This column by Guardian columnist and progressive thinker George Monbiot caught my attention today. Monbiot calls for a new UN charter allowing and regulating the use of force against a nation for human rights reasons.
Along the way there was some content that caught my eye:
“We can say without contradiction that the war should not have happened, and that it has been of benefit to the Iraqi people by ridding them of one of the world’s most abhorrent dictators.”
I agree, as anyone who read through my either/or rants of a few weeks back will know. I’d think this was self-evident if so many voices on the pro-war side weren’t still missing it completely.
But to document the lies that led to the war and the dangers that arose from it is to answer only half the question. The other half – what should have been done instead? – still hangs above our heads.
Here, I wanted to hear Monbiot say his piece about what should have been done instead of war. Unlike many commentators on the left, Monbiot is very good at outlining a practical alternative to the way things are – he doesn’t simply criticise without proposing an alternative. (Not that providing an alternative is essential to a criticism – but it does strengthen a critical position immensely.)
Sadly for me, this isn’t the point of his piece. (He instead discusses a hypothetical situation where military intervention is the only option.) In any case, it has prompted me to consider what should have been done before war.
My impression is that a military invasion of Iraq was the only option for dealing with Iraq that was seriously pursued by the US administration from soon after September 11, 2001. I have never seen anything that punctures this impression.
However, to even think about this approach to the problem of Iraq, we need to know why Iraq was a problem. The public narrative was three-pronged:
* Iraq was supporting terrorists that threatened the West (links to Al Qaeda were strongly implied)
* Iraq itself possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a direct threat to the West
* Iraq was a tyranny where innocent Iraqis were trapped under a ruthless and vicious leader
As the fabricated nature of the first reason became clearer, emphasis shifted to the second, and likewise to the third when the second became threadbare. The third is, of course, entirely true – but is it a justification for war?
One of the problems when considering what should have been done before war, is figuring out which of the 3 justifications for action is being addressed. Steps prior to a war to strike down terrorist networks would be different to steps prior to a war to eliminate a gathering threat, which in turn would be different to steps prior to a war on humanitarian grounds.
Seeing as the third justification is the one that stuck, I’m going to focus on that. We all agree that Iraq was a tyranny, and Saddam was as close to the dictionary definition of evil as you’re going to find. The Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam.
Invasion was the response taken in March last year. For the decade previous, the response was trade sanctions in the hope that the people would be motivated to revolt.
The sanctions caused terrible, incomprehensible suffering for no real gain.
The invasion caused great suffering for a concrete gain, the ousting of Saddam – but with a further cost that has yet to be entirely played out.
Is that it? Are these the only two approaches that the civilised and powerful West can come up with to remove a tyrant? Is this really the best we can do?
There were other approaches that could and should have been explored. It is damning that there was no exploration of alternatives. It is damning that the invasion was sold as the only way to deal with the situation without any case being made discounting alternatives.
That is why the people of the world marched a year ago. That is why opposition to the war remains strong. We were rushed into war under false pretences, and war has a horrible cost. Those costs were never shown to be necessary.
I don’t believe the costs of the war in Iraq were necessary in order to oust Saddam Hussein. If they had been necessary, the US administration would have made it clear.
They didn’t make it clear that it was necessary. Their story is bogus. I’m not buying it.
Oh, and Tony? Poor Tony, afflicted with the delusion that we believe his intentions were malicious or dishonest. No. His intentions were good. He believed in the war. He’s just a man who made a foolish evaluation and stuck to it ever since. That’s all.
He got sold. Don’t you be sold too.