily average is 35 to 40. Towards the beginning of the occupation two or three coalition troops died each week. In the past fortnight or so there have been close to 60. Soft targets have repeatedly been blown apart. Last week the CIA station chief at Baghdad warned that large numbers of Iraqis now supported the insurgency.

What is truly astonishing is how little the US military knows about the enemy. It does not know whether or not Saddam is involved. According to the US military chief, General Abizaid, there are 5000 insurgents; according to one US intelligence assessment, 50,000. The official American line is that the enemy is composed exclusively of foreign Islamists and diehard Baathist remnants. Journalists, however, have discovered anti-Saddam tribesmen who have entered the struggle because of their ancient code of honour, after the death of clansmen at coalition hands.

What, then, of the political situation? When the coalition entered Iraq it planned the swift introduction of democracy. Such a hope had no chance. For democracy to succeed, Iraq has to shrug off its Saddamite legacy; invent a liberal-democratic tradition where none exists; transcend the religious conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslims; reconcile the different world views of the profoundly religious and profoundly secular segments of society; and satisfy the nationalist appetites of the long-starved ethnic Kurds.

No form of government is harder to create than a federal democracy divided on ethnic and religious lines. It took the Swiss several hundred years. Iraq is being asked to lay the foundations in months, at a time of occupation and military insecurity, to meet the re-election timetable of President Bush.

As things stand, the coalition must now choose in Iraq between two different kinds of disaster. If their troops stay the course, they seem certain to face increasing popular hostility and military threat. If they depart relatively soon, Iraq will almost certainly descend into chaos of a fearful kind. To remain will be terrible; to leave probably worse. In my years of observing Western foreign policy, I have never witnessed a more foolish adventure than the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

Robert Manne is professor of politics at La Trobe University.

r.manne@latrobe.edu.au



This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/16/1068917668650.html

Ask the people of Iraq if they think it was worth it?

In a recent poll over 70% say it was definitely worth it. This is from the people who have to live with the consequences - not some whiney Professor.

I guess he would rather that people remained under the boot of the tyrant. Funny how all these academics seem to admire "strong men".

...from the professionally sensitive.

Hey, this guy's a Baby Hawk:

Someone who opposes the war but has always lived in a democracy protected by the military.

What the heck's wrong with these people, anyway?

Finally, you'll notice he conveniently left out the estimated 5000 Iraqis killed by the insurgents.

I wonder why that is...?

..is democracy protected by the military?

In America, democracy is protected by the men and women who vote and, when they judge it necessary, take it to the street. Period.

We all know the military has done a good job at brainwashing you but, seriously, when was the last time a gun has brought democracy to society?

As always, some members of the armed forces like yourself fancy the idea of awarding themselves imaginary merits by inventing imaginary duties.

Don't forget who pays for your uniform, the bed you sleep on, your weapon, the food you eat. These people are, with the Constitution, who you serve.

great summation, Tax Payer.

I'll want to quote that, hope you don't mind.

"Since when is democracy protected by the military?"

24/7, 365. Don't you read history? Apparently not.

"In America, democracy is protected by the men and women who vote..."

No, democracy is practiced by the men and women who vote. Unless you're talking about voting against all the candidtates who run on the "Enslave All Americans and Dismantle the Constitution" platform.

"... and, when they judge it necessary, take it to the street. Period."

Yeah. That worked out real well for you guys early this year, didn't it? Oh, wait...no, it didn't. Period.

Somebody please explain to me why a gathering of people in public wearing goofy masks and waving semi-literate signs aroound is a force for social change.

"We all know the military has done a good job at brainwashing you..."

Yes, you and all your "peace-loving" friends who have never sworn to protect with your life the right of your fellow Americans to verbally crap all over you and be generally stupid.

"...but, seriously, when was the last time a gun has brought democracy to society?"

Pay attention. It's happening in Iraq. Or did you think there was democracy before, when the two choices on the ballot were "Saddam Hussein" and "Shoot Me and My Family Now"?

"As always, some members of the armed forces like yourself fancy the idea of awarding themselves imaginary merits by inventing imaginary duties."

As always, some members of society bask in the freedoms protected by those they hold in contempt.

My service is neither imaginary nor self-invented. I've sacrificed for my country, and will continue to do so. Your thanks is not required nor is it expected. And I don't care if you keep your pompous attitude, either. You certainly don't seem shy about sharing it.

"Don't forget who pays for your uniform, the bed you sleep on, your weapon, the food you eat. These people are, with the Constitution, who you serve."

I constantly think about them. I make sure they get good service for their money. I leave every assignment better than when I found it, and I have a stack of medals to prove it.

Like I said, my service is not predicated on your gratitude. If you don't want the military, by all means, vote, write your elected representatives, or run for office yourself and try to abolish the military.

And when (not if) all that fails, you can always take to the streets. Don't forget your goofy mask.

When you quote Taxpayer, be sure to quote my reply, so you don't wind up looking like an idiot, too.

Considering the exhaustive, two-folded vituperations of our friend above, it appears that my first comment hit the nail (or the nerve of somebody).

I don't hold any copyright on my opinions; feel free to quote and thanks for the nice compliment by the way.

All you hit was the tired old leftie anti-military position.

Nice rebuttal, by the way.

So, now perhaps you'd care to answer my question: Why is walking around on the street holding signs and chanting going to change the world?