David Aaronovitch's Iraq omission

Why does the pro-war left gloss over the issue of Iraqi civilian deaths?

I like David Aaronovitch. He is one of our country's leading liberal voices, a brilliant, intelligent and passionate writer and a nice man. He and I agree on a lot. (You can watch us here debating together at the Cambridge Union in defence of political correctness -- our side won!) But he is wrong about Iraq. He always has been.

I hesitate before taking a pot shot at Aaronovitch because I did so only a few weeks ago, in a column on torture (and he emailed to point out that he had been the first to flag up the Jack Bauer angle). Nonetheless, in the language of the playground, "he started it", so I'll respond.

In his column in the Times on Tuesday, Aaronovitch ridicules those of us who opposed the war, calls the Iraqi elections a "bloody miracle" and deplores seven years of "goddamned" discussion of WMDs, legality, and so on. Time to move on, says Aaro.

Let me begin by highlighting some points on which he and I agree.

1) It is both miraculous and inspiring that Iraq is able to conduct multiparty parliamentary elections seven years on from the fall of Saddam Hussein.

2) Torture was indeed much, much worse and more widespread under Saddam Hussein than it is in Iraq today.

3) There has never been a proper debate about what would have happened to Iraq if Saddam Hussein had been left in power in 2003. What were the alternatives, if any?

But in Aaronovitch's column, entitled "Iraq has moved forward. It's time we did, too", there is a glaring omission. How many Iraqis died in order to build this new Mesopotamian democracy, what he calls "one of the most hopeful changes in recent times"? Or, to rephrase the question, how many Iraqis were unable to vote in these historic elections because they'd been killed in the period since March 2003?

He does make one passing reference to the death and destruction inflicted by the invaders and the insurgents in Iraq:

In the first place it has made it almost impossible to discuss the Iraqis themselves, to consult them or listen to them. They have become ghosts, invoked as (implausible) casualty figures, or seen on TV briefly lamenting a death or maiming.

"Ghosts" is an interesting choice of word. But I'm confused. Does he think casualty figures are not important, or that they are all "implausible"? Does he, like General Tommy Franks, not "do bodycounts"? Or can he tell us how many Iraqis he thinks have been killed in the violence unleashed by our illegal (yes, David, illegal) invasion in 2003? If not, how can he expect us to "move on"? How can we do a proper audit of the war?

Nobody knows for sure how many Iraqis died, or were killed, as a result of the invasion, but there are several different, credible and respected estimates, ranging from 100,000 to a million-plus.

There's Iraq Body Count:

95,593 to 104,291

There's the calculation by Associated Press:

more than 110,600

There's the Lancet survey:

601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths

There's the ORB survey:

1,033,000

Which one does Aaronovitch agree with? Any of them? None of them?

On a side note, I smiled to see Aaronovitch smear those of us in the "anti-war brigade" as "Shortists". But, of course, Clare Short did not oppose the Iraq war. She voted for it, and stayed in the cabinet, resigning only after the invasion had occurred.

He could have called us "Cookists" or "Denhamists", but he chose not to. Perhaps because it is much more difficult to dismiss Robin Cook and John Denham as naive peaceniks, Islamist appeasers or Saddam apologists than it is to dismiss Clare Short, George Galloway, Tony Benn or the rest of the usual suspects. I'm just wondering . . .

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty
Show Hide image

Brexit has transformed Nicola Sturgeon into a defender of the status quo

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is saying the right things, but she may not be able to deliver.

Since 2014, Scotland has been split between "neverenders" who constantly agitate for another vote on independence, and those who complain of referendum fatigue.

This latter emotion appeared to be in the ascendancy during the EU referendum last week, when Scottish voters failed to turn out in large enough numbers to push the Remain vote over the 50% threshold. 

And First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has framed her arguments accordingly. 

Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, the Scottish National Party leader portrayed herself as battling for the status quo and declared "independence is not my starting point". 

Describing the process of leaving the European Union as "deeply damaging", she said: "The status quo we voted for doesn't exist."

Sturgeon said there was "no vacuum of leadership in Scotland" and added: "My priority is to seek to protect Scotland's interests in uncharted territory."

As well as redefining Scottish independence, Sturgeon is attempting to redefine the rules of the debate. Quizzed on whether she could actually take a unilateral approach to negotiations, she claimed: "The reality is there are no rules, there is no precedent. What will happen from here on in is a matter of negotiation."

Batting away reports that Brussels would not want to sit down with her, she again outlined plans to meet with EU institutions over the coming weeks. 

There is no doubt the First Minister has captured the zeitgeist in Scotland, the most Europhile part of the UK. A full 62 per cent of voters opted to remain in the EU, compared to the UK average of 48.1 per cent. 

But even as she vows to protect the status quo, Sturgeon may find the practical details of "protecting Scotland's interests" are a stumbling block. 

She was unable to say much more about the currency question apart from suggesting it was a "moral issue", and that the borders question would affect Northern Ireland as well. 

During the Scottish referendum, Sturgeon and her colleagues tried to play down the prospect of land borders and an adoption of the euro. Whether Scottish voters' attachment to the EU could include such impositions remains to be seen.