I have been wondering what would happen in the commentariat when events of the Arab Spring began to be digested. Someone would look back at the Iraq invasion and try to fit it in to subsequent events. Assiduous readers of this blog will know that I supported the invasion (I believe that it was my support which finally persuaded Blair and Bush to go ahead; Dick Cheney had been particularly hesitant until he found out I was onside), not because I thought it was a good thing - it was self-evidently bad - but because I thought it might be marginally less bad than leaving Saddam Hussein in place.
Anyway, here's Jonathan Steele in this morning's Graun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/23/us-withdrawal-iraq-defeat-bush-neocons?commentpage=last#end-of-comments) with his take on events. As you'll see, Steele complains that, far from Iraq's fledgling democracy inspiring other North African states, it might actually have put them off. "The instability and bloodshed which the US unleashed in Iraq were the example that Arabs sought to avoid, not emulate", he writes.
Yes, I too had noticed that Libya's awakening was achieved without any bloodshed whatsoever. And things are going well in Syria, where, in the absence of an armed insurrection, President Assad remains in power.
Steele's other complaint is that Iraq's transition to a democracy has given Iran more influence than it had when Saddam was in charge.
I wish he would step off the fence and be a bit less coy. Are we to infer that because Iran now has more influence, things were better during Saddam's era? And if so, better for whom?
We can abuse Blair, Bush, Cheney and Halliburton all we like, but surely the six million dollar question for Iraqis is, Did the invasion make things better for them in the medium and long term?
A clue to the answer lies in Steele's own article. He writes, ". . . when the Arab spring dawned, the Iraqi government found itself on the defensive as demonstrators took to the streets of Baghdad and Basra to protest against Maliki's authoritarianism and his government's US-supported clampdown on trade union activity".
Does anyone remember how street protests or trades unions fared under Saddam? My recollection is that there wasn't much of either. People were too terrified. Does anyone remember Saddam's government being "on the defensive" against its own people? My recollection is that there wasn't a government as such (the word implying something a bit more that a collection of stooges or family members dripping with medals). And for a government to be on the defensive, it must be capable of being attacked. But when Saddam was in power the "government" couldn't be "attacked" because there was no process by which to attack it. There were no elections, and to take part in a public demonstration was to invite one's own death.
Does anyone remember how street protests or trades unions fared under Saddam? My recollection is that there wasn't much of either. People were too terrified. Does anyone remember Saddam's government being "on the defensive" against its own people? My recollection is that there wasn't a government as such (the word implying something a bit more that a collection of stooges or family members dripping with medals). And for a government to be on the defensive, it must be capable of being attacked. But when Saddam was in power the "government" couldn't be "attacked" because there was no process by which to attack it. There were no elections, and to take part in a public demonstration was to invite one's own death.
To state these things explicitly in reverse, in Iraq there is a government, and an elected government at that. It is imperfect (so is ours), but the government can be "attacked" by public demonstrations or by the electoral process. Are these not gains worthy of some comment by Steele?
Apparently not. Steele has nothing to say about the way in which these things have only become possible because of the 2003 invasion; he only speaks of their current imperfections. If Bush and Blair had done what Steele and his fellow-travellers wanted, Saddam would still have been in power in Iraq. No doubt it possible to construct an argument that things were better then. I would like to see it attempted. But Steele does not even try. Funny that.
Apparently not. Steele has nothing to say about the way in which these things have only become possible because of the 2003 invasion; he only speaks of their current imperfections. If Bush and Blair had done what Steele and his fellow-travellers wanted, Saddam would still have been in power in Iraq. No doubt it possible to construct an argument that things were better then. I would like to see it attempted. But Steele does not even try. Funny that.
