Iraq, a Strategic Error by Washington and London

This week, the last American combat brigade in Iraq exited the country. Fifty thousand American soldiers still remain, but they will be assigned to assistance operations. Nevertheless, the result of the invasion of the Arab country is depressing. The justifications the U.S. presented to legitimize its attack on Saddam Hussein’s forces in March of 2003 turned out to be false. There were never weapons of mass destruction, nor connections between the dictator and threatening terrorist groups. Later, Washington promised to construct a model democracy, a beacon of economic progress that would shine throughout the Middle East. None of this has taken place.

It has been five months since Iraqis went to the ballot boxes. Until now, an official government has not been put together.

Negotiations between the principal political groups are gloomy. Nouri Maliki, the acting prime minister, is not ready to concede power to Ayad Allawi, who holds twice as much support in the parliament as his adversary. This week, Allawi decided to suspend negotiations. Nearly coinciding with the discontinuation of talks, a bomb exploded in a military recruitment center in Baghdad. The explosion killed 61 young people and left more than 100 injured. Almost 1,000 waited in line starting at dawn, hoping to be recruited. The desperation to find employment is so bleak that some injured men returned to the line after being hospitalized. The distress of unemployment and the absence of an income to sustain families lead volunteers to undertake enormous risks. Some, if unable to find employment with the regular forces, are willing to join one of the militias. The explosion was the most deadly in recent times. The security situation demonstrates a marked deterioration: This past July registered the highest drawdown in American forces in the last two months. In addition, the statements made by Iraq’s army commander do nothing but raise anxiety. In his opinion, local troops will not be in condition to assume control of the country for ten years.

Many Iraqis are beginning to lose confidence in the country’s ability to rule itself democratically. For the elderly, the memory of the military coup against King Feisal in 1958 is recalled. The monarchy and its collaborators were executed. Today, the poor reputation and ineffectiveness of the political leadership joins a poorly constructed and unpredictable military. Hence, there exists the fear of what soldiers will do with power once the American military presence declines. Ultimately, no Arab nation in the region is governed democratically. It is a mystery what former President George W. Bush and his administration were thinking when they believed they could alter the political reality in Iraq. It’s clear, in any case, that the invasion was motivated by the abundance of petroleum in the country. The rest was rhetoric to justify the actions taken.

Also, this week, Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who fully committed his country to the invasion, announced that he will donate $4.6 million (or 2.38 million pesos) to the British Legion, a foundation dedicated to helping soldiers injured in conflict. The money corresponds to Mr. Blair’s past. British troops withdrew from the battlefront one year ago, but bitter attacks against Blair continue for having involved his country in a war the majority of British considered reckless, unnecessary and, according to many, illegal. In short, governments are judged above all for their ethical structure.

Throughout history, there is one constant: Blood spilled is not forgotten easily. When visiting castles or battlegrounds, guides never omit the number of people that died or how they perished at the location. Death exercises a magnetism that survives attempts to erase its memory, whether it is crimes committed by dictators or during the course of war. In the case of Blair, the successful aspects of his years in power have faded. What survives of his 11 years as prime minister is the war in Iraq, which Blair still defends as necessary. The contrast with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher couldn’t be greater. She is admired for having gone to war with Argentina. The difference is not that Britain prevailed in the Falklands in 1982, but instead that it was considered legitimate to defend a territory that was considered British. Blood was also spilled there, but it was considered to be for a just cause. Legitimacy is, evidently, an essential resource for those who enter war.