Today marks the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and despite the continued refusal to hold a public inquiry the talk of British officials is generally quite upbeat.
British Lt. Gen. John Cooper argued that Iraq is much better off now than it was six years ago and that “we have got democracy rooted here” while Foreign Office Minister Bill Ramell described how Iraqi elections “are becoming a firm fixture in the Iraqi political calendar”. The decline in violence was confirmed by a BBC survey that highlighted how 85 percent of respondents described the current situation as very good or quite good — up 23 percent on a year ago. However, simply because the situation in Iraq is better does not mean it is good. There are plenty of issues that will need answering before the US military withdrawal. And while on one hand the British government lauds over the improvements in Iraq and points to the notions of democracy and human rights, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s own travel advice spells out the reality in the country:
“There is a high threat of terrorism throughout Iraq. We strongly advise against all travel to Baghdad and the surrounding area, the provinces of Basra, Maysan, Al-Anbar, Salah Ad Din, Diyala, Wasit, Babil, Ninawa, and At-Tamim (At-Tamim is often referred to as ‘Kirkuk Province’). We advise against all but essential travel to the provinces of Al-Qadisiyah, Muthanna, Najaf, Karbala, and Dhi Qar.”
So Iraq is much improved but don’t even think about going there.
The same BBC survey cited above highlights how 59 percent perceive Britain’s role as a negative one. Which begs the question how much credit can Britain take from the improved situation? After all, Britain didn’t “surge” troops but rather withdrew to Basra airport and kept a low profile.
Meanwhile, in the US elements of what Colin Powell described to Jack Straw in 2004 as the “crazies” are putting their heads above the parapet to share in some reflected glory. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney popped up last week to tell us he believed that in Iraq, “we’ve accomplished nearly everything we set out to do”. Meanwhile, John Bolton has urged Barack Obama to go one step further and “declare victory” (again) in Iraq. Douglas Feith (Gen. Tommy Franks once called him the “stupidest guy on the planet”) praised Obama’s recent speech on Iraq, claiming that it flatly contradicts those war critics who damned the US effort as an irredeemable failure. Feith proudly stated: “It represents the defeat of the defeatists.”
Indeed “the crazies” prioritize political point-scoring against their former critics rather than any reality-based analysis of the situation in Iraq. There is much irony in the fact that many of those who successfully formulated the surge strategy were critical of those who handled the invasion itself. The pragmatism and sensible thinking of this cadre massively reduced violence in Iraq as well as crucially minimizing expectations of what could ultimately be achieved in the country. Much of the Bush presidency’s narrative on Iraq relied upon looking to “history” to evaluate what was seen as an unpopular war. By tagging on to an improvement in the situation in Iraq to declare another “victory”, former Bush administration officials position themselves to blame Obama’s accelerated troop withdrawal for any future “slippage” or reversal.
The sixth anniversary of the Iraq invasion should not be used by the neoconservatives as an attempt to rewrite themselves into the history books.
