THE IRAQ WAR
In January 1991 I was watching “The Villain” on BBC 1, when all of a sudden Richard Burton disappeared, and the Beeb went over to “Special report” mode. Martyn Lewis announced that operation “Desert Storm” had been launched - taking us over to Dahran air base and Brian Barron, engulfed in a wave of jet fighter sounds and air raid sirens. The sirens, Brian explained, screamed because Saddam had launched Scud missiles, and it was believed that they were heading for his location. A lot of Martyn - Brian, Brian - Martyn tooing and froing unfolded on the screen, as we were given that sense of immediacy only broadcast media can create in times of crisis. Brian’s journalistic mastery conveying the real sense of history he was witnessing, The pictures of Tornado aircraft taking off into the darkness, the sirens still wailing in the background, then suddenly NOTHING!!!. Whiteout, a snowstorm picture with a white noise soundtrack where a BBC news veteran had, moments earlier, filled my portable! I remember the overwhelming sense of shock, the pulse quickening, and mind racing with ”what's happened?” questions, the sudden contrast as Martyn Lewis, surrounded by soundproofed studio silence, gamely held the broadcast together, finding himself on an electrical frontline where the chilling abruptness of war suddenly became very very real!
This was our introduction to a whole new way of fighting a war, when the technology being employed in the air and on the ground in Iraq, would be matched by the advances in media coverage techniques that became a part of all our lives in the weeks to follow. Peter Arnett of CNN - a news organisation only regularly watched by the - then - minority of people with cable or satellite TV suddenly appearing on every terrestrial box in the land! A prototype News 24 service, put together by circumstance as the BBC opened its newsroom to the events happening in a desert 1000's of miles away! The jargon that would find its way into the lexicon of every day parlance, and the expert academics becoming the new celebrities of the moment! I remember the eerie cogniscience of seeing a Broadcast in the darkness - and later watching a squadron of Stratofortresses vapour trailing the dawn skies on their way back to Gloucestershire after a “Carpet bombing” mission. These were all momentous events in a seismic chapter of time when the world was in flux! To understand what I mean look at the 'then' world order...............
Political geography had just changed as the impossible became possible and the Warsaw pact gaffed and lumbered its way into extinction. Every street in eastern Europe had been filled with jubilant crowds of newly liberated people, who'd seen their communist rulers fall one by one as an intelligent, enlightened man in the Kremlin left them to their own devices. The Berlin wall - that dividing line of world ideologies that so scarred the psyche of cold war Europe - had been reduced to souvenirs on mantelpieces around the world, and the Iron curtain had been drawn back to let in the light of freedom. Europe had been made whole for the first time since the out break of the second world war, and we all basked in a new spirit of optimism. U2 provided the soundtrack with “Achtung baby” - freed Trabants guesting at their live shows.
At the turn of the year we were still riding the wave, and Saddam was going to get squashed by the biggest international military build up since D day, about to crash onto him like a mighty Tsunami. To add a paradoxical twist that somehow compounds the certainty of the moment, Massive Attack - whose rule book trashing ”Blue lines” album appeared the year before - dropped the ”Attack” suffix to the name as an act of protest for the duration. Everything seemed to be balanced in a way we could all readily understand. This was a very tumultuous period indeed..... .......................................and a very long time ago!!!
Back then we weren't having any of Saddam’s claims that Kuwait belonged to Iraq, a contention dating back to when Baghdad was first granted sovereignty. The protestations that the tiny Emirates over-production of oil was forcing down the price of Iraqi petroleum , and that a lot of it was being drawn from a source that was partially theirs anyway! He'd overstepped the mark, ignored UN security council resolutions to quit Kuwait, and something was going to be done about it!
This wasn't the first time the west had taken military action with the country over oil as - long before Mr Hussein assumed the presidency and stepped into the annals of international notoriety - Britain dispatched forces to Iraq to prevent the USSR getting too close to the Baghdad government - and therefore the precious resource the area seems to float on! To call the region volatile is an understatement, as Baghdad and Tehran’s bickering over the disputed Shatt al Arab waterway blew up into a full scale war, (ignited by an Iranian Kurd problem spilling over into Iraq at the turn of the 80s), resulting in an 8 year conflict that cost an estimated 1 million lives. Ironically, at that time Kuwait was Saddam’s ally - probably because they saw the arabic Ba'athist dictator as more favorable than the theocratic Persian Mullahs in Iran, and the simple geographic buffer presented by Iraq that afforded them protection from the Ayatollah! Looking further back, David Leans epic film portrayed how captain T E Lawrence (of Arabia) assisted the fledgling Iraqi nation in its guerrilla war against Turkish hegemony in the early 20th century, and up until the 1950s Baghdad was a member of what was then known as the “Sterling Bond” linking their currency to ours................The twists and turns of Arabic destiny is steeped in blood, oil, violence, and betrayal going back centuries, and Mr Bush Jr is about to become another player in the game of middle eastern politics.
The Persian gulf war of the early 90s was a relatively straight forward affair, a recognisably 'legitimate' international response to an intolerable violation of one countries territorial sovereignty by another, and one that was easily sold to electorates and politicians the world over. A global sentiment that had echoes in the similar international reaction to the atrocities of 9/11, when the world really did sing in unison about how justice must be done to those responsible. The mighty tidal waves that carried the respective coalitions into those wars has diminished to not much more than a ripple, upon which George Bush Jr rides a surf board of technicalities, and an up hill political struggle shared by our own Prime minister. Theoretically, we could (and some say should) have finished off the job in 1991, using the vast array of military materiel in the area at the time. But the war was based on the premise that we were liberating one country from another, and therefore the campaign had reached its conclusion the moment the last Iraqi soldier crossed the border back into his own country. I remember how, when that had happened, George Bush Sr rallied the Shia marsh Arabs in southern Iraq to rise up against the government, and how they were brutally put down by the remnants of Saddam’s army, rendered prostrate before any conventional force but still more than a match for a lightly armed group of largely poor civilians (They actually got more practical support at the time from Iran than any western source!)
At that time the cold war had just ended and the seed that would later grow into Al Qa,eda had its roots in the Moujahadin rebellion that drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan the previous decade. How many of us can remember those 80's dispatches of smiling Afghans surrounding captured or knocked out Russian tanks - portrayed as heroes in the struggle against soviet oppression? That same man in the Kremlin had long realized the folly of the USSR adventure in his southern neighbour, and to prevent the hemorrhaging of more lives and money his country could afford, he withdrew, leaving Afghanistan to continue her own destiny. The problem is that while Moscow attempted to subjugate Kabul with sheer military might, the west - through its proxys - supported the rebels, and when the Red army left the country to her own devices so did we! By definition Bin Laden’s men were allied - though tenuously - to us, so when the gulf war was under way those that would later become the worlds most wanted terrorist organisation would technically have been on the same side. But they were left behind, in a country brought to its knees by war, a land with no clearly defined structure in which to function, a place where hatred could (and did) fester, a place ripe for the propaganda of the merchants of violence! Osamas Saudi family had huge financial interests in both construction and oil, so any multinational military force that would indirectly safeguard the interests of the Saudi petrodollar was also unwittingly protecting the huge financial resource that later helped fund those responsible for some of the most notorious acts of terrorism committed in the 1990s.
There's an expression that sums up the region quite eloquently, and so it should as it was coined by an Arab any way........”Your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend!” Right now we're in the process of courting favour with the Saudis for permission to use their airbases in the same way as we did 11 years ago, but this isn't 11 years ago, and we aren't going in to release a small country from Saddam’s iron grasp. Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy, and one wonders what the ordinary people of the region are going to think as they see this campaign unfolding on their TV screens via Al Jazeera. Something between 100,000 and 200,000 civilian lives were lost in a war that was about driving an occupying force out of another country, so what will the cost in civilian lives be when trying to drive the same army from their own? Saudi money was the principal lifeline for Al Qa'eda, and the events of 9/11 proved that there is a completely undeterred network of terrorists capable of executing the biggest blow to American domesticity since the Japanese raid on Pearl harbour. Put all these factors together can we guarantee that the Saudi government will be able to hold on to power, when the Saudi people (and others in the region) begin to see the body count mount up? What measures would they have to begin to apply should civil unrest begin to hit the streets, and how would any response look in the eyes of the rest of the Moslem world? Would we not be giving every Islamic terror group on earth the best recruiting sergeant they ever wanted, rendering them capable of waging their particular brand of warfare at home and abroad?...........................................................And what about the Iraqis themselves?
Iraq is a country that owes its very existence to insurrection, a proud people that has fought off the advances of many foreign powers for 100s of years, and the current regime has enjoyed absolute rule for over 20. Even if we drove Saddam from every sphere of local, regional, and national government - installing the desired regime and bolstering it with military and financial support, where would the Ba'athists go if they weren't all killed or captured, and who's to say that they wouldn't form a guerrilla army of their own and wreak havoc both in and outside the country? The new world order has changed dramatically over the last 10 years, and the developing world has demonstrated both on 9/11, and at the recent earth summit, that they aren't scared of us anymore, and the old subserviences that the 19th and 20th centuries were made of are beginning to evaporate. Our government has tried to establish a link between Saddam and Bin Laden in its attempt to justify the campaign. The irony is that any links at all could be reinforced totally by this war as remnants of both Al Qaeda and the Ba'athists find common cause in their hatred and contempt for the west, and the US and Britain particularly! We could be in danger of galvanizing the very entity that the post 9/11 war on terrorism was supposed to deal with, as any perceived western threat extremists in the region (and beyond) have been pointing out to anyone who would listen begins to take on the characteristics of a promise.........................are we not playing into their hands?
There is the instantly obvious paradox that any link between Bin Laden and Saddam is theoretical compared to the fact that he has one with the very country the majority of the new coalition is going to be based.
Lurking in the background is the question of Iran, and how do they fit in with this scenario? During the gulf conflict, the old “Enemies enemy ......” adage became very appropriate, as upon the declaration of war they proclaimed their neutrality. A neutrality that meant 100 Iraqi pilots fled to Iran rather than fight western aircraft or stay at home. Here you had a country who - only 2 years earlier - were negotiating their way out of a bloody war with Iraq that had cost them 100's of thousands of lives and severe damage to civilian and industrial infrastructure. It proves that even the most bitter enmities in the region can be over ridden in the face of an outside military power - and, rather than side with us, Rafsanjanis government opted to become the Switzerland of the region by staying out of it. They have progressed since the days of Khomeini, with moves towards moderation and renewing diplomatic links with the west, and I wonder whether putting them in the same category as Iraq with the so called “Axis of evil” might threaten to turn the clock back. A danger that could become all too real when they begin seeing the hostilities raging on the other side of the border! ..........................................................It would force the obvious question “Who's next?”
Ostensibly, the reason we are going to war against Saddam is because of his refusal to comply with the UN resolutions surrounding his weapons of mass destruction, and a desire in the White house for a “Regime change” . Whether he possesses them or not is less important than the fact that if he did have them, would he use them? He certainly did against Kurdish villages, and during the war with Iran in the 80s, and if he still had any left would he use them on Allied troops in any conflict? If this war was interpreted in Baghdad as some kind of end game then the chances of a biological or chemical attack on coalition forces (maybe even Kuwait, Turkey or Saudi Arabia) escalate drastically! During the gulf war Saddam knew that the forces pitted against him were there to liberate Kuwait, not topple him from power. This time he'll be all too aware of what the ultimate objective will be, and as he lost about a third of his conventional forces in 1991 will he resort to other weapons at his disposal?* Couple that with the scorched earth policy he used at that time - setting fire to Kuwaiti oil wells, and releasing millions of gallons of crude oil into the gulf - the potential consequences on both human life and the environment are unthinkable! Even if a new regime was installed in Baghdad, how much security would be needed to protect the oil production mechanism from terrorist attacks by a group of people who feel they have nothing to lose?
*He has also shown a willingness to use innocent people as hostages, as was demonstrated in 1990/91 with the so called “Human shield” strategy - using foreign civilian nationals as bargaining chips in a kind of blackmail to the coalition forces!
If the proposed campaign had too much of a unilaterally Anglo-american bias any new regime would be closer to Britain and America in a very direct sense than any other state in the region, with a political pipe line into Washington and London, which raises the inevitable question about the consequences on oil production and prices. How are the other gulf states going to respond to the prospect that Iraqi oil could enjoy favoured status in the west against their own product as a 'be good' incentive to the new government? Would the Iraqi oil industry be denationalized anyway, opening it up to foreign private ownership, and therefore removing control of the country's biggest resource from Baghdad? (Provoking potential criticism that we would be undermining Iraq's sovereignty and position as a self determined Nation State by the back door for financial motives, thus exacerbating an already precarious political situation, and therefore compromising our own standing in the middle east as a force for justice!) Saudi Arabia, who have had to be chivvied more than most regarding the planned campaign, could find itself in a far less powerful position in the region than the one it has enjoyed for decades, so what would the consequences be on their internal stability should their monarchistic government begin to show signs of weakness? One expert on Saudi affairs described the country as a house of cards which could very easily collapse should too much pressure befall it, and Bin Laden enjoys a lot of support on the ground there. Could we really run the risk of lighting the touch paper of a firework with his name on in an oil rich country like that? A very frightening thought indeed!
Much has been made about the UN in the political haggling over the proposals, but up until September last year the USA had arrears of around $2.3billion in its subscription to the organisation. (This would be enough to run it for an entire year!) Since then they've paid a substantial amount towards this, but it's still claimed to be an estimated 1$billion shortfall on the amount owed. It's sad that it wasn't until 9/11, when their vulnerability to attack was revealed, they decided to make moves towards clearing the debt. A cynic could argue that they decided to make amends to restore UN confidence in Washington should the White house need them for any plans they might have in their foreign policy! Or that, because of the attrocity committed last year they finally realize the true worth of the organisation as the main hope towards world peace! If they, and other western powers, got up to date with their subscriptions the UN would be in a much stronger position to be a bit more forceful with its peace keeping role, and maintaining international law over 'rogue' regimes like Saddam Hussein, bolstering the weapons inspection teams etc. (Maybe even installing and reinforcing a substantial UN mission in Iraq that would work so closely with Baghdad, Saddam would have very little choice but to comply! After all, if he thinks letting the UN back in would prevent the war and stop him from being “Smart bombed” out of office - therefore saving face with the Arab League - it could also be a step towards fostering some kind of legitimate indigenously developed opposition in a country that has never really known any, and set Iraq on a course that could ultimately, and more importantly, free itself from his ruler-ship from the inside. This would give any new government an unshakable mandate to exist, both in the eyes of the Iraqi people, and to the outside world. It would also present us with the opportunity to bring Saddam to justice for war crimes and human rights violations! The danger of using force in the way that we did then is that he could very well go into hiding, running the country from an undisclosed location the minute the first coalition plane takes off!!!) “Desert storm” cost an estimated $53billiion, at 1991 prices, so how much this operation would cost in today's money is incalculable. Money spent in a war with a very uncertain conclusion, and one that could set the whole region ablaze in conflict for years. Wouldn't it be more sensible for us to invest that sort of money in organisations like the UN, with their commitments to peace keeping, human rights, the environment, and work to improve the quality of life for peoples where ever they are?
I'm not sure whether they've thought this through very well at all, and I think Tony Blair is in danger of losing sight of the necessary objectivity in dealing with Mr Bush. At a time like this it is crucial to be constructively critical of any grand foreign policy making on either side of the Atlantic,.To his credit, Mr Blair has been very effective in securing some restraint in Washington , and he has shown a willingness to be open to serious questions raised in Parliament. The global wave of sympathy for the west after 9/11 has been severely compromised over the whole Iraq debacle, and we are in danger of isolating ourselves from the international community. National opinion is against a unilateral war in Iraq, and the whole argument has distracted attention from the proposals to rehabilitate Afghanistan. Are we in danger of spreading ourselves too thinly as a result of this? Former President Bill Clinton believes so, saying we should concentrate our efforts in Afghanistan. He could be right. We need to disarm the causes of terrorism, before people become terrorists, (let alone rogue states) and the opportunity to do this in Kabul is one we should capitalize on as much as possible!
Yes, I am worried about the proposed war on Iraq, not out of any appeasement or defense of the Baghdad government, (far from it) but out of the potential consequences for the world where I live, and the one my family will have to grow up in. A world that I believe is in a situation potentially more dangerous than it might have been during the Cuban Missile crisis! The potential fault line dividing the 2 sides is rooted in something far older, and etched far more profoundly in the souls of those involved than a comparatively transient political ideology that has only been around for about 150 years . The old cold war policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (”M.A.D”) is alive and well, but the potential for insanity runs much deeper, and is a lot more volatile
..........Oh, and what would make for an ominous piece of broadcasting? - Watching BBC1 as they show a well known film starring Peter O'Toole!!!
By all means - share to Facebook, Twitter etc......
If you enjoyed reading this and want to donate something please do via Visa Card to.....
4658 5875 6540 4012
Or even via Bitcoin to ......
bc1qupwmz20gyf4rj2u6svmug4n3lw6er5m3r0ag2g
Very many thanks!
Here's something that irks me as a macro cosmic Observation of how everything is connected - although dysfunctional or inconsistent.....
ReplyDeleteThis wretched Railway of theirs .... the proposed Rail Link with Bristol that Dr Beeching closed in the 1960's.
There have been several attempts to reopen this - the fist being 1984-5. Among the others was one where the Bristol South MP Dawn Primarolo vetoed it (the Line leads to Parson Street station which is in her Constituency). She said it was immoral to allow public Money go into Private Enterprise. This was in response to how Ministry of Transport Money would be used to subsidise the private Company that would run it.
There are many who would say that you can't argue with that - or something to that effect, except after her conversion to New Labour and becoming a staunch Blairite she voted for and fully supported the Iraq War of a few years ago. The biggest private acquisition of public Money in our living Memory. That while she supported that she was against the 1991 Gulf War - which was rather easier to justify than the recent one. Ironic for someone whose support for CND coloured her once left-wing Political Ideology.
I'd like to know how her Politics respond to the other things that are associated with that War..... From Iraq to the Bedroom Tax is one example of this (the Money had to be found from somewhere), some of the other adjustments to Health and Social Security are others.
So, we get the worst of both. A Rail-link that is en mired in controversy which might not happen anyway - and how the Cost of a war she voted for is being met by those who could least afford it! It isn't like the Military Industrial Complex is going to apologize for it and pay the Money back is it!
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/news-corp-finished-senator-rockefeller-tells-feds-investigate-fox-hacking-911-victims
ReplyDeleteHaving just read some of the Party Manifesto's about War - and War on Terrorism - I hope I don't have to clarify the Difference between the War on Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and that of Iraq. Millions of Column Inches and Cubic Meters of Ether have been given to this - but I will reiterate what I've often said that the Misdeployment of Forces in Iraq led to the muted Confrontation of Terrorism in Afghanistan. Instead of 250,000 - 300,000 Troops being sent to fight in Afghanistan only about 130,000 were - the rest were in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteSubsequently, we now have the worst of Both - while recent Years in Iraq have shown that the Policies of 2003 have only served to worsen the Situation. Had the Afghan Theater been properly supplied the Result would have been far more decisive there - and Iraq wouldn't have the Insurgents they have now.
The whole thing started in America on September 11th 2001 - so why did we get involved in this in the first place? GWB had an Iraqi Agenda and he touted for British Support to obtain a dubious Mandate. Afghanistan was their War - and while we needed to strengthen our Defense against potential Terrorism in this Country - the Afghan War was essentially Americas Retaliation for 9/11. When the Iraq War started Glaswegian Soldiers might have been better deployed in Strathclyde than Basra when their Airport was attacked a few years ago. Ditto for Troops from London and elsewhere where Terrorist Bombs went off in this Country.
In other words you could be tough on Terrorism and not get embroiled in Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, it could be argued that because we were in both - not only did we render ourselves vulnerable to Attacks because we were, we also compromised our Ability to protect at home. The Tragedy about Afghanistan is how the West might have won the War in the 1980's when the Soviet Army withdrew - then lost the Peace in the 1990's when it allowed the Taliban and Al Qaida's Ascendancy. The Irony is the West armed those who would wage war on us and ignored those who wouldn't. It was far cheaper to rebuilt the Country after the Afghan-soviet War than to arm it - then fight it a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteFinally, here was something that was published on the 15th Anniversary of the Iraq War. It was written by someone from the Iraqi Diaspora - who like many who opposed the conflict (including me) was against it, but in no way a Saddam apologist. Quite the opposite ......
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-anniversary-.html
Here's another ..................
ReplyDeletehttps://www.vox.com/2018/5/25/17394466/john-mccain-memoir-iraq-war-mistake
And none of this means I'm a Saddam Apologist either ....... Far from it.
ReplyDeleteWhat the West failed to do was bolster Relations with Iran when it was very conducive Ahmed Khatami's Reforms had even gained the Support of Kofi Annan UN Secretary General at the turn of the Century. Saddam was no fool, and exploited the Enmity Iran had with the West, residual to their supporting him in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's.
He had a huge Shi'ite Majority who leaned towards Tehran for spiritual Loyalty. If he had seen Iran working with rather than against the West he would have to have taken notice. He was no Ally of Assad either. As mentioned, Syria supported the Coalition against him in the 1st Gulf War.
Rather like good Relations with Moscow (scotched in the Caucasus) might have meant leverage with Tehran, good Relations with Tehran might have meant leverage in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Saddam could kick back, secure in the Knowledge that Iran was at least just as in conflict with the West as he was.
What I would like to make clear here, or reiterate, is the Difference between the Iraq War of recent Years and the Gulf War of 1990/1.
ReplyDeleteThe Gulf War of 30 Years ago was about ending the Iraqi Occupation of Kuwait contesting Saddam's Claim that it floated on Iraqi Oil Reserves, and the brutal Treatment of Kuwaitis.
I supported that War, while working in the Media gave me an invaluable Insight into how it was covered and the Attitude. How it was the Result of a UN Resolution, even backed by Saddam's main Sponsor the Kremlin.
The Iraq War of recent Years was everything it's Predecessor wasn't. It wasn't backed by Moscow, there was no UN Resolution and it was difficult to convince the Public about. The Enthusiasm for it was tepid, Demonstrations against it huge, while the atmosphere was toxic.
The most telling was how opposing the 1990/1 Conflict never had any negative Effects on those who did, even if their Arguements might have been a bit spurious.
People opposing the recent Conflict had to put up with all sorts of Crap, which is ironic as it's Reasons were also spurious (as we have since seen), we are supposed to have had 30 years of Freedom after the Cold War, and the Conflict itself was supposed to be about Democracy!
Censorship by other means .....?
ReplyDeleteHere's a thing.
Someone somewhere has shortened the URL for this Post. At least, when you copy it on a Mobile. If you send it to someone it might work if you click on it, but if you copied and pasted it into a Browser it doesn't.
Thus, as People increasingly surf the Web on their Mobile they might not be able to access this like they do on a Desk or Laptop.
Has someone tweaked it so it would reduce the number of Readers?
Watching a Documentary about the potential War with China.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, what might we find if we delved into the Archives of the Media Companies involved to see how they covered the Pre-Amble to the Iraq War? How - while Forces fought for a Lie in Arabia - Chinese Military went through its biggest build-up ever.
Here's something I've often asked, and that is; do we have a sort of Anti-Waro-cracy? Meaning, a Bunch of People who can oppose this, and any other War without the sort of Crap I've had to put up with since I wrote this Article about 18 years ago? I wish I could have written it after some Dinner Party or other, or discussed it's Content with the after-Dinner Coffee.
ReplyDeleteMaybe others who opposed it would like to get with the Comments here huh!
"If we had continued into Baghdad, toppled Saddam etc, the French would have left, the Arab Countries in the Coalition would have ruptured and the only Countries fighting would have been Britain and America. We would have been a Dinosaur in a Tarpit, and probably still be there ......."
ReplyDeleteGeneral Norman Schwartzkopf on what would have happened if the 1990-1 Coalition had gone on into Iraq.
"....... We would not only still be there, how we do things we would then be responsible for rebuilding the Country!"
12 years is a long time in American Politics and it's hard to believe that it was the same Country, same Dick Cheyney, same Colin Powell, and also the same Condoleeza Rice (who was at Malta and Reykjavik).
And both Schwartzkopf and Scowcroft were as in-deep with the 1991 Gulf War as you could get, while their Comments were derived from a War that had decimated Saddam's Army and it's ability to fight a very large modern Army. The Coalition of that War was much bigger than the one that went in in 2003! It also showed that they seemed to understand the Civil Dimension far better than those more recent.
ReplyDeleteAlso, that "Smoking Gun could turn into a Mushroom Cloud" is like the corniest piece of Hollywood B Movie Scriptwriting imaginable. Not even Ronald Reagan appeared in a Film with Dialogue that bad and cringable, made laughable when it was uttered by GWB!
It seems Iraq has proved to be the biggest Paradox of 2021.
ReplyDeleteThe Country who hosted a War whose Architects called "Iraqi Freedom" has just had the most dismal Turnout probably seen anywhere in Democracydom.
Not only did only 40% of People vote, many more feeling ambivalent, the eventual Winner - Muqtada Al Sadr - is the popularist Shi'ite Cleric whose Militia, the Mahdi Army fought the US a few years ago.
The Problem he has is how many pro-Iranian Activists and Politicians have denounced the Result as a "Scam" which might not be so much of a Threat if their Militias didn't form substantial Numbers of Iraq's security Forces. If they mutiny the effect on Stability could be as exponential as the 50,000 Ba'athists and 400,000 former Soldiers suddenly becoming Freelance after they were dismantled by Paul Bremer a few years ago. They won't just shrug, mumble disaffection and begrudgingly resume daily Life. He could face an Insurgency, but won't have the Western Presence felt during the previous Civil War.
The other Danger is, what will those People find as they petition for an Inquiry? Al Sadr might be a Popularist, but the orthodox Thought in Iraqi Politics is how it now gravitates to Iran. So their Question will be how he bucked that Trend?
ReplyDeleteSome will interpret this as an external Element wanting to install an anti-Iranian, others that he doesn't have a Mandate. Having 73 Seats in a 389 Seat Parliament isn't exactly a Landslide, while the total Vote in the Election that put him there was less than half of those eligible. Who might the other 60% who did didn't vote have voted for?
Americans might see this as a watered down equivalent of what has happened in Afghanistan. After all, they fought him in the Aftermath of Saddam.
Commentators said this Election could be make or break for Iraq, that it could, at best, deal with some of the Problems of Corruption that have afflicted the Country, at worse be the Harbinger of a Civil War. That whatever happens the People would benefit. I fear they won't, whichever of these does!
The Flaw with Saddam's Iraq was how a minority Government ran the Country. Although not an unelected Autocratic Dictator Al Sadr can only rule by partial Decree. He doesn't even have 25% of the Legislature. There will be those who will say that is no better than Saddam, except Al Sadr doesn't have a fully intact Army and all encompassing Security Service to back it up.
Anyone who has studied Lebanon will see the similarities.....
ReplyDeleteWeak, minority Government, with an Enclave in the Capital running a Country with regional Variations and Loyalties. Militias - some backed by foreign Powers, Millions of Refugees - and a veritable Powder Keg waiting to explode.
In Lebanon all it took in 1975 was the shooting of a Phalangist - there are Elements in Iraq capable of far worse.
It wasn't until Hafez al Assad forced his "Pax Syriana" on Lebanon things calmed down to a quasi-normal semi-Peace in 1976. His Son is somewhat preoccupied at the moment so who might the "Pax" come from this time?
Iraq is like Lebanon with Oil!
Except much bigger and with a lot more People.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when Al Sadr tries confronting Corruption? How long will that last before he capitulates to it with a "if you can't beat them, join them" Attitude?
How is he going to end the Factionalism with Groups who will cling jealously to hard fought for Regions and how will he disarm the Militias when he has one of his own? The biggest Criticism People had of Chalabi (amongst many) was how he came across as a Warlord with several hundred Paramilitaries. As soon as he asks they'll say "You first Mr Sadr!"
How long might he last?
Then there's the Refugee Crisis.
As long as uncertainty prevails they will never go home to whatever they fled. They are stranded in other parts of the Country. The Problem Lebanon had was 10's of 1000's of displaced Palestinians who started making Lebanese uneasy and resentful. How long can Refugees stay in other Areas of the Country before those living there start feeling the same?
When the Massacres at Tel al Zaater in 1976, and Sabra and Chatila in 1982 happened no-one raised a Finger to protect the Palestinians who were killed and brutalised. Some of these were run or supervised by UNWRA - including Barajineh (besieged from 1984 to 87) which served as no deterent.
You might ask how you can compare Lebanese Violence on Palestinians to potential Iraqi on Iraqi - but we have seen several years when 1000's of Iraqis quite readily killed other Iraqis!
To understand the Scale and Plight of Iraqi Refugees read this ......
ReplyDeletehttps://www.unocha.org/iraq
And to realise how dangerous it is - and could easily turn into something similar to Lebanon .....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/2/1/iraq
They face a rather unsympathetic Government and arbitrary Violence - even Death - from Civilians.
And perhaps rather unwittingly the New York Times confirmed the Criticism many will have of the Sadr Government, the Suspicion that his Election might have been influenced by external Forces.
ReplyDeleteIf the Vote had had a large Turnout, and Mr Sadr had a slightly bigger Mandate than 73 Seats in an Iraqi Parliament of 389, the Suspicion might be deflected. The problem is, it isn't. It's a lot easier to manipulate less People than more and while he bucked the pro-Iran Tendancy in Iraq's Demography there will be those who ask how? The Reason I mention how the New York Times unwittingly suggested this was with its Headline "After Iraqi Election, a Shi'ite Leader emerges as an unlikely US Ally!" What might People read between the lines of that?
The other Problem is, the dismal Turnout undermines the legitimacy of ANYONE in the new Parliament, even the Opposition. If you assign each Slice of that estimated 40-42% Electorate Vote that's a small Percentage of a small Percentage, which prompts People to ask who the other 60-58% might have voted for?
Does Power necessarily equal Stability anyway?
While Lebanon's political Elite dug in in Christian East Beirut in 1975, and Moslems fought for the rest, Parliament - even though it represented the Demography = Christian President, Sunni Prime Minister, Shi'ite Speaker, proved impotent during the Civil War, and while the Christians were the most powerful, they were ineffectual outside their Area of the Country.
Now, as each Group is very powerful they still battle like they used to as we saw a few days ago. None of them could prevent the huge Explosion that shattered the Port last year while all of them seem determined to obstruct the subsequent Inquiry.
So, can the various Factions in Iraq run the Country if most of the People didn't vote for any of them, like Lebanon's Parliament couldn't and how long will it be before Mr Sadr attracts criticism of being another American Stooge? He might not be, but while the US ends it's Presence in the Country Iran is just over the Border!
Could Sadr be the new Diem?
ReplyDeleteAmerica had an Ally in Indochina before the Vietnam War. His Name was Ngo Dinh Diem and he is remembered as the last President of Vietnam and former Leader of South Vietnam, until his Assassination in 1963. Seen as an Ally of the US against Communism, he enjoyed a lot of support from the Kennedy Government and hosted a Visit from Lyndon Johnson who was then Vice President.
All seemed hunky dory, even though Diem was an Autocrat, until things started going wrong. A Catholic, Diem was seen as discriminatory against Buddhists who were increasingly displeased at their Treatment by him. Their Protests were gaining momentum until Diem finally clamped down on them. This invoked concern in Washington that they were supporting an intolerant Regime and thus, looked the other way when ARVN Generals staged a Coup. Many believe they might even have been complicit in his Assassination, but either suggests how transient that Support can be.
Al Sadr might be the Flavour of the Week in Washington now but how long might it be before he starts looking like Diem? Vietnamese Buddhists might have protested - and Diem responded harshly - but neither waged War on the other. Sunni have fought Shia on the Streets and Cities of Iraq - while Iranian backed Shi'ites could begin their not unsubstantial Protests. Lebanon showed how Shia Moslems can and do kill other Shia Moslems, as Amal and Hezbollah fought each other in the Civil War. Interestingly - the Kurds are like the Druze in this Story as they are another Militia - somewhat detached from the others, and with their own autonomous Region.
So what happens in Washington if - or when - Mr Sadr starts clamping down on Sunni Protests like Diem did Vietnam's Buddhists? Could he start looking like as much of a Liability to American Prestige and claims to pro-Freedom and Pluralism?
How about Baghdad if Iran decides to develop an Iraqi equivalent of Hezbollah - which they could quite possibly do - in response to what has just happened? Hezbollah are very powerful in Lebanon, a State within a State that makes even Israel nervous.
In other words, how long will it be before America's new anti-Iranian Ally starts looking like their old anti-Communist one?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, having just read through a Summary of declassified National Security archived Documents the Impression I get is the US didn't give a Stuff about Arabization in Iraq and made very tepid Condemnations of Saddam's use of Chemical Weapons.
ReplyDeleteDonald Rumsfeld visited Baghdad twice - in 1983 and 1984 - after Iran had reported Iraqi use of CWs but made no mention of it on either occasion. The US claimed to have cited their use as causing Support to Saddam being restricted, but elsewhere the opposite seemed to apply. It was the same with his plans to develop a nuclear Program - while they removed Iraq from their List of Terrorist Sponsors.
This last Item is ironic as their Support of Palestinian Groups was actual as opposed to the non-existant Support they supposedly gave to Al Qaida. Indeed, the only Islamist Group active in Iraq were the Shia Al Dawa, based in a border Region with Iran - in opposition to Saddam.
America was deliberately ambiguous about other Countries supplying "dual use" Goods to Iraq, like heavy Trucks and Helicopters that could be easily put to military use.
As for Arabization, this was a Process that had gone on for years before the Iran-Iraq War when Turkmen, Assyrians and particularly Kurds were systematically evicted from Towns, Villages and Regions in their 100's of 1000's, and replaced by landless Arabs. According to the Documents and Recordings of the Rumsfeld Meetings no mention was made at all of any of this and no Caveat attached to further Support from the US. By 1984 Saddam was losing his preempted War with Iran but America failed to use this as Leverage to guarantee at least some Recognition of Human Rights.
The Al Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, which included the use of Chemical Weapons at Halbja could only have happened because of this Preamble. Because no mention was made about Saddam's treatment of Ethnic Minorities in his Dealings with Washington he just continued as before.
There was also an imperative by the US that Oil Traffic should be protected as Iran had effectively cut off Gulf Shipping in the Shatt Al Arab and Straits of Hormuz. The thing is, this being the crux of Saddam's Economy and his deteriorating military Position against the Iranians gave America ample opportunity to force his Compliance with Human Rights Issues.
They didn't and this seems quite indicative of their Priorities in Policy towards the Arabian Region and Levant.
Not only did they fail to capitalize on a working Partnership with Iran tackling the Taliban and Al Qaida in 2002, which might have saved Afghanistan in August this year, years earlier they failed to seize this invaluable Opportunity to represent Human Rights in 1980's Iraq.
ReplyDeleteSomething that is also very current because there seems to be scant News coverage from Iraq since the recent Election, and the new Government, for all the Horror that finally led to them - doesn't seem to be being scrutinised!
ReplyDeleteThe World has a Right to know if Sadr was worth any of it!
And this lack of Information from Iraq continues as the only post-election Story about it isn't from there at all. It's a joint Statement by the UN Security Council congratulating Iraq on the recent Ballot. Hardly the proverbial Despatch from the Frontline.
ReplyDeleteMost Stories are at least a Fortnight old, while googling "is Iraq better off" yields Results about the Iraq of People like the autocratic Nouri Al Maliki.
While there are some who want to sue America for the years of Trauma, Damage and Death it should be asked how exhaustive their efforts have been in nearly 40 years to avoid War at all?
Why didn't Donald Rumsfeld insist on Human Rights Compliance in 1983-4 when America increasingly acted as Saddam's Guarantor? There is no Evidence to suggest he did at all.
Why didn't they build on a potential working Relationship with Iran's Qasem Soleimani in confronting Islamist Terrorism?
America wasn't just selling a few Weapons (including the basis for some Chemical Weapons) to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War. They were also heavily involved in keeping Iraqi Oil flowing to the rest of the World. Oil was Saddam's only real Export and thus the only Source of Income. Iran knew this which is why attempting Blockades on the Shatt Al Arab Waterway and Straits of Hormuz were devastating Strategies against Saddam's Economy, not just his Ability to fight, but also to rule. If Iraqi Oil failed so, ultimately would his Government. Xi Xing Ping might be one of the most powerful Men in the World, whose Power and Influence dwarfes Saddam - but even he knows all that hinges on his continuing to provide to the Chinese People. His position completely depends on it. The same would apply to Saddam.
ReplyDeleteTo be seen working with Iran sends clear Signals to Baghdad of a Sea Change in a World Order that had existed since Tehran's Revolution of 1979. Even in the 90's Saddam could always kick back in one of his many Palaces saying "They might dislike me - but they like Iran even less". That would change if he suddenly saw them in cooperation with what was once "the great Satan".
With his military already stretched, equipment dated and in need of Spares and No-Fly Zones imposed, notching up his Game wouldn't be an Option. He would have no choice but to opt for a diplomatic Approach. Seen to comply with Resolutions imposed on him is part of that.
Particularly as he sees Gaddafy negotiating with Tony Blair and something of a detente cordiale starts to emerge with former Islamic Enemies - from Persia to North Africa!
I have just read something awesome about Actress Debra Winger.
ReplyDeleteShe has criticised the UN and Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for inaction at allegations Turkey has used Weapons forbidden by the Organisation. They cite other examples of Turkish misdemeanours in the Kurdish Region which seem to have been done with impunity.
Turkey being believed to have used CWs against the Kurds not only shows an inconsistency in Policy vis a vis Saddam and Halabja, Ms Winger and 65 other signatories have called it a "mockery" that the Iraqi Leaders use of CWs was used as a Pretext for War when his Attack could have been prevented.
Exactly, and this reinforces what I said of Rumsfelds failure to attach Human Rights Caveats to US support for Mr Hussein in the early 1980's! Either he wasn't all he was cracked up to be as a Negotiator - and thus questionable as a capable Defence Secretary - or he has been less than honest. Having watched his unconvincing performances at Press Conferences I'd say he was both.
Keep up the good Work Ms Winger and the others doing the Campaign!
Former Ba'athists must be watching all this with incredulity .....
ReplyDeletehttps://hawarnews.com/en/mobile/?page=haber&ID=27061
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/17/turkish-proxies-chemical-weapons-syria-kurds/
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/report-turkey-used-chemical-weapons-against-kurds
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/turkey-may-have-used-chemical-weapons-on-kurdish-civilians-2019-10%3famp
These are just a few of the Articles alleging Turkish use of Chemical Weapons in a brutal Campaign described by some as "extermination" against Kurds. This is a complete Travesty in many ways, mainly because it compromises any Premise the so called "Coalition of the Willing" had for its Invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam was accused - rightly - of using them at Halabja but it seems Turkey is carrying out a systematic Campaign of lots of Halabjas and those that should voice Concern don't bat an Eyelid.
The horrible thing about all this is it's a NATO Country doing it.
Not only should they be censured by the OPCW they should also face an inquiry by the NATO Secretary General.
The Inconsistency compromises what is left of any dubious legitimacy the Iraq War might claim because the bolstering of the Kurds was about the only vaguely decent thing that ever came from it.
Not only have the Kurds done a tremendous Job of protecting Minorities in Iraq and Syria like the 100's of 1000's Yazidis who fled ISIL a few years ago, they are also the most loyal and reliable Allies in the Region.
If both the OPCW and NATO drag their Heels in condemning Turkish atrocities against them how long will that last? Jens Stoltenberg's Inertia is rather like George Robertson failing to rebuke Mikhail Sakashvilli whose invasion of South Ossettia could have caused WW3 and caused what is now the new Cold War.
Meanwhile, in Iraqi Iraq Commentators are concerned about the Backlash against Iranian Interference in Iraqi Sovereignty. That Iraqi Demonstrators are calling for the disarming of non-Government Militias - particularly Iranian backed ones, and an end to Iran's Political Proxies.
ReplyDeleteThat this is spreading to Lebanon with Lebanese Protests against Hezbollah - but how all of this is dangerous.
While they concede that America particularly gave Iraq to Iran on a Platter when the 2003 War brought down the Iraqi Military, Government, and Institutions, those were the very things that kept Iran at bay for years.
This was why they had all that support from other Arabs and the West in their War against Iran, which is why it's staggering that the Secretary of State for Defence didn't prevent Paul Bremers zealous deba'athification when People like Jay Garner advised against it. Rumsfeld goes against his own Policy - or at least forgets it's original Objective. Rehabilitated Ba'athists might have prevented what People are protesting about now, while anyone could have told Bush/Cheyney who would step into the Void!
The Tragedy is how the Ayatollah Khomeini's wishes have come true after half a Million perished in the 1980's, while the Response to the current Backlash could result in both an internal Civil War and another between the 1980's Antagonists! Iraqi Opposition to Iran might look virulent but Iran would probably prevail in any War with them.
So while the most loyal in the Region endure a Policy of what some have called "extermination" by a NATO Country any War in Lebanon could be worse than anything they've seen before.
Although it was devastating the Civil War of 1975 was one fought district for district. Any fought between Hezbollah and Lebanese won't be a hotch potch of Squabbles between Nasserite Mouribitoun Militia and Phalangists, Palestinians and Maronites, even the - then - new Hezbollah and Amal over a few Blocks of a City. It'll be Lebanese pitted against what has become a vast and heavily armed theocratic Army.
And unlike 1976 there won't be any "Pax Syriana" from Damascus because Bashar Assad has his own Wars to fight. Not that he could be anything like as effective as his father anyway - banging squabbling Lebanese Heads together, telling them to knock it off, because Hezbollah would be more powerful than he is.
In those Days Hezbollah were just one of many Militias fighting in Beirut, most of whom have since disbanded or were defeated and forgotten. Years of consolidation, fighting Rivals and Alliances with former Enemies have made them a very formidable Force indeed.
It's rather like the Palestinians who might have had the Fatah Revolutionary Council led by Arafat in exile in Tunisia, but were a myriad of different Groups and Factions. The PDFLP, PFLP, the DFLP, Revolutionary Justice Organisation, Islamic Jihad - many of whom no longer exist - while Hamas have become the predominant Antagonist in Palestinian Paramilitarism. Who they side with in Lebanon could be a deciding Factor - while the Druze would probably try desperately to remain neutral.
Interestingly the Druze are rather like the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. A sect of People, different and semi-autonomous - who have often been something of an honest Broker in Disputes. When Kurdish Masoud Barzani acted as Guarantor in Iraq, occasional Interlocutor and protector of Minorities I was reminded of the same from the Jumblatts either as Negotiators in the Lebanese Conflict or Cooperators in the Hostage Crisis.
If the Iraq Problem does spill into Lebanon (and many might wonder why it hasn't by now anyway) the Conflict becomes much wider and could draw many others in before it's through.
Rumsfeld was in Iraq in 1983-4 as part of a Policy to thwart Iranian Expansionism. His 2003 War might have toppled Saddam, but the Structure was what guaranteed Iraqi Sovereignty against its eastern Rival. People like Jay Garner knew this, which is one of the Reasons why he wanted to retain it. Along with a Desire to prevent the Country descending into the Chaos and Civil War that happened later. While Afghanistan fell to the Taliban a couple of Months ago, thus undoing any Progress the longest War of modern times might have achieved, Paul Bremers Bull in a Baghdad China Shop did the same thing to any Policy in the 1980's.
ReplyDeleteHow did that go down with Iraqi Veterans of the War with Iran, and the Families of those killed or wounded?
As if that wasn't enough, the vicious Paradox about it all now is how they keep using Kurdish Opinion to justify their 2003 War, many of whom welcomed the end of Saddam Hussein, while standing idly by as Kurds are systematically slaughtered by a NATO Ally!
Even pro-Western Kurds like Massoud Barzani might start saying; "It isn't the Iranians who are doing this!"
Maybe someone should publish the NATO Secretary Generals Job Description.
ReplyDeleteIt seems there are things we assume are in it which aren't .....
Like rebuking 'freelance' Activities by Member Countries and those hoping to join.
As soon as the first Georgian Soldier entered South Ossetia George Robertson should have been on the Phone to Tblisi asking Sakashvili what the hell he thinks he's doing? The Georgian President was hoping to Join NATO and was equipping and aligning his Military accordingly. His activities in the Caucasus - a very volatile Region at the best of times - were irresponsible. In doing so he could have caused the Region to reopen old Wounds and start fighting again, and thus even WW3 as it escalates as quickly as WW1 did. He also started the Process that led to the new Cold War as the West found itself supporting Georgia against Russia by default. In a bitter Paradox as he became very unpopular in Georgia he ended up becoming a Politician in the Ukraine which wasn't lost on Vladimir Putin.
The current Silence from NATO's Jen's Stoltenberg about Turkish excesses against Kurds and their and their Proxies Invasion of northern Iraq is deafening. Their Policy is not one of Defence, protecting their Borders against any incursion by Kurdish PKK. It is of Offence, invasion, displacement (1-300,000 People in the last 2 years) and murder. The brutal and sickening killing of Kurdish Politician Hevrin Khalaf was horrific and cruel.
Turkey attempts to launder itself against Criticism by using its Protege - the so called Syrian National Army, yet another supposed rebel Militia in the War against Assad - to do this.
It's a very cynical way of brutalising Kurds and trying to get away with it.
Some NATO Countries have expressed Concern in their own Parliament's, but neither our or America's Legislatures seem to have said anything. Jens Stoltenberg, as NATO Secretary General should be very public in his Condemnation of these Atrocities and using his Influence on Turkey to desist.
One of the Networks should show "Lawrence of Arabia" until Turkish Atrocities against Kurds stop. Either all if it each time, or Segments of half Hour a day.
ReplyDeleteNot just because it shows the War against the same Ottoman Turks who committed Genocide against Armenians during WW1, but also because of the Betrayal at the end.
There might come a time when Masoud Barzani says how he knows how Faisal must have felt after Sykes-Picot in 1918. The Arab Loyalty against the Turks was repaid by an Anglo-French Carve up that meant he wasn't really King of anything. Mr Barzani might start to wonder why he was so loyal to the West while NATO's Turkey brutalises and murders his People!
Turkey do it via Proxies like the so called Syrian National Army. Slobodan Milosovich did it via Proxies like Radovan Karadic and Ratko Mladic. When he did for just a few Weeks in Kosovo that same NATO bombed his Capital and Infrastructure. Turkey have been doing it for 2 years in Scenes reminiscent of what James Baker went to see for a few paltry Minutes in 1991. Kurds fleeing Saddam.
No disrespect to Debra Winger but how long ago was "Officer and a Gentleman"? Where are all those current and very fashionable Celebs who seem to clog up the Info-Awareness Process these days? How about those 90's-looking-and-sounding-like-the-60's-without-the social-conscience' People of the last 27 years? When America bombed Hanoi every day in the real 60's, along with other Cities in North Vietnam, and committed atrocities at Mi Lai, People protested in their 1000's, Veterans of that War threw their Medals back at Congress, and all sorts of fashionable People protested against it.
As for Human Rights ..... Commenting on it from what I've known in recent years is Turkey hiding behind Mr Stoltenberg who is hiding behind a former Fundraiser Colleague of mine?
Not surprising then if the very People who are supposed to be speaking out about all this start to look like they're part of the same Package.
While spending my formalative Years in Cold War and Vietnam era Cambridgeshire from 1963-73 with British and American Air force People I always thought NATO were supposed to be the good guys. Seeing Turkish Proxies acting like the Einzatzgruppen against Kurds doesn't look quite so righteous!
Particularly as those same Kurds are being cynically used as Poster People to somehow justify the dirtiest War in living memory. Maybe they did think they were better off after Saddam, but that was before all this started to happen in 2019!
Maybe that same Culture now is nothing more than a Propaganda Machine to promote all of this. That it's Silence while Turkish Proxies clear Kurdish Areas of northern Syria, and even Iraq, of Kurdish People suggests an Agenda of Lebensraum in the Region and cultural Complicity in that Process. Those Women and Children aren't trained up Card carrying Members of the PKK, while Cultures Job is to explain all of this and protest at the Atrocities done against them. It's astonishing how the Mistakes made by Sykes-Picot in 1918 are being repeated 100 years later while deliberately dumbed down Culture wouldn't know what that is.
Remembering how the Wars against Saddam and Milosovich were sold to us shouldn't there be a Coalition about to invade Turkey with Air Strikes and Cruise Missiles aimed at Ankara?
Because there aren't, and while Turkey does the opposite of what Kennedy/McNamara did in 1962 - provoking and antagonising rather than disarming - it's telling that Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld died without making their "Fog of War"! "Fog of War" was the Film made by Kennedy's Defence Secretary Robert McNamara, where he admits to being wrong about Vietnam!
And just when it couldn't get any more horrible it gets more horrible ...... and ironic!
ReplyDeleteTurkey hosts about 3.5 Million Syrian Refugees who have fled years of War. The 'clearing' of a 30 mile wide "buffer Zone" in northern Syria of 300,000 Kurds (now classed as IDPs) has left it ready to repopulate with those Refugees in Turkey. They are reporting a policy of misery and attempted Coercion by Turks, effectively trying to deport them into the Zone. Thus, they are being squeezed into an Area not historically theirs and where they will not feel particularly welcome.
Effectively Turkey is arabising an Area formerly Kurdish - which is what Saddam Hussein did in the 1970's and 80's. So much for improving the lives of anyone in the Region then.
Because of Turkeys location - not being called Asia Minor for nothing - other NATO Countries feel stymied in their Criticism. Turkey has a strategic importance, but until the insanity of the last 10+7 years who ever heard of any Battles with the Syrian or Iraqi Armies? How many have they had since, with all sorts of People, while now being posited against Assad in Damascus? Hence their support of the "Syrian National Army"!
While their SNA Proxy commits their Brutality against Civilians, masked as a "War" against the Syrian Democratic Front, the SDF were Allies with America in their War against ISIL. When America withdrew the SDF had to defend itself against Turkey as well as fight ISIL. An unenviable position made worse by having to supervise 10,000 ISIL Prisoners and monitor 100,000 suspected ISIL Families. The Strain is proving too much while it is thought SNA are releasing ISIL Captives in Regions they have captured. Thus, any Gains in the War against the Caliphate are being undone by the current Conflict.
Understandably, the SDF are asking if America are their Allies at all, and while Afghanistan rapidly collapsed as America withdrew, the Levant is a seething Mass of Insurgents, Armies and Militias - all trying to seize their big chance of some Territory and Influence. Chechens who couldn't cut it in Grozny might run a few Villages in Syria.
And while the SDF are unsure about Loyalties these days Kurds generally will start to ask the same Questions!
As the current Crisis grinds on, not only will Kurds start asking Questions about their fair Weather Friends in Washington, and maybe even those Faisal might have asked in 1918, they could even wonder if they are better off at all without Saddam.
ReplyDeleteIn the brutal Set of Certainties when he was alive they could always say; he was a Pariah and most of the World supported their Opposition to him. Their current Dilemma is being caused by a NATO Country so those Certainties no longer apply. At least when they were pitted against Saddam there was always the possibility that the Morass could end and things improve.
Who is going to invade Turkey and topple it's Government?
And before the so called "Liberals" try to assume the high Ground and smugly lay the Blame at Trump's Feet the bloody Mess that is Libya can be attributed to Hillary while Syria's malaise started on Obama's Watch. The former President not only lied about his winding down of any Conflict, when the opposite applied, he always used the mooted Withdrawal from Iraq as a political popularist Points Scorer as and when it suited him.
ReplyDeleteSo there will come a time (sooner rather than later probably) when the Kurds will realise they aren't better off after Saddam after all. Their Plight might even be worse! Turkish Arabization of their Regions isn't even being done by their own Country. Saddam 'relocated' People within his own Borders!
ReplyDeleteNot only is their Plight made worse by all this, the Situation generally is worse than that left by Sykes-Picot in 1918. Something almost everyone agrees was the Origin of the Problems of the last 100 years.
While the Remake of "Lawrence of Arabia" could end with Lawrence, played by any General or Politician from this sorry Mess, being driven home from Afghanistan or the Levant how about the "War on Terrorism"? Y'know - that 20 year old hackneyed Soundbite first coined by GWB in response to 9/11!
ReplyDeleteWhile even Al Qaida flinched at the excesses of some of the Groups that now exist there are rather more of them. People like the SDF fighting bravely and valiantly against them now have to defend against Turkish backed Extremists. They have said how their Battle with ISIL is severely compromised by this and can no longer guarantee keeping their Activities in check. This probably applies to others embroiled in the Conflict, Kurdish or otherwise.
The recent assassination of Qasem Soliemani and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis not only removed 2 very effective Players in the War on Insurgents, and scotched an attempt at Detente by the former with Saudi Arabia, it also prompted what amounts to a Blood Feud from Iran.
The killing of one of their most popular Figures - as revered in Iran as Generals Robert E Lee or Ulysses S Grant are in America - has invoked an unprecedented Desire for vengeance never spoken of before.
All this and the seething Mass of Extremism in Libya and elsewhere in North Africa that won't negotiate with Tony Blair, has left the World very vulnerable to acts of Terrorism.
Heck, if the US couldn't keep tabs on Mohammed Atta's Crew in 2001, despite the Breadcrumb Trails they left everywhere how are they going to monitor all of that?
It should also be remembered that Relations with Russia and China were considerably better than they are now!
And if there are 10,000 ISIL Prisoners in the Area controlled by the SDF, not only is that just one Area in the Region, that's also just those they've captured. How many are in other Areas of the Region, and how many haven't been captured yet? That's 10s of 1000 potential Mohammed Atta's, worse than Al Qaida, in a Region much bigger than Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's not forget it's the same Taliban running Afghanistan who did so in the 1990's when they hosted Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida!
While most of Atta's Cohorts were Saudi, and Saudi Arabia have been providing Money and Weapons to the Insurgent Extremists, Soleimani's attempted Peace Accord with Riyadh might have made a huge Contribution to at least ending some of it.
So, while the "War on Terrorism" unravels while it is fought - and is as inconclusive as People were saying it would be - how about Iraq itself?
ReplyDeleteMr Sadr has 73 Seats in a factional Parliament of 329. That's less than a quarter in a Parliament not that far removed from the Damascene Parliament shown in "Lawrence of Arabia". What sort of Government would we have if they only had 144 Seats in a House of Commons with 650? Our own Coalition Government of 2010 proved either ineffectual or unpopular, while doing a lot of long term Damage to the Liberal Democrats who were it's junior Partner.
Sadr might have to resort to Decree, but unlike Saddam - with his minority Sunni Government - he doesn't have a fully intact Army, Republican Guard, and all-encompasing Jihaz al Amn al Khas to back him up. Set against the Backdrop of Boycott and Protest of the recent Election his Tenure will be very difficult!
The Great Game .....
ReplyDeleteWhen I was watching an Interview Rory Stewart gave to Maverick TV one Commentator said something, except I don't think he realised it's significance!
They were talking about the Taliban as compared to its 90's Predecessor - and they said how the current one has been making Diplomatic Gestures to Russia and China.
If that's true, one look at a Map of the Region will tell you what that means.
If Afghanistan becomes part of a Sino-Russian Orbit - with Pipelines and Infrastructure being part of the Deal, you suddenly have a Link connecting Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Tehran now has a long established Relationship with Moscow because of its enmity with the West, particularly Britain and the US. Pakistan's Loyalty has always been ambiguous, and with former Soviet States to its north, and what could be a Russian Client to its west that might become more aligned with Russia and less with the West. They might also follow the Iranians with their nuclear development Potential and seek russian resources and Expertise.
If all of this happens a huge swathe of Geography becomes more aligned with Russia and China and less with a West who has fought in the Region for 180 years. Not only has the Conflict of the last 20 years been lost to the Taliban, Vladimir Putin has achieved what Brezhnev and Gorbachev couldn't in the 1980's..... and the Tsars couldn't in the 1800's!
And if that wasn't significant enough if there were future Summits to resolve Pakistan's Cold War with India it won't be brokered by Anglo-America!
While the Taliban tout for Support, Russia has always coveted Afghanistan as anyone who has read Rudyard Kipling will know and anyone who saw the 1980's will remember. The Leverage it puts on Pakistan is immense - while China owns the Seaport at Gwadar. The Russians were involved in their great Game with Beijing, with Putin's recent visits to India so the geographical advantage in Afghanistan is obvious. The West is severely diminished, if not non-existent in the Region.
The 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship which laid to rest the lingering dispute about Territory in Manchuria was extended for 5 years on June 28th of this year which deepens cooperation with the 2 Countries at a time when rather a lot is up for grabs. China needs Russian Petroleum and Russia needs Chinese Capital so Afghanistan becomes increasingly strategic as a Conduit for both russian and iranian Fuel.
Because of this, the conclusive and rapid Victory by the Taliban, and a war weary, battered America, it's very unlikely we would see a repeat of the Afghan-Soviet War. Russian presence wouldn't be military and by no means seen as an Invasion. Obvious resonances of proto-Al Qaida would prevent support of any Insurgency against the Taliban while the Afghans themselves might not want it. Even the previous Taliban brought an end to a Civil War that destroyed the Country, and Afghanis were relieved, even if they didn't support them. The Taliban themselves are desperate for foreign Investment while concurrently being the Countries religious Authority. They aren't the secular Socialists who invited or should that be invoked the Soviet Occupation in 1979.
In the next 5 years Moscow and Beijing will probably consolidate in a Region that extends from Damascus to Bangladesh, thus increasing their influence exponentially. The Talibans approach to Russia and China is very significant and I was surprised that Rory Stewart didn't elaborate on it.
The Objectives of the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship are military and economic. To establish a Pact far bigger, more populated, and much wealthier than the Warsaw Pact that ended in 1989.
ReplyDeleteThe Warsaw Pact was stymied by Ideology, lack of foreign investment, some Clients being wealthier than the Soviet Union itself, and an Incompetence cause by Dogma and Rhetoric getting the better of Common Sense and Pragmatism.
China was the same, with those Great Leaps forward causing everything from unusable Steel to Famine and the Cultural Revolution destroying Acumen and the Intelligentsia. Concurrent to this were occasional Flare-ups with Moscow - sometimes leading to pitch Battles - in Manchuria over disputed Territory.
Xi Xing Ping has shown what happens if you imbue the Ideology with the things the Maoists destroyed in an Economy that is provably efficient and prosperous, while there is more Money in the Russian Federation than there ever was in the Soviet Union. China even underwrote some of the West during the Slump of 2007-8, preventing complete financial Collapse. Would they do the same now?
Both have just scooped up a vast and hugely populated, uninterrupted Region pending any Deal with the Taliban, while the West can only watch in impotent Stupor.
Not helped by the apparent unreliability of the West to its Allies in the Region, particularly the Kurds. While America blows hot and cold in its support the Kurds see Moscow as a Constant, going back to when Mustafa Barzani, KDP Leader Masouds Father, lived in Moscow for a while as an exile. Kurdistan forms a Corridor between Syria to Iran via northern Iraq, the KDP Heartland, while Turkish Activities have galvanised Kurdish Loyalty to Russia.
ReplyDeleteSri Lanka are effectively mortgaged to China after Colombo defaulted on its huge Debt to Beijing - while some of those former Soviet States in central Asia are only nominally independent. Everything they import or export has to go through Russia, China or Iran, while how 'former' is former Soviet anyway? Even before all this they formed part of the Silk Road - so called as Caravans carried Silks from China to Damascus and the West.
The impact of the Collapse in Afghanistan shouldn't be underestimated and after Russia and China have carved up Asia the West (America, Britain, and Europe), Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific) and Japan are left with the smaller portion of the World.
Similarities to the British Empire in Afghanistan in the 1800's are already happening. The US might have a Presence in some Regions, but it's purely military. Armies garrisoned in Compounded Enclaves surrounded by wary and suspicious native Civilians. The Marshall Islands has US Missile Base Staff living like sleek American Soap Opera Stars while the natives quite literally live in their Rubbish, with no infrastructure funding at all and minimal Wages for those who can work. Okinawa - although part of Japan - isn't part of the Tokyo Monoglot and it's People are very miffed at their Government allowing the US to turn their Island into a Fortress.
It's the same elsewhere in the Pacific, and while the combined Fleets of the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Britain are outnumbered 4 to 1 by Chinese Ships all they can do is flood Taiwan with Nuclear Weapons.
Part of that Sino-Russian Treaty implies Russia supports Beijing in its claim to the Island otherwise known as Formosa.
I wrote this Article in 2002-3 and while I am not a supporter of Saddam Hussein and don't live in a sort of Nostalgic Denial - my opinion on that Iraq War hasn't changed at all. I hope for the sake of the Iraqi People the new Government prevails and does improve their Lives in peace, but that is tempered with knowing there are 256 other Representatives in that Parliament - and those they represent, in a House only 42% voted for - and a seething Mass simmering just below the Surface.
Going as far back as Clinton's failure to neutralise Al Qaida in the 1990's I am part of the ever Crowd who believe this has been botched for nearly 30 years and maybe the West was the Victim of its own success after the Cold War and became arrogant and conceited!
While Russia now has the Option of an afghani Pipeline to Chinese Facilities in Gwadar from Iran in the West and elsewhere in the North, what of that Region of Iraq run by the Kurds?
ReplyDeleteIt's a huge Boost to Barzani's Prestige and the Kurdish Economy if he can accommodate russian built Infrastructure from Syria (and thus the Mediterranean) to Iran (Assad's Allies) while Kurds begin to doubt their previous Alliances with Washington.
As the Iraqi Election gave Moqtada Sadr less than a Quarter of the Seats in Parliament it makes pro-Iranian Hashed al-Shaabi the second biggest Player in the Countries Politics. Masoud Barzani - ever the shrewd Operator - will realise what this means for the KDP in Baghdad as he can now act as Interlocutor with considerable Leverage with either Parties.
Betraying the Kurds might have been a huge Mistake in the Context of everything else in the Region.
ReplyDeleteAs Russia and China carve up Asia in the next 5 years under the Auspices of the Sino-Russian Treaty - which means the World's biggest Populations and Markets - India will see the proverbial Writing on the Wall and Ghandi's Work, begun in 1947, will be complete as the last Apron Strings with the old Empire are finally cut.
The World could be a very different Place after those years and Regions bruised, battered and bloodied by years of War might start to see the West, with its Intrigue, Subterfuge and Squabbling as more trouble than it's worth.
The West, gradually marginalised from the World's biggest Land Mass is left with what? Africa - where, thanks to its own Business Practices, many Countries are propped up with foreign Aid and unrepaid Bank Loans, Latin America - much of the same, with Problems of Crime and Corruption in some Countries, sparsely populated in others and occasionally unsavoury Politics, the Pacific = tiny Island States like Micronesia and Europe where it can sell to itself!
It's like History is turning full Circle and the new New World could end up being the Continent where it all started - while the old New World starts looking very old indeed!
The Fall of Afghanistan is a lot more significant than People realise, but only happened because the West blundered through it all like the proverbial Bovine in a China Shop.
ReplyDeleteThe failure to tackle Al Qaida - even when Osama was the World's most notorious Terrorist, the misdeployment of Resources in Iraq that ought to have been in Afghanistan. The botched Opportunities to work with rather than against the Iranians, the Disasters that led to the opening of a 3rd (Syria), then a 4th (Libya) Front in the War on Terrorism and the Betrayal of the Kurds - all make the Mistakes by Sykes-Picot and the fall-out in 70's Indochina pale into insignificance.
It's also a bi-partisan Problem because when GWB spouted his "Axis of Evil" Gaffe that time, it was made comparatively tame when Hillary Clinton said how Iranians should be "obliterated" while poking Putin in the Eye, and Trump continually rattled his Sabre with China and Iran.
All of this Noise could have been avoided with a few more protagonists rather than antagonists and the Courage to try the unprecedented.
And rather like a severe Wound, the Shock hasn't worn off yet. A severe Wound is numb for a while as the Victim is in shock. When that wears off the Pain become excrutiating. Afghanistan fell and the Shock has caused a Torpor of Denial as it hasn't sunk in yet. When it does People will realise the Implications.
ReplyDeleteAs the Region's afflicted visit Graves and mourn the Dead and Disappeared, try to rebuild shattered Homes and Lives, understandably enraged at the brutality they have endured - so will the Countries that were involved in the Conflicts. Veterans Associations have reported an Increase in Trauma Cases and even Suicides at the News from Kabul. Societies have been fractured by those who were for and those who were against the Wars at all, Reputations irredeemably tarnished ("I'm Canadian" or "I didn't vote for him" Americans would say to me), Democracy damaged, Latinos now call Britain, and Blair particularly "America's little Dog", and the Human and Fiscal Cost is immense. From Baghdad to the Bedroom Tax might be one way of explaining the huge Expenditure these Wars - particularly Iraq - have cost Britain for example, while what it means for future Social Spending in light of the Covid Crisis is yet to be calculated.
One of the first Casualties of all this, and secondary Victims were New Labours doomed ethical Foreign Policy and what that meant in Darfur. While Sudanese Government Forces killed and ethnically cleansed non-Arabs in their 100's of 1000's. Britain's Soldiers can't be everywhere, and instead of pursuing that ethical Policy, protecting those People, they were in Iraq.
Some of us put up with a lot of Crap during all of this by daring to question any of it. Years spent in a sort of Coventry for writing about it, putting "No War" Posters up or wearing "No War" T'Shirts. It was like we had become social Lepers for being right.
They say of the Spanish Civil War the Rifts caused by a War from 1936 to 39 haven't properly healed. I'm not sure those caused by all this will either!
Indeed, one Question hasn't been asked.
ReplyDeleteWhile British Soldiers were in Iraq - and not Darfur, how many others were in Iraq instead of doing UN work for example? How many Problem Areas of the World were neglected as Resources were sent to the Gulf?
How about the Political Blackmail and Bribery from Washington?
ReplyDeleteThose terrifying Words from George Bush - "You're either with us or the Terrorists" he told us in 2001 when his Cabinet were preparing for War. When Barack Obama won in 2008 it looked like the Bush-Cheyney Nightmare had ended. He had opposed the War as a Senator and it seemed we could heave a Sigh of Relief. Then along came John Kerry - who was for it, then Hillary - also for it, and while John Kerry might have gone to Moscow - Hillary was far more provocative. Then she made her Comment about how the Iranian People should be "obliterated" and we had to double check to see if she wasn't some Neocon GOP Candidate in disguise. Libya was next as Ghadaffi was gruesomely murdered and Syria became the new Civil War as her Saudi and Qatari Friends supported ISIL and other extremist Groups against Assad's comparatively moderate Government. More Syrians were killed, oppressed, fled or disappeared in that than he or his Father ever did.
Then, in 2016 it looked like there might be an alternative. While the Establishment gave us more Hawks on either side of the Aisle (Geb Bush/Hillary Clinton) who spelt more of the same "The Donald" ran for Office - and won. Those of us who knew a thing or two thought at least he might not be more of the same, won't take us to War against Russia - and was comparatively mute about Iran. He was antagonistic about China - but only in terms of Trade and wanting American Manufacturing in China to come home and employ Americans. Some of us also mistrusted Obama by then - looking more like a Trojan Horse full of warmongering Hillary's - than who we knew in 2008. The Problem was Trump was also very very conservative - Nemesis to anything remotely liberal - but at least he seemed against any War. John Pilger summed up that Election when he said Americans had no-one to vote for in 2016.
Post-Trump, as President Biden withdrew from Afghanistan - the Damage was done, and it collapsed. The President's Blame on Afghanis not putting up a Fight was appalling, but how about back Home? Clintonite's who were more Neocon than the Neocons during Obama's Presidency have reasserted themselves after her defeat in 2016 and it seems we had no-one to vote for in 2016 either!
While the West flails about trying to find trading Partners, one of them was the Man who was murdered in Libya. The Founder of the African Union and Head of one of its wealthiest States Ghadaffi was trying to establish a peaceful and prosperous Africa.
ReplyDeleteSeeing Libya as African not Arabic, thus put him in opposition with Osama Bin Laden, the 2 were Enemies. He might even have been a Partner in the War on Terrorism if his Agreements with Tony Blair hadn't been cut short by his Demise and Libya's Downfall. Because of the Union he established Africa might have been a much more prosperous trading Partner, while Commonwealth Members in it could bring that Wealth to an Organisation we might need after Brexit.
Concurrent to that the Sino-Russian Pact will probably link up the Mediterranean with the South China Sea, Spitsbergen in the far North to Sri Lanka in the South. Not even Alexander did that. He only got as far as Hindu-Kush!
ReplyDeleteVladimir Putin will probably broker a Peace between China and India in their Dispute in the Ladakh Province, while he and/or Beijing will do same in resolving the Indo-Pakistan Cold War, and might even send Russian and Chinese Peacekeepers into Kashmir.
The Damage to Western Prestige when this happens will be huge. Brokering Peace Deals was always seen as something Britain or America did, whether it was George Mitchell in Ireland, Lord Owen in the Balkans or Henry Kissinger elsewhere. Would the World see Mr Kissinger in quite the same light as Paul Bremer was one of his Protégés?
According to several Articles the War on Terror continues concurrent with, and after Iraq and Afghanistan.....
ReplyDeleteThat it is costing a huge amount of Money and continues to compromise America's moral Authority in the World.
Drone Strikes happen regularly, targeting Militants before they strike, except the arbitrary nature of these means how many before they do hit a civilian Target or even one within Territory part of the Russo-Chinese Orbit? The last one poses considerably danger, while How much Hype about these things can we believe anyway - in terms of Accuracy and Effectiveness?
The supposed Saviour of the 1991 Coalition in the Gulf War was the Patriot Missile, except very few of them actually hit SCUD Missiles fired from Iraq, and those that did did so through luck rather than judgement.
Isn't all this merely tackling the Symptoms - caused by the West anyway?
I believed the Morass facing the World at the end of the 20th Century could have been solved diplomatically. That while Tony Blair met Mouammar Ghadaffy, he and other western Leaders could have done the same with Bashar Assad (Syria) and Mohammed Khatami (Iran). Thus, neutralising the Islamic Bloc so to speak, and isolating Saddam. What happened after he was toppled when pro-Iranian Groups took control of large Chunks of Iraq is proof of how effective a Summit with Khatamis Tehran would have been.
Rumsfeld as Guarantor to Saddam's Economy, his ability to export Oil, should have used leverage with him in the 1980's, but he didn't.
There was a Subtext in some of that Reportage I found offensive .....
How, the "Arab Spring" meant Militants turned on their own Societies implies that Arab Life is cheaper than those of the West. That it is somehow acceptable that they be sacrificed in their Millions as long as the West continues as before. I'm sure that would do nothing to assuage anti-western Opinion in Afghanistan, the Levant, Arabia and North Africa.
Also, it failed to mention the rapid Decline in western Influence - which will start to effect it's Economy. As China and Russia carve up Asia - the world's most populated and biggest Market - how is the West going to keep financing the never ending War?
As the Bedroom Tax was the tip of the Iceberg when it came to where Monies would be recouped after the huge Expenditure on recent Wars - are we to infer that that will continue and other Areas of Social Spending will be cut to pay for it all?
What bankrupted the Soviet Union was it's huge and unaffordable Military Spending. As China finances Russia and Russia fuels China that is no longer a Problem in Moscow. If the West isn't careful that 1992 Shoe could end up on the other Foot! Ideology restricted Soviet Trade and it's ability to raise Capital - Stupidity might do the same with the West.
And that Mess has caused a Plethora of Contradictions and Ironies .... not least the actual Existence of Terrorist and Islamist Groups in Iraq that weren't there before ..... but it continues.
ReplyDeleteIn America some far-right White Supremacist Groups that were classed as Terrorists have flourished in an Environment that has occured concurrent to the rise of Jihadism. One Casualty in it all are American Values - which dissipated in the Strain against Reactionaryism. One quote I thought particularly poignant was given to the Washington Post ....
"The U.S. squandered an opportunity to create a better world
“What if instead of launching a War on Terror, the greatest strategic disaster in the United States’ modern history, U.S. leaders had used 9/11 as a catalyst to bring about a more tolerant, peaceful and prosperous world, the antithesis of al-Qaeda’s worldview? This was neither a far-fetched scenario nor it is wishful thinking.” — Fawaz A. Gerges,
Exactly, and pre-empt all of this with Summits in Damascus and Tehran - concurrent with that in Tripoli!
And the horrible thing is, after leaving a Trail of Dead, Damage, Disruption and Displacement, America and other Coalition Countries limped home to recrimination and a huge Bill running into Trillions of Currency Units.
As they do Russia and China will scoop up the Spoils with Trade Agreements and Infrastructure!
Rudi might fail .....
ReplyDeleteHow about those Markets ....?
According to current Figures the Population of the European Union is 447 Million. Others try and extend that into Eastern Europe, except a large swathe of that is Russia and Belorus. Those of Pakistan and Indonesia - both firmly integrated into Chinese Economics - total 493 million, so just 2 Asian Countries exceed that of all EU Countries combined.
Europe might be far wealthier, but that is due to Centuries of Empires and trading with Asia. The Empires no longer exist - while trading is becoming even more competitive. China not only makes everything America and Europe makes, it also has a huge Population of increasingly wealthy People to sell to. How many of their Cities are as big, and even bigger than, Greater London? Even India might find those Chinese Megacity Customers hard to resist, and where will they get their raw Resources .....?
Russia has a vast supply of just about every natural Resource you can think of, thus supplying Manufacturing across the whole Continent.
Gwadar, owned by China, on the Pakistan Coast is just waiting for a Russian built Pipeline from Iran to go through Afghanistan. Whenever India imports or exports with Britain, Europe, America, Australasia and Africa it takes Days by Ship instead of Hours by Land - which doing same with China would involve. Why not resolve the Ladakh Dispute and establish Trade with China? Why not allow Russian and Chinese Peacekeepers into Kashmir to stabilise things there?
Even Europe is partially dependant on Russian Gas and Oil as the Yamal Pipeline sends it to Germany.
The Problems the West will have are in danger of looking similar to those of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.
The Warsaw Pact was a Bloc that served the exchange of Trade, Resources, Culture, Humanity ..... but what it was synonymous with was Military. Say "Warsaw Pact" to People and their first Impression might be Tanks in Budapest or Prague. Vast military manouvres in Eastern Europe, Nuclear Testing, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Invasion of Afghaistan and the Cold War.
Everything that seemed wrong with Communism and it's fascist equivalent in other Words. Because those Juntas in Latin America were run by the Generals, as was Franco's Spain.
America particularly might dot the World with Drone Bases and "over the Horizon" Surveillance Centers, but how long will it be before People start asking if they have anything else to offer?
As the Warsaw Pact Military and Surveillance States stifled the Lives of the People they proportedly represented they were rejected by those very People. Western Politicians use Fear in their Propaganda to justify it, just like the KGB, Stasi, STB, and Securitae did in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. It's all done for your benefit - they tell us as we resemble those Countries on the other side of the old Iron Curtain.
ReplyDelete"GWB is a bigger Threat to my Civil Liberties than Saddam" People said 20 years ago, and did that ease or improve with successive Governments since? A Photojournalist bravely covering Life in Iraq was accused of being a "Traitor" by a pro-War Pundit, but who is doing the Damage here? The Patriot is whoever is trying to prevent it, not an Act of Congress that threatens to turn us into everything the Cold War fought against.
People in the Warsaw Pact used to look to the West for that very reason.
Russia, China, Iran and Syria are just as pitted against Terrorism as the so called "War on Terrorism" - but the West is working against, not with, them. The West backed Moujahedin, proto-Al Qaida and Taliban against Russian Soldiers in the 1980's. In the 1990's you didn't see Russians banning Females from Careers and Education or beating Women in the Street for Fashion Violations.
Now those same Russians are being touted by Taliban 2 for Trade and Investment. The Russians, in a Move the Tsars, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yetsin couldn't do - will probably check-mate the old British Empire by obliging them.
As for Human Rights, if People thought it difficult to obtain at least a few Concessions from Moscow or Beijing when the West held at least a few Aces up its Sleeve - how difficult would it be now? But then, who knows, the ever shrewd Putin and Xing Ping might outdo the West with even that to win the Hearts and Minds of those in the Areas affected by their Pact.
Meanwhile, America seems to be unravelling.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Riots after the last Election to its Winner warning that a Meteor is about to crash into the Economy, the Calexit campaign, to one of a Southern Secession - Americans are struggling to maintain the Nation State fought for in the 1860's.
But that dismal 2016 Election was symptomatic of all of it. GWBs Wars had failed to unify the Country, and even contributed to its gradual Fracture. Republicans who felt they couldn't vote for the Establishment and Democrats who wouldn't vote Hillary either voted for "the Donald" or didn't vote at all. There was no-one to vote for that year, but why?
Why can't the World's wealthiest Country, with 330 Million People, Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Stanford, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, the Hub of global Infotainment, that can put a Man on the Moon and send Probes into deep Space find 2 better Candidates than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
As one informed Commentator put it; America wants to appear as a shiny Citadel to the World, but it's starting to look a bit slummy.
ReplyDeleteThe Wars have severely damaged it's Prestige to the rest of the World and caused a Tide of bitter Recrimination within it. "Secessionitis" was an expression coined in 1860 to describe the Flood of southern States wanting to leave the Union while one Politician said "South Carolina was too small to be a Country, and too big to be an Insane Asylum". In a Country that embarked on a foolhardy Campaign to shape an unwilling World in its own Image was the rapid Collapse of Afghanistan analogous for its own Superficiality?
And I find it astonishing that after everything, the non-existent WMDs, the bogus Al Qaida Claims, the Flood of post-Saddam Militants (even Blair conceded to that one), the Refugee Crisis that hit Europe, the Government's own Websites warning People off of affected Countries, People are still pro-War.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Wars have thrown up a myriad of Ironies, here's another .....
People like Saddam Hussein and Hafez Al Assad appeared because of Sikes-Picot. Those anglo-french Lines in the Sand drawn in 1918 showed the Arabs who was Boss - while the Hashemite Princes were only nominal Kings in their own Country. The Deal was supposed to give them complete independence if they fought the Allied Cause against the Ottomans. Sikes-Picot reneged on that Deal and the subsequent sense of betrayal was never forgotten.
Gradually, as Arab Nationalism grew even the Hashemite Aristocrats became vulnerable. Faisal went into exile - and they were brought down in the 1950's and 60's. All of this is what led to the political ascendancy of Saddam and Assad in the first place.
While Barzani must be questioning his Loyalty to the West with every NATO Turkey backed SNA Bullet fired at his Kurdish People, T.E Lawrence left Damascus with Faisal's Flea in his Ear once the post-WW1 Truth had emerged.
As the proverbial Penny drops across Arabia and North Africa that there is an Attitude in the West that says; as long as they fight each other they aren't fighting us, how do People think they will respond? How will they react if it seems even the most innocent Arab Life is expendable as long as it isn't happening to the West?
The Bloodshed and Damage makes Sikes-Picot pale into insignificance, along with the Persecution and Corruption of the pre-1979 Shahs Iran. Khomeini was merely another Exile in Paris - not killed in his 100's of 1000!
There was another Arab Spring, one that didn't get very much publicity. That of Bahrain, except that was very forcibly put down by the Government, with the full support of America.
Saudi Arabian Support for Al Qaida isn't just restricted to certain members of the Bin Laden Family, while the Autocrats in Riyadh maintain Power with a Rod of Iron..... again, backed by America. There are other Countries run rather like a Lid on a Pressure Cooker, and all of this could produce a Wave of Arab Nationalism that might sweep it all away and install several Saddam Hussein's..... or even Ayatollah Khomeinis!
As Russia has proved unwavering Support for Assad's Arab Nationalism and Iran's Theocracy - which also means China - the very rapid Collapse of Afghanistan shows what can happen if the American Politico-Military Steroids wear off.
To illustrate the brutality of the Saudi Government go no further than the horrible Murder of dissident Journalist - Jamal Kashoggi - killed and apparently dismembered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. His tenacious Coverage and Criticism of the Riyadh Regime earned him a few lethal Enemies amongst his many Friends and Admirers.
ReplyDeleteI just hope others might continue his very brave Work!
To further illustrate this, here's yet another "Arab Spring" which got even less Publicity than the one in Bahrain. Seems certain People are a bit selective about who can have a Spring - and who can't....
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Saudi_Arabian_protests
And while the Taliban have consented to allow the Continuation of the Tapi Pipeline here's how Russia, China and Iran could redraw the Map of Eurasia ......
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/russia-china-iran1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiejOHeucn0AhVKY8AKHdOvARAQFnoECDIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0DrWSEawGEhEriotf1uL2K
History always yield Parallels and Ironies....
ReplyDeleteWhile Sergei Lavrov - Russian Foreign Minister - refuses to publicly recognise the Taliban Government, in the Fight against the Soviet Army in 1980's Afghanistan a Collaboration was formed involving Countries who refused to recognise Israel (Pakistan and Afghanistan). Pakistan's General Zia ul Haq was prepared to act as a Conduit for Israeli supplied Soviet made Weapons to reach Moujahedin while publicly maintaining the official Pakistani Line on Israel. Ironic, not just because the Afghans were fighting Russians - the Cause of the malaise of more recent years, but made even more paradoxical as another clandestine Source for Arms was Czechoslovakia, Moscow's Warsaw Pact Ally.
Should we take Moscow's public Stance on the Taliban with as many Grains of Salt Pakistanis might have General Zia's on Israel?
I've often wondered if this might be applied elsewhere, particularly when Agents representing Iranian Qasem Soliemani were meeting western Alliance Officials in 2002.
Here's what some eminent People were saying in 2018, a few years before the collapse of Afghanistan .......
ReplyDeletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2018/06/01/the-west-has-lost-its-dominant-global-position-it-should-handle-its-decline-gracefully/?sh=450a26617581
What amazes me is how there are still People writing like it was 21 years ago, still using that stale, discredited "Axis of Evil" Narrative like nothing since had happened at all. After things have been proved, or disproved, Politicians who supported the War discredited and Ahmed Chalabi made to look like the biggest Scam Artist of the 21st Century. After the disaster of Afghanistan and the current Mess in Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteWhen I kept meeting these nauseating pro-Warrers a few years ago I ought to have had the Territorial Army Recruitment Office Phone Number on speed dial on my Phone .... If they were under 50 I could ask them why are you here in nice safe Portishead if you're so pro-War? Here, look - it's the TA Recruitment Office Phone Number, please, be my Guest, use my Phone and save the Cost of the Call. They might hesitate and look apprehensive.
What, not so pro-War all of a sudden?
There were were very many People who lost what few Rights they did have with Saddam and Assad. "Beyond Baghdad" shows us some of them, many others lost more than that.
Someone should have quipped to any female News Anchor - part of the pro-War Propaganda a few years before; "how long do you think you'd last in ISIL controlled Mosul looking like that?" Or to a Male equivalent "Enjoy a Drink after the Show? Have a Decanter of Brandy at home do you?" All of that would end very promptly with severe Consequences for those involved if they continued, but heck - the War was such a great Idea huh!
One of the things that always perplexed me about Colin Powell's Slide Show at the UN - where he tries a 2nd rate impression of Adlai Stevenson - was how, if Saddam was developing a Nuclear Bomb where was his equivalent of Aldermaston or Los Alamos?
ReplyDeleteWe have seen the extent Britain and America went to develop Nuclear Weapons by the scale of the Facilities to do so. None of it was done in the back of Trucks or Rail Cars. It couldn't be.
Even newer Nuclear Powers like India and Pakistan would have to have more ambitious Facilities to reach the extent of their Programs.
Even with their far more advanced Technology and Architecture the Iranians still don't have WMD's.
So how did Saddam develop any Nukes at all with what we were shown by Colonel Powell?
A "Patriotic" War?
ReplyDeleteThe biggest Traitors are those who got us into this Shambles when there were always alternatives going back 33 years. Not the People who have opposed it and tried avoiding the Damage it has done.
One thing the 2nd Iraq War showed was how much our Media had deteriorated in the years running up to it.
ReplyDeleteWhile Condoleeza Rice and George Bush made that cringeable Statement about "smoking Guns" turning into "Mushroom Clouds" no one asked this .....
When Iraq was effectively blockaded by the most stringent Sanctions that would stop and inspect Ships carrying anything - even Food and Medicine - into Iraq - and was covered by No Fly Zones North and South - how exactly was Saddam going to import and construct the Facilities to make these fictitious Bombs?
Where was his equivalent of our Aldermaston or Americas Los Alamos, and being subjected to such heavy surveillance how was he going to even transport Nuclear Missiles let alone test them in the Iraqi Desert?
The infinatly more sophisticated and far more facilitated Soviet Union couldn't transport Weapons to Cuba with the US using comparatively primitive 1962 Recon Technology, so how would Saddam as besieged as he was? None of Khrushchev's Ships were boarded by Inspection Teams and there were none on the Ground in Cuba, but the US still knew about the Missiles.
With the available Surveillance Technology of 1962 they not only found SS4 medium range, and SS5 intermediate range Missiles (despite attempts to hide them), they also discovered the Surface to Air Missiles deployed to defend them against Airstrikes and much of what was being shipped there. Saddam was forced to dismantle his SCUD Missiles after 1991, whose 400km Range could and did reach Israel in the Gulf War, but it was suspected he was hiding 200 of them which would have been very difficult given the Satellite Surveillance and continual Air reconnaissance he was subjected to. He might have test fired his short range Al Samoud and Ababil 100 Missiles but these couldn't reach Israel and he had no Nuclear Warheads to deploy with them anyway.
Also, a test firing shouldn't be confused with a test Detonation. The former is to see how a Missile performs in flight, the latter how or even if a Nuclear Weapon explodes.
To have a Nuclear Weapons Program Saddam would have to do both. In the desperate circumstances of using them he'd want to ensure they'd do both properly - not fizzle out like a dud Firework.
In a Preamble where Saddam's Iraq was subjected to Sanctions far more stringent than Kennedy's Blockade of Cuba no-one asked any of this, not just in the Media but also the various Legislatures involved ????
It's one thing to have a huge Demonstration - as there were - another to directly confront a Politician responsible in a TV Interview or at the Despatch Box.
Even if the same Department that analysed the Evidence coming from Cuba in 1962 had been passed to the Pentagon in 1996 (and thus the Domain of Donald Rumsfeldt) the question could still be asked, particularly after Mr Powell's tenuous Slide Show to the UN. That while Adlai Stevenson presented very clear Proof of Soviet Missiles, Colin Powell's supposed 'proof' was nothing more than flimsy Drawings and Animations.
ReplyDeleteHow they could have used Video's showing the Contrast emphasises this.
Ironically, this had become part of popular Culture at the time because the Film "13 Days" had been made and shown a couple of years before in 2000.
The Story becomes even more potent if they had because it doesn't just suggest Fabrication it also suggests a Cover-up on the part of the Secretary of State.