How badly do we want to be proved right?
I’ve been strongly opposed to the war in Iraq from the outset. As each day passes Paul Bremer’s optimism gets more laughable, Tony Blair’s lies become more apparent and more people, mostly Iraqis, are killed. Each new day brings no news of those mysterious WMD. And each day I grow more convinced that this war was wrong.
Having said this, I don’t pretend to possess the absolute truth in any scenario. There are some good pro-war arguments, I just happen to think that there are many more good anti-war arguments. No political position is 100% logical, true and moral. There are always complications and subtleties, always annoying little facts that just won’t fit.
Since the invasion began last March, doves have been confronted by one such complication: do we want America to fail? It’s more difficult to oppose a war once it’s a fact rather than a possibility. Once the first American tanks had rumbled across the Iraqi border I found myself asking “what do I want now?” I still can’t answer this question.
An Iraqi victory was never on the cards so, in the opening stages of the war, there were two possibilities. Either America would conquer Iraq quickly or it would conquer Iraq slowly.
There’s an old saying that the only mercy in war is a swift and decisive victory. There’s some truth in this, a quick war means less human suffering on all sides. But if the US were to win too “easily” in Iraq this would encourage the veloci raptors in the Pentagon to attack Syria and Iran next. War would become a more acceptable way of settling differences.
So in some ways a slow war would have been better. A fierce house-to-house fight for Baghdad would sap US enthusiasm for further wars of choice. We doves, having predicted a bloody struggle for the Iraqi capital, would be proved correct. But what price the satisfaction of being right? A slow war would mean more death and a worse humanitarian situation. Hardly something you should wish for.
For doves, this complication continues into what the White House, rather optimistically, terms the “post-war” period. How should the anti-war camp, particularly anti-war governments, respond to the “reconstruction” effort? Hawks are adamant that anti-war states should provide military and economic support to the building of a “new Iraq”. The eggs are broken; let’s make an omelette, etc.
The likes of France and Germany have no interest in seeing Iraq descend into civil war but they are naturally reluctant to give money to an occupation which they oppose. The Bush administration, in their typically thick-headed way, makes no effort to build bridges with those they insulted. Jokes about freedom fries don’t seem so funny now that the bill has arrived.
This dilemma is also relevant when one looks at the insurgency. Anti-war protesters warned that Iraqis would resist foreign occupation. One year on, we stand vindicated. But again, I have to say, do we want to be right? Do we want Iraq to be violent and unstable just so we can say “told you so”? Am I supposed to feel smug satisfaction every time a US soldier is blown up?
A small minority on the left, like John Pilger and Tariq Ali, have no such problems. They are openly pro-insurgency, hoping that it will lead to an American withdrawal. For them there is no complication or dilemma, America is the invader and America must be defeated. Most of us in the anti-war camp though are unwilling to go down this path
This dilemma is evident in some of the reporting of last week’s clashes between US forces and Shi’ite supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr. The always insightful Robert Fisk began his column yesterday with the words:
“To the horror of the occupying powers in Iraq, the country's ever more bloody insurgency has at last spilled over into the majority Shi'ite Muslim community.”
Notice the use of the words “at last”. Is Fisk saying, perhaps unwittingly, that he has long been looking forward to the Shi’a joining in the insurgency? Is there a hint of impatience in these opening lines?
There has been a tendency in the anti-war camp to jump on every clash between the Shi’a and the occupying forces as the start of an uprising. Way back last May when six British soldiers were killed in Basra I remember thinking “now the Shi’a will join in”. I was wrong, it turns out their deaths were the result of a misunderstanding rather an attempt to open up a new front.
The bad news for doves is that this dilemma, what to make of a war which is now reality rather than theory, is not going to go away. In the long run, if the American occupation is successful and Iraq becomes a stable democracy then history may judge that all the suffering was worthwhile. However the US will be more inclined to attack other countries as a result.
If however, as seems increasingly likely, the occupation turns out to be a failure and Iraq slips into civil war, then doves will be ones proved right. Failure in Iraq would reduce support for further military adventurism. A few egos in the Pentagon would suffer.
But the Iraqi people would be the ones to really suffer.