The Iraq War: History’s Revenge

Hoping to avoid a complete breakdown in Iraq, which began in 2003, Barack Obama has ordered 300 military advisers to be sent to Baghdad. In doing so, he confirms that the country has been thrust once again into a state of War, with a capital w.

It goes without saying that, in order to understand the developments in Iraq over the last few days, a fresh and thorough examination of the recent history of the country is needed. Everything started — quite literally started — two days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when Paul Wolfowitz, then the U.S. deputy secretary of defense, implored George Bush Jr. to consider the forced overthrow of Saddam Hussein. What happened next? In short, American and British armed forces took possession of the country during 2003. Hussein was tried and then hanged. Thus, the sectarianism that had hitherto been encouraged by minority Sunnis in Kurdish and Shiite areas, in the most bloodthirsty way imaginable, was in turn replaced by its Shiite successor and then covertly inflamed by Iran. But that was not all: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made sure to forbid the presence of Sunnis in the ranks of the armed forces and the police force. Basically, he secured his monopoly on state violence.

Here, it must be highlighted that by banishing Hussein to the catacombs of history, the duo formed by Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair thereby also destroyed the man and regime that was so hated by Islamists. What is more, by removing Hussein, they also got rid of Enemy No. 1 — the Iranians — without them even having to lift a finger. Speaking plainly, they succeeded initially in muddling the geopolitical map, before reorganizing it in such a way that the risk of enemy conflict stifled Washington’s primary aim. Which aim was that? That once Hussein was eliminated and the instruments of democracy had been introduced in Baghdad, these would spread throughout the Middle East and everything would be good again. So, in the Championships for Gullibility and Vanity, first place went to Bush and his cronies!

It is important to point out the sheer cheek demonstrated just yesterday by ex-Vice President Dick Cheney and Tony Blair. The reaction was one of undeniable astonishment in the U.S. and one of fury in the United Kingdom. The way in which the conflict-related events have played out in the last few days reveals enormous weaknesses in the operation way back in … 2003! As military strategy experts assure us, it is still the case that the capture of Mosul last week and the taking of the country’s most important refinery in the last few days were operations that were conceived and perfected by high ranking Sunnis in the circle of none other than Saddam Hussein himself. It couldn’t really have been any other way. On this matter, The New York Times reminded its readers yesterday that the right arm of the Iraqi dictator, General Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has still never actually been arrested.

So what did Blair and Cheney do? They defended their 2003 offensive and opened fire on Obama. It is a truly incredible story! In fact, it eludes credulity entirely. In yesterday’s newspaper columns, it appeared that these two — of the three primary actors in this ever greater fiasco — have got themselves off the hook, so that now they can claim their medal for their great political acumen; for their intuitive understanding of the events of history; for their marked concern for world harmony; for … are we exaggerating? Hardly.

The real answer lies in the call, particularly in the United Kingdom, for Blair, Cheney and others to be forced to account for their role in the intervention. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that what happened today is precisely that which Jacques Chirac had feared and indeed articulated in support of his decision not to get involved in Iraq: the implosion of the entire region.