The Three Monkeys

Dick’s
Toolbox cont.
.. the Iraqi population believe that they are worse than before their country
was ‘liberated’.
No matter – we now have a new democratic Iraqi government that represents the
forces of truth, hope, and unification but which, as ‘The Age’ noted,
took five months to elect a Prime Minister who still hasn’t the authority
to name the key portfolios of the Interior, Security and Defence. Balkan style
ethnic cleansing is forcing thousands to flee their houses; oil and electricity
production are less than in Saddam’s day and 90% of Iraqis voted for partisan,
religious or ethnic parties, not for any unifying government. Democracy, an
alien concept in the Middle East, seems not to have flourished in the region
either.
To get some perspective of the significance of Iraqi opinion one should remember
that pre-invasion Iraq was ruled by a dictator, who had lost two wars and the
streets of whose capital were running with sewage. The corrupt payments from
the Australian Wheat Board were not prominent in any trickle-down effect of
wealth distribution.
Perhaps a short history of Iraq in the 20th Century would be instructive to
get some idea of the hell that Iraq has been for nearly 100 years.
Those of you who remember the film “Lawrence of Arabia” will recall
the British alliance with the Hashemites and in particular Faisal, that launched
the Arab Revolt and helped overthrow the Turks who had sided with Germany in
WW1. Those with a fine sense of irony will appreciate a proclamation from General
Maude, commander of the British forces, occupying Baghdad in 1917 which reads
in part ….
‘Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies,
but as liberators … Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men …
The people of Baghdad shall flourish …’
The Arab leaders had seen a chance for independence by siding with the British
and expected their reward. But when they arrived with Lawrence at the Paris
Peace Conference in 1919 they discovered that the French and British had already
carved up the region between them. The Treaty of San Remo gave the French Mandates
over Syria and Lebanon and Iraq, Trans-Jordan and Palestine to the British.

The British proposed an Iraqi constitutional monarchy that was awarded to Prince
Faisal as a consolation prize for losing the throne in Damascus. Curiously the
prospect of British-imposed rule did not actually please the new Iraqis and
in 1920 both Kurds in the north and Shi’as in the south staged uprisings which
the British put down with considerable ruthlessness that included the use of
“chemical weapons” by the Royal Air Force.
Not content with a bit of casual gassing the Brits put the Sunni urban and educated
minority of the old Ottoman regime back into the higher echelons of the administration.
Thank you Winston Churchill, for perpetuating a prejudice against the Shi’as
which festers through to today
The new monarchy was constantly challenged by an assortment of Kurdish rebellions
demanding self-determination. That was not going to happen as, in 1927, the
British had discovered oil in the north where they lived. By 1933 Iraq was both
independent and a member of the League of Nations but, strangely enough, not
free from British influence. The Anglo-Iraqi treaty gave the British both military
control and ensured British oil supplies. There was a minor hiccup in 1942 when
a group of pro-Nazi Iraqi army officers ousted the British-backed government
and forced the royals to flee but London responded by landing a force at Basra
and retaking Baghdad. The monarchy was restored.
After the war Baghdad seethed with Arab nationalism but in the palace it was
business as usual: oil production was still in the hands of Western companies.

Iraq’s first experience in being on the losing side of every war it ever
entered came in 1948 when Iraq fought a war against the newly-declared State
of Israel. The fighting continued till May 1949 when a cease-fire agreement
was signed of which Iraq was not a part. The cost of the war did the Iraqi economy
little good.
In 1958, inspired by Egypt’s President Nasser, Iraqi troops organised
a successful coup and the royal family and the political elite were massacred.
The military were to remain in power for many decades; one coup followed another
until in 1968 a final convulsion brought the Ba’ath Party to power. Saddam Hussein
spent the next 11 years moulding the party in his image and preparing for his
eventual takeover of the country in 1979. Democratic politics disappeared and
the population either frightened or seduced into submission. Hussein led his
country into war with Iran in 1980, supported by most of the Arab nations as
well as the west, lost perhaps half a million dead, and ended with a foreign
debt upwards of $40 billion.
Ten years later he invaded Kuwait, was defeated and one would thought finished;
the Saudi’s who invited America and its Allies in, estimated another 100,000
Iraqi dead. The US lost 148 US servicemen, 35 killed by friendly fire. The Americans
daily dropped nearly as many tons of bombs as were dropped on Germany and Japan
combined during WWII the vast majority of these munitions were not smart weapons.

But in early in 1991, with most of the Iraqi forces routed or massacred with
the notable exception of the feared Republican Guard, The Voice of Free Iraq,
a CIA–run radio station, urged Iraqis to rise up against Hussein’s
regime. As did the Voice of America. Thinking that there might be western support
the Shia in the South, and the Kurds in the North rose in rebellion. In the
south they were massacred by the Republican Guard whilst the Americans and their
allies watched and did nothing, thereby destroying the chance of an Islamic
republic – or any other kind of state – in Iraq. Bush had called
for the overthrow of Saddam – and then said he never intended to help; perhaps
200,000 Iraqis died. This betrayal alone ensured that the allies would never
be welcomed in 2003. The Kurds in the north eventually got some protection,
albeit when their insurrection had been all but crushed. Mind you it didn’t
stop them from being bombed by the Turks whilst the allies watched and did nothing.
In late 1991 the British Foreign Secretary reflected on why the allies stopped
at the border
…First, the coalition explicitly limited its objectives to those set out
in the UN resolutions, which related to the liberation of Kuwait. Second, had
we gone to Baghdad we would have found ourselves forced to chose and then sustain
a new Iraqi government.
Four days after Iraq had invaded Kuwait the UN Security Council passed resolution
661 that instituted sanctions, a regime that was not lifted when Kuwait was
freed. Rather the US made it clear that the sanctions would remain until there
was a change of government which, given that the water, sewage and power stations
had been virtually obliterated in the allied bombing, meant a humanitarian disaster.

It is worth repeating Madeleine Albright’s answer to a question on the
news program 60 Minutes whilst she was the US ambassador to the UN. Leslie Stahl
asked Albright. “We have heard that half a million children have died.
I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth
it?. “ Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but
the price – we think the price is worth it.”
For the next 10 years the British and American bombed Iraq at will, whilst on
the ground the UN arms inspectors ensured, despite US scepticism, that Iraq
was free from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Regrettably the US was actually
using the UN inspectors to spy on the Iraqis which led to the suspension of
the UNSCOM mission. The US, with Clinton facing impeachment, launched 200 cruise
missiles and bombing raids which blew up a dozen schools an hospitals and part
of Baghdad’s water supply as collateral damage. Blair insisted that Iraq
was a threat to its neighbours and air strikes continued against Iraq for the
next 5 years.
So in 2003 Blair and Bush, using fabricated evidence and lies, invaded Iraq.
The deliberate nature of the fraud is demonstrated by the fact that not one
person in the intelligence community has been fired for this deliberate hodgepodge
of spin and delusion. John Howard spouted it as truth as well and took Australia
off to defend the freedom of the world, helping win a war that could have been
won by 3 nuns on a bicycle, and which had nothing to do with Australia. And
of course after the invasion there were no WMDs. And no apologies.
It is not unsurprising, given the history of Iraq, the infinite betrayals of
the world and by their own leadership, that the allies would not win the peace.
That they have lost it so comprehensively, with such arrogant blind incompetence,
defies the imagination, and should be the source of deep reflection. Yet Cheney,
Rumsey and the other architects of this bloodshed are still there apparently
untroubled of conscience. Bush and Blair, an intellectually deficient fool to
the British Lear, seem wrapped in some delusional cocoon. John Howard, ever
the sycophantic, photo-opportunist par excellence, the grandstander at every
parade, and the unwanted guest at every wedding, seems untroubled at the on-going
horror he has helped create. That all three are conspicuous Christians might
cause some to think of the chasm between what is preached and what is done.
Reciting the mantra of staying the distance, hoping that somehow it will all
turn out right, is not going to be enough.
To make matters worse this act of appalling stupidity, having made our world
a slightly more dangerous place, now becomes the excuse for depriving the citizens
of Australia, England and the United States of their individual liberties, which
the Murdoch press seems to think a fine thing.
In the case of Vietnam, to which folly this bears an ever-increasing likeness,
everybody packed up and went home. It’s probably the best thing to do
in Iraq, no matter how uncomfortable. The people of Iraq deserve better; they
certainly don’t deserve what has been inflicted on them of late.
As a footnote, Afghanistan, that other triumph of liberation, is now the world’s
largest producer of opium.