Iraq - the issue we have chosen to forget
Published 27 June 2005
The law of inverse proportions applies to Iraq. The greater the death toll, the less we in Britain seem to care. Each report of violence, each new piece of evidence of pre-war miscreance by our politicians produces the same shrug of the shoulders. And yet nearly six months after elections that were supposed to herald a new era, that were (very briefly) seized upon by a cheerleading clique as "vindication" of the Blair-Bush 2003 adventure, the situation deteriorates on a number of fronts.
After a short lull in February and March, in which attacks on coalition troops dipped to "only" 35 a day, the violence is once more rising rapidly. It takes many forms and has many effects; it perpetuates a sense of lawlessness and fear; it confines occupying US troops mainly to their barracks; it further undermines the fledgling political process; it prevents meaningful economic activity; it makes a mockery of the more sanguine predictions of a winter of troop reductions and early withdrawals.
By far the biggest casualties are Iraqis, particularly those who have enlisted in the security forces. As the Americans training them readily admit, the recruits have applied not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because in most parts of the country it is the only way to earn a living. And now the Iraqi government, under instruction from Washington, is poised to make matters worse with a plan for huge cuts in the public sector. Iraq has been told that it has to reduce public spending under a debt-reduction scheme sponsored by, you've guessed it, the International Monetary Fund. Given that the public sector accounts for about a half of the jobs anywhere in the country, any cuts will exacerbate social tensions. In the sweltering heat of an Iraqi summer, the suffering continues, with intermittent energy supplies, widespread health problems (including malnutrition among children) and a growing lack of safe drinking water and sanitation (40 per cent of Baghdad households report sewage on their streets). More than two years after the US rolled into Baghdad, it is a dismal stock-take for the Pax Americana.
Both sides are involved in a war of attrition, a war without end. US forces, now supported by British warplanes, make sporadic attacks on insurgent strongholds of devastating magnitude but dwindling effectiveness. The near destruction of Fallujah won them a few months of relative quiescence, at the expense of an estimated 700 deaths. Recently, it seems the insurgents have regained a foothold in the city. The aim of Operation Lightning around Baghdad and Operation Spear by the Syrian border is to "pacify" troublesome areas. The result of these actions is to stoke anger and increase the pool of young suicide bombers from which the various terrorist groups can now pick and choose.
The Americans long ago gave up any pretence at a hearts-and-minds strategy. Apart from the odd "spontaneous" conversation with a shopkeeper for the cameras, with heavy reinforcements at the ready, the US confines itself to brute force. About 60,000 Iraqis are now said to be held in detention centres, with fewer than a third of the detainees registered. The others have simply disappeared, with their relatives unable to contact them.
Military commanders are planning to relocate troops from Iraq's towns, moving them to four giant blast-proof bases. But, as the recent attacks on targets next to Baghdad's government and security "green zone" testify, nowhere is safe.
For the first time in a while, Iraq is beginning to flicker on the US political radar. A steady stream of documents in recent weeks has shown the extent to which Tony Blair and his advisers accepted in the summer of 2002 that George W Bush had committed to war, and how they set themselves the task of making the facts fit the political exigency, even though they knew that the Americans had made no preparation for a "protracted and costly" occupation.
The revelations have received considerable coverage in the serious segments of the US press. In the UK they have barely registered. On 30 May, the New Statesman disclosed "spikes" of bombardment by the British and US air forces designed to provoke Saddam Hussein into war nine months before actual hostilities began. With a few honourable exceptions, most UK media have done Blair's business for him. They have decreed the general election as the cut-off point for Iraq and decided that readers and viewers have "moved on".
Conspiracy? Laziness? Or, perhaps, the unfortunate reality is that in our minds we have raised the bar so high that only the most heinous acts or revelations have an effect. It seems that we are all unshockable now.
Defeating the forces of deference
Who says the BBC doesn't cater for minorities? The corporation may have chosen a fortysomething bald bloke with Joe 90 glasses to be its political editor - no concessions to gender or race there - but at least it has found somebody who remembers what it is like to be a Conservative. We all have our crosses to bear, and the delightfully disrespectful Nick Robinson should help to ensure, like his predecessor Andrew Marr did, that the BBC does not return to the supine days of old.
There were signs aplenty after the Hutton whitewash that the forces of deference were gaining ground in the corporation's management. It may be a shame that the BBC's big five reporters are all men of a certain age and race, but if the new politics supremo helps viewers to separate the fact from the spin, who can hold against him the waywardness of his youth?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
