A Job Well Done?

Before the invasion of Iraq, Bush and Blair used two key arguments in support of the need for urgent action. They argued that Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction posed an immediate threat to world peace, and that Saddam was supporting international terrorism. Both claims were viewed with deep scepticism at the time, and subsequent events have shown that both were untrue. Nevertheless, ordinary Iraqis are delighted that their hated dictator is gone. As more and more mass graves are being discovered, and the Kurds, Shi’as and minority communities are providing lists of their ‘disappeared’ – with over 250,000 missing already counted – the full horror of the Baathist regime is only now coming to light. So, despite the escalating level of terrorism, the increasingly difficult position of women, and with clouds gathering on the horizon, the mood in Iraq still remains largely positive.

As the two main arguments for the war unravelled, so a third was woven: that the invasion was actually undertaken to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal regime, and to install democracy – a democracy that will serve as a shining example to the entire region. But this too seems likely to prove an illusion.

After years of repression under Saddam, the Shi’as, representing 60% of the population, were revelling in their new-found religious freedom. So it was primarily their highly visible religious leaders who were selected to represent them on the American-appointed Governing Council. Virtually absent from the Council were any representatives of civil society, of the liberal professions, of academia or the trade unions. The two groups most significantly under-represented were the secularists and women. There was little evidence of any real understanding on the Council of the need for state neutrality in a multicultural society. In the end it was the Shi’ite clerics who prevailed. Under the new interim constitution, no Iraqi law may conflict with Islam. But a society can either be truly democratic or it can be theocratic: it cannot be both. The example of Turkey, often cited as proof that Islam and democracy are not incompatible, only works because under Ataturk’s constitution the clerics were stripped of their power and Islam became subordinate to civil society.

Iraq will have elections, and to that extent will have, like Iran, at least a façade of democracy. But even assuming that the majority of Shi’as actually wants an Islamic state, dictatorship of the majority is not democracy. Any fair and equitable constitution must safeguard not only the rights of minorities, but the rights of every individual to freedom of religion and belief – including the right to change their religion, to freedom of thought, and to freedom of expression. Women must be treated as free and equal citizens. But these ideas are in direct conflict with radical Islam, and there now seems to be a real risk that human rights, especially the human rights of women, will be widely ignored. In this, as in much else, America will have failed the Iraqi people.

Turning to the broader picture, the focus on Iraq (what two of Bush’s closest former advisors have called his ‘obsession with Iraq’) has deflected effort from the real fight against terror. It seems highly probable that had the United States not diverted its efforts and resources from Afghanistan, it could, with the help of a compliant Pakistan and support for international police action from many other Islamic countries, have effectively eliminated Al Qaeda. But according to Richard Clarke, Bush’s former anti-terrorism coordinator, the invasion of Iraq has actually damaged the war against terror. Under pressure at home to be seen to ‘kick ass’, the US administration seemed unconcerned by whose ass it might be as long as it was Muslim. By invading an Islamic country with no obvious involvement in the terrorist attacks on the US, they reinforced the impression that this really was a ‘clash of civilizations’ and a war against Islam. As a result, millions more young Muslims have been driven into the arms of the fundamentalists. And Afghanistan has been left to the warlords and the Islamists.

In his haste to bring the troops home from Iraq in time for his triumphant re-election, President Bush is echoing the haste with which he ordered the invasion. In one short year, the intervention will have achieved what many would have believed impossible. Not a brilliant victory over a major threat to world peace, not a world made safe from terror, but the real possibility of an Islamist regime in a nation riven by terror and on the brink of civil war. Another domino may well have fallen not to democracy, but to the oppressive power of political Islam.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal and has severely damaged respect for international law. The reasons given for the war have proven to be unfounded. Every Islamic country and most of the non-aligned now believe that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. And far from winning the war against terror, the world, as we saw from Madrid, has become a more dangerous place.

The Bush administration has shown, at best, only a superficial understanding of the threat from world terrorism. The war against terror has been misdirected, confused and inadequate. George W. Bush has frequently preached the need for Americans young and old to accept responsibility for their actions. Perhaps the time has come for him to heed his own advice.

Roy Brown

IHEU President