Robert Fisk writes:
Tony
Blair’s at it again. He apologises – but not for the war, only for
the “intelligence”.
There are “elements of truth” – whatever that means – in the
view that his and George W Bush’s 2003 Iraqi adventure might have caused the
rise of Isis.
There are some, I suppose, who might also say that this wretched
man started a regional war that has totally obscured the tragedy of the
Palestinians, who continue to endure the longest military occupation in modern
history – one that Blair did nothing to end after he was sent outrageously as a
“peace” envoy to Jerusalem.
Perhaps he would agree that there are “elements of
truth” in this suggestion, but I doubt it. I have been infuriated by
Blair’s failure to own up to the catastrophe.
No doubt the dark shadow of the
Chilcot report brought his midget apology, although Chilcot may well hide the
truth and thus cast only sunlight on the man.
What I found so appalling in his
CNN interview, however, was the assumption that the Middle East is a place of
inherent instability.
I am minded of this because of an article by the
Palestinian Rami Khouri in which he comments on an article by Henry Kissinger.
Khouri remarks that Kissinger’s view of the Middle East “seems to have no place
for – or is simply blind to – the nearly half a million men and women, mostly
Muslims, who live [there] and shape its societies and states … These people all
seek the same thing that Kissinger presumably seeks for Americans: a stable,
decent society where citizens can live in peace.”
Khouri acknowledges the
“non-state actors and ethno-sectarian nationalisms” that have emerged.
I would
have said this in blunter language, but he rightly spots the US tendency to see
the Middle East in terms of religious or ethnic groups (Shia, Sunnis,
Maronites) waging existential wars “in an urban wasteland defined by armed
gangs”.
I rather think that’s how Blair sees the Middle East. He
sees territory, but he doesn’t see people. The mere fact that he could drag out
the rotting corpse of Saddam Hussein shows what the problem is.
Yes, Saddam did
use gas “against his own people”. But when he was doing that, George Bush Snr
was giving him military assistance in his war against Iran.
And when we staged
our 2003 adventure, most of those who were subsequently killed were not
Saddamites or anti-Saddamites but “tens of thousands” (as CNN coyly states) of
innocent civilians.
By defining these people as Sunnis and Shia or Maronites,
we demean them, forcing them into a box with labels – and very often into
wooden boxes, too.
It does no good to ignore, as
Khouri says, how American and other foreign powers’ policies contributed to the
problems that shattered the superficial calm which, barring Arab-Israeli wars,
defined the region for years after the Second World War.
But we do not see the
people, we see policies – which is why Blair chose war. That’s what wars were
to Kissinger. That’s why he made peace between Iran and Iraq all those years
ago, and sacrificed the Kurds.
That’s what the Americans did
when they bombed Iraq again and again between 1991 and 2003, long after we had
freed Kuwait from Saddam’s clutches. And that’s what we did when we invaded
Iraq in 2003.
And still it goes on. Did Isis start in Iraq or Syria?
I suspect that what we fail to do
is take responsibility for our actions. We don’t plan, because we have no
long-term plans.
Churchill started planning the British occupation of a
conquered Germany in 1941, even before the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
But
when the first US tanks crossed the Tigris river in 2003, neither Blair nor
Bush had thought ahead. They were too busy with intelligence reports with
“elements of truth” in them.
No comments:
Post a Comment