A "Liberal" war supporter defects, admits it was folly to trust Bushists

[BurtWorm]

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=831

After three years, after 150,000 dead, why I was wrong about Iraq
A melancholic mea culpa



A few weeks ago, a small moment – a little line of text – underlined for me how far life in Iraq has slumped. As I was reading a story, the ticker-tape on the BBC News website casually stated: ‘Car bomb in Baghdad; 50 dead.’ There were no accompanying details. When these Iraqi suicide-massacres started to happen in Iraq, I would nervously call my friends out in Baghdad and Basra and Hilla to make sure they were okay. But I soon realised this was antagonising them, driving every bomb further into their skulls – should they store a standard text ‘No, not killed in suicide bomb today’ message and send it out three times a day? So I swallowed hard, waited, and the next day, I looked through all the newspapers for details. Nobody mentioned it. Suicide-slaughters the size of 7/7 are now so common they don’t even bleed into News in Brief.

So after three years and at least 150,000 Iraqi corpses, can those of us who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein for the Iraqis’ sake still claim it was worth it? (I am assuming the people who bought the obviously fictitious arguments about WMD are already hanging their heads in shame). George Packer, a recalcitrant Iraq-based journalist who tentatively supported the invasion, summarises the situation in the country today: “Most people aren’t free to speak their minds, belong to a certain group, wear what they want, or even walk down the street without risking their lives.” In many regions – including the British controlled South – power has been effectively ceded to fascist militias who “take over schools and hospitals, intimidate the staffs, assaulted unveiled women, set up kangaroo sharia courts that issue death sentences, repeatedly try to seize control of the holy shrines, run criminal gangs, firebomb liquor stores, and are often drunk themselves. Their tactics are those of fascist bullies.”

So when people ask if I think I was wrong, I think about the Iraqi friend – hiding, terrified, in his own house – who said to me this week, “Every day you delete another name from your mobile, because they’ve been killed. By the Americans or the jihadists or the militias – usually you never find out which.” I think of the people trapped in the siege of a civilian city, Fallujah, where amidst homes and schools the Americans indiscriminately used a banned chemical weapon – white phosphorous – that burns through skin and bone. (The Americans say they told civilians to leave the city, so anybody left behind was a suspected jihadi – an evacuation procedure so successful they later used it in New Orleans.). I think of the raw numbers: on the largest estimate – from the Human Rights Centre in Khadimiya – Saddam was killing 70,000 people a year. The occupation and the jihadists have topped that, and the violence is getting worse. And I think – yes, I was wrong. Terribly wrong.

The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it’s just the Bush administration screwed it up. But as one anti-war friend snapped at me when I mooted this argument, “Yeah, who would ever have thought that supporting George Bush in the illegal invasion of an Arab country would go wrong?” She’s right: the truth is that there was no pure Platonic ideal of The Perfect Invasion to support, no abstract idea we lent our names to. There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way. (Expecting Tony Blair to use his influence was, it is now clear, a delusion, as he refuses to even frontally condemn the American torture camp at Guantanomo Bay).

[wtmusic]

1. He's still missing the point

He still supports the "principle of invasion"-- which is the beginning and the end of what went wrong. Whatever the Bush administration screwed up after that decision didn't particularly matter.

[Skittles]

2. I think it is something they hang onto to relieve the guilt

yes

[BurtWorm]

3. You're absolutely right. The "principle" itself is utterly corrupt.

At least he doesn't do the Friedmanesque thing of pretending there's a chance the Bushists can turn it around (though he apparently does believe, like Friedman, that someone actually could, and that doing so is not only a coherent goal but a worthy one. :eyes: )

[baby_mouse]

5. The "principle" of *Invasion*???

"PRINCIPLE"?

???

[wtmusic]

6. oxymoron, no?

:silly:

[baby_mouse]

7. This is what the whole thing's about, actually, on reflection.

They thought if they pushed hard enough they could get the left to agree that America was special and had the right to invade people, extending via a sort of political retropatent the kind of monopoly of violence enjoyed by governments over their citizens to a position where America was government of the world by proxy.

Force, unfortunately, isn't enough.

If they continue with this kind of ideology, the world, including them, WILL be destroyed.

[LynnTheDem]

4. " I still support the principle of invasion" When HIS country is invaded

maybe he'll get why INVASIONS are ILLEGAL and deemed "THE SUPREME CRIME".

It was wrong when Hitler did it; it was wrong when bush did it.

Invasions are WRONG.

Period.