War comes back home

John Pilger

Published 05 March 2009

As the colonial crimes in Algeria, Vietnam and Afghanistan blew back to their perpetrators, so the effects of western cynicism in Iraq and Afghanistan return

Freedom is being lost in Britain. The land of Magna Carta is now the land of secret gagging orders, secret trials and imprisonment. The government will soon know about every phone call, every email, every text message. Police can wilfully shoot to death an innocent man, lie, and expect to get away with it. Whole communities now fear the state. The Foreign Secretary routinely covers up allegations of torture; the Justice Secretary routinely prevents the release of critical cabinet minutes taken when Iraq was illegally invaded. The list is cursory; there is much more.

Indeed, there is so much more that the erosion of liberal freedoms is symptomatic of an evolved criminal state. The haven for Russian oligarchs, together with corruption of the tax and banking systems and of once-admired public services such as the Post Office, is one side of the coin; the other is the invisible carnage of failed colonial wars. Historically, the pattern is familiar. As the colonial crimes in Algeria, Vietnam and Afghanistan blew back to their perpetrators, France, the US and the Soviet Union, so the cancerous effects of Britain’s cynicism in Iraq and Afghanistan have come home.

The most obvious example is the bombing atrocities in London on 7 July 2005; no one in the British intelligence mandarinate doubts these were a gift from Blair. And yet “terrorism” describes only the few acts of individuals and groups, not the constant, industrial violence of great powers. Suppressing this truth is left to the credible media. On 27 February, the Guardian’s Washington correspondent, Ewen MacAskill, in reporting President Obama’s statement that America was finally leaving Iraq, as if it were fact, wrote: “For Iraq, the death toll is unknown, in the tens of thousands, victims of the war, a nationalist uprising, sectarian infighting and jihadists attracted by the US presence.” Thus, the Anglo-American invaders are merely a “presence” not directly responsible for the “unknown” number of Iraqi deaths. Such contortion of intellect is impressive.

In January last year, a report by the respected Opinion Research Business (ORB) revised an earlier assessment of deaths in Iraq to 1.033 million. This followed a peer-reviewed study in 2006 by the world-renowned Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, published in the Lancet, which found that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion. US and British officials immediately dismissed the report as “flawed” – a deliberate deception. Foreign Office papers obtained under Freedom of Information disclose a memo written by the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson, in which he praised the Lancet report, describing it as “robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to ‘best practice’ given [the conditions] in Iraq”. An adviser to the Prime Minister commented: “The survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones.” Yet, speaking a few days later, the Foreign Office minister Lord Triesman said: “The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern.”

The episode exemplifies the scale and deception of this state crime. Les Roberts, co-author of the Lancet study, has since argued that Britain and America might have caused in Iraq “an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide”. This is not news. Neither is it a critical reference in the freedoms campaign organised by the Observer columnist Henry Porter. At a conference in London on 28 February, Lord Goldsmith, Blair’s former attorney general, who notoriously changed his mind and advised the government the invasion was legal, when it wasn’t, was a speaker for freedom. So was Timothy Garton Ash, a “liberal interventionist”. On 17 April 2003, shortly after the slaughter had begun in Iraq, a euphoric Garton Ash wrote in the Guardian: “America has never been the Great Satan. It has sometimes been the Great Gatsby: ‘They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things . . .’” One of Britain’s jobs “is to keep reminding Tom and Daisy that they now have promises to keep”. Less frivolously, he lauded Tony Blair for his “strong Gladstonian instincts for humanitarian intervention” and repeated the government’s propaganda about Saddam Hussein. In 2006, he wrote, “Now we face the next big test of the west: after Iraq, Iran” (my italics). This also adheres precisely to the propaganda; David Miliband has declared Iran a “threat” in preparation for the next war.

Like so many of New Labour’s Tonier-than-thou squad, Henry Porter celebrated Blair as an almost mystical politician who “presents himself as a harmoniser for all the opposing interests in British life, a conciliator of class differences and tribal antipathies, synthesiser of opposing beliefs”. Porter dismissed as “demonic nonsense” all analysis of the 11 September 2001 attacks that suggested there were specific causes: the consequences of violent actions taken by the powerful in the Middle East. Such thinking, he wrote, “exactly matches the views of Osama Bin Laden . . . With America’s haters, that’s all there is – hatred.” This, of course, was Blair’s view.

Freedoms are being lost in Britain because of the rapid growth of the “national security state”. This form of militarism was imported from the United States by New Labour. Totalitarian in essence, it relies on fear-mongering to entrench the executive with venal legal mechanisms that progressively diminish democracy and justice. “Security” is all and it relies on propaganda promoting rapacious colonial wars, even as honest mistakes. Take away this propaganda, and the wars are exposed for what they are, and the fear evaporates. Take away the obeisance of many in Britain’s liberal elite to American power and you demote a profound colonial mentality that covers for epic criminals such as Blair. Prosecute these criminals and change the system that breeds them, and you have freedom.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

10 comments from readers

max caulfield
06 March 2009 at 02:39

We have first the IAEA disingenously making a muddle of its assessment on Iran's nuclear threats. Then Russia looked washing its hands of Tehran with its hedging over a previously agreed cooperation. With PRC now officially quiet on the U.S-Iran tangle, the pressure are indeed mounting on the mullahs whose fundamental and active threats posed to the west are unceasingly justified on all major news outlets. The murder weapon is now to be seen in the intentional grasp of the clenched fists.

writeon
06 March 2009 at 12:58

Bush used up most of his political capital in Iraq, so much that the toppling of the Iranian regime became an impossibility. Obama, on the other hand, could get away with it, which is why we should be very wary of him.

Gideon Polya
06 March 2009 at 21:18

Excellent article by Australian expat John Pilger.

The Bush-ite Establishment-beholden Australian ABC recently reported Obama’s “Iraq withdrawal” speech and in so doing made an extraordinary series of minimizations and falsehoods: “(1) More than 4,200 Americans have been killed, (2) tens of thousands of Iraqis have died and (3) the conflict has cost hundreds of billions of dollars … [quoting Barack Obama]: “Let me say this as plainly as I can, by August 31st 2010 our combat mission in Iraq will end“ … between 35,000 and 50,000 American troops will stay behind after August next year to help train the Iraqi forces and to undertake counter terrorism missions. President Obama has announced his Iraq withdrawal timetable … He's [Obama’s] praised the efforts of the US military he's also promised to have all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011.“

However (1) according to Iraq Casualties 4,253 Americans have been killed and 31,010 have been wounded; US and US Alliance deaths total 4,571; (2) “tens of thousands of Iraqis have died” is a 100-fold lower estimation of the reality of about 2.3 million violent and non-violent Iraqi post-invasion excess deaths; (3) “the conflict has cost hundreds of billions of dollars” underestimates the real accrual cost of $3 trillion (estimated by Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz) by a factor of 10; (4) Obama’s “by August 31st 2010 our combat mission in Iraq will end” is an outright Obama lie according to “35,000 and 50,000 American troops will stay behind after August next year to help train the Iraqi forces and to undertake counter terrorism missions”; (5) “He's praised the efforts of the US military” means Obama accepts complicity in the Iraq War, the Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide; (6) “He's [Obama’s] also promised to have all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011” is contradicted by US military who have foreshadowed endless involvement (for detailed analysis see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/28982/42/ ).

RJD
07 March 2009 at 13:24

John Pilger has killed many birds with one stone in this excellent piece. He has, once again, exposed the hypocrisy of some of those now apparently leading the call for an end to the strangulation of liberties. They happily backed violent power in its early move on the chessboard only to cry foul when the inevitable end game plays out in their own back yard. Nevertheless, I will continue to support the modern liberty movement since I don’t care what motley crew ultimately drives the stake through Big Brother’s heart as long as the job is done. Perhaps people should be allowed to change although Pilger raises the possibility of an enemy within – people like Goldsmith might be joining the bandwagon to see Big Brother “reformed” (code for made more media friendly) so they need to be watched with the same hawkish eye that they themselves cast over the bloodbath of Iraq. Pilger also gives an example of the working of ideological blowback (elucidated brilliantly by Naomi Klein in her award winning book Shock Doctrine). Apart from the more obvious ideology blowbacks involving the use of military violence and economic neo-liberalism, there is a more insidious one currently at work and which very few apart from Pilger are attempting to tackle. Screaming to the rest of the world about accountability and yet failing to hold our leaders fully accountable is a form of corruption that not only gives licence to our Western leaders to continue to do as they please on local and international stages but ultimately ensures that there cannot be cooperation with the rest of the world on all security issues that threaten the planet. His remedy of prosecution is essential. I would happily contribute to a fund set up to pay the salaries of a team of willing and able international criminal lawyers dedicated to instituting legal action against Bush and Blair for their crimes over the past 6 years. Please set it up John.

papigosh
07 March 2009 at 17:56

WANTED: A NEW POLITICAL MOVEMENT

We are ripe for a new political movement just in time for the next election.

New Labour has completely lost the plot and has finally and irrevocably nailed its own coffin. Imagine chosing this very auspicious time to announce the privatisation of the Royal Mail at the same time of acquiring failed banks from private hands. The tax payers has no say whatsoever.

The Tories are hoping to step into New Labour shoes BY RIGHT even though they have no clue what to do when they assume power except to continue PRIVATISATION OF OUR SERVICES INCLUDING THE NHS.

The liberal democrats who should be cashing their political dividends on account of Opposing the Iraq invasion and having Vince Cable in their ranks, appear to have given up trying for number 10. I will ignore the BNP and UKIP even though the main stream parties appear to be their recruiting sergeant majors.

We are left with the Greens, Civil libertarians, an ever increasing unemployed brigade, fearful professionals, deprived working class and an apparently decapitated unions. We are talking about the overwhelming majority of UK PLC. Either we choose to come together fighting our corner or we let the out of touch brigade of Lord Mandelson (New Labour), David Cameron (Tories) and the BNP and UKIP send us down the precipice started by Thatcher and perfectly executed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The choice is ours to make. I move for a NEW POLITICAL PARTY since we are unlikely to have an OBAMA MOMENT.

Prefectstat
08 March 2009 at 11:37

I've no idea what John's point is here. Is he

suggesting 'we' are off for a war in Iran? I don't think

so.

Already we are seeing the big O making peace

gestures in the two major US conflicts .. a great sign. I

would love to see a huge reduction in armament

spending follow, both in the US and the UK. Perhaps

John could direct his attention to this area of

government waste.

Money saved could be spent on social housing,

railway up-grades and other public utilities. In other

words, things that are far more useful than on

weapons that kill people.

zapruder
08 March 2009 at 15:28

Sorry- but you can't hold the Brit and US troops

directly responsible for all Iraqi deaths in Iraq. While in

the invasion many civilians were killed and, as we all

know, there have been many cases of abuses by

Coalition forces, many people have died as a result of

internal conflicts within the country as well as Jihadists

who have entered from neighbouring countries. You

can't blame the US and UK for the string of bombs that

have been set off in civilian areas throughout the

country. After all, if the US and UK are responsible for

everything, why were Sunni insurgents prepared to

form an alliance with them in order to fight against Al

Queda?

The US and UK can be blamed for opening the

pandora's box which led to all the violenc. That much

is true. But attributing all the Iraq deaths to Coaltion

forces is a highly simplistic reading of events which

really amounts to a "contortion of intellect"

musafir
08 March 2009 at 22:17

There is reason to be concerned about the Obama Administration's position. We can now discount a

large part of his campaign rhetoric. Obama did not waste time to move away from statements he made before he was elected. And among his staffers in key positions are people with ties to the neocons who engineered the Iraq war.

On your side of the Atlantic, Brown is more or less sticking to Blair policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. He is sure to fall in line if America decides on military action against Iran.

Depressing.

nawawimohamad
10 March 2009 at 08:20

While the US leaders are having fun invading, bombing, killing and continue to devastate weak and poor countries, British leaders are just joining in the fun, followed by their European counterparts. It seems that these leaders have got nothing else to do. That's way we are stuck with the current economic turmoil. They should all be voted out come next election for all of them have failed badly.

Carson
03 August 2009 at 17:04

I would like to single out a detail we already know, but of which we must never grow careless: please do not call invasions "wars". An invasion is an attack, or an assault upon a people. For something to be a war, there is an implication it involves two sides fighting as though they were more or less similarly minded and, to some very rough extent, more equal. If a hugely powerful playground bully beat up your daughter, would you call that a "fight"? When soldiers from Britain, Canada, the United Hates, or Israel massacre peasants on those peasants' lands, you are not talking about "war", and I believe it matters that we never make such slaughters seem more acceptable—or more noble, or more justifiable, or more normal—than the slimy perversions they honestly are.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

John Pilger

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

Read More

Newsletter

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 - 2009

Tracker