Robert Fisk: A historic day for Iraq – but not in the way the British want to believe
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
PA
Brigadier Tom Beckett (right) hands over to Colonel Henry A Kievenaar III at Basra Airbase yesterday
enlarge
One hundred and seventy-nine dead soldiers. For what? 179,000 dead Iraqis? Or is the real figure closer to a million? We don't know. And we don't care. We never cared about the Iraqis. That's why we don't know the figure. That's why we left Basra yesterday.
I remember going to the famous Basra air base to ask how a poor Iraqi boy, a hotel receptionist called Bahr Moussa, had died. He was kicked to death in British military custody. His father was an Iraqi policeman. I talked to him in the company of a young Muslim woman. The British public relations man at the airport was laughing. "I don't believe this," my Muslim companion said. "He doesn't care." She did. So did I. I had reported from Northern Ireland. I had heard this laughter before. Which is why yesterday's departure should have been called the Day of Bahr Moussa. Yesterday, his country was set free from his murderer. At last.
History is a hard taskmaster. In my library, I have an original copy of General Angus Maude's statement to the people of Baghdad – $2,000, it cost me, at a telephone auction a few days before we invaded Iraq in 2003, but it is worth every cent. "Our military operations have as their object," Maude announced, "the defeat of the enemy... our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." And so it goes on. Maude, I should add, expired shortly afterwards because he declined to boil his milk in Baghdad and died of cholera.
There followed a familiar story. The British occupation force was opposed by an Iraqi resistance – "terrorists", of course – and the British destroyed a town called Fallujah and demanded the surrender of a Shiite cleric and British intelligence in Baghdad claimed that "terrorists" were crossing the border from Syria, and Lloyd George – the Blair-Brown of his age – then stood up in the House of Commons and said that there would be "anarchy" in Iraq if British troops left. Oh dear.
Even repeating these words is deeply embarrassing. Here, for example, is a letter written by Nijris ibn Qu'ud to a British intelligence agent in 1920: "You cannot treat us like sheep... it is we Iraqi who are the brains of the Arab nation... You are given a short time to clear out of Mesopotamia. If you don't go you will be driven out."
So let us turn at last to T E Lawrence. Yes, Lawrence of Arabia. In The Sunday Times on 22 August 1920, he wrote of Iraq that the people of England "had been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information... Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows." Even more presciently, Lawrence had written that the Iraqis had not risked their lives in battle to become British subjects. "Whether they are fit for independence or not remains to be tried. Merit is no justification for freedom."
Alas not. Iraq, begging around Europe now that its oil wealth has run out, is a pitiful figure. But it is a little bit freer than it was. We have destroyed its master and our friend (a certain Saddam) and now, with our own dead clanking around our heels, we are getting out yet again. Till next time...
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Are military is second to none, but the whole Iraq and Afghanistan scenario was a waste of 179 lives.!
British soldiers should never be exposed to fight unwinable wars.! It was Bush's personal vendetta and
Blair and Brown blindly supported whatever he wanted from us.! The lion cannot tame the camel by sheer
outnumering alone.! I have repeatedly said in my writings and commentaries that once we and the Americans
leave, the situation over there will rapidly revert to the slaughter, massacres and genocidal lunacy that has
endured in the middle east for thousands of years.! Those people do not understand or accept Western
democracy, they alwys return to ruthless, brute force and violence to settle their differences, that's why
it was a futile experiment for our military from the start.! There won't be one saddam now, there will be
thousands, even more ruthless ready to replace him, even if they wear a different face and walk a different
walk.! That is the way it is and nothing the US or we do will ever change their pathetic, violent lifestyles.!
1 world war, 2 world war, vietnam, indian wars (genocide), X million slaves dead crossing to americas and so on ....Hale to the peaceful, democratic West
Some of us did care about Iraq and Iraqis.
One idiot laughing at an airport is not the rest of us.
Saddam Hussein may have been "your" friend but not a friend of the rest of us - or 90% of Iraqis.
The deaths through the second invasion of Iraq by Arab foreigners, to play their deadly adolescent game of "crusaders and martyrs", and through the ensuing vendetta war (wrongly called sectarian war), are the direct result of the Arab culture and mentality that respects revenge and the right of murder as a punishment for injury and insult. For this you haven't had the courage or intellect to analyze it and write about it - after how many years in Lebanon Robert.
What you do not write about is that 90% of Iraqis wanted an army to overthrow Saddam and the madness of George Bush, with Tony Blair running along side, gave it to them.
It could also be said that it is you Robert that doesn't care - your interest in Iraq seems more as a political football to stick your knife into Americans you hate - and the english version you know so much better. That is how you come across - not as a journalist that presents us with a true picture of what is happening in middle eastern society - but as an angry and revengeful amateur, mistaking raging opinion for truth.
Somehow Iraq and the catastrophic evolution of the middle east have become your demise too.
Like George and Tony you had you chance to handle it in a way that would enhance your status - as a journalist-historian in your case - and like them you blew it - probably for the same reasons of being lost in your own world and incapable of really grasping the "middle eastern mindset".
fact - the whole of the Middle East has a very complex history. The region is made of up of an interlacing of ethnic groups, with myriad of religions (most of them ancient ones), as well as tribal laws which are still applied in these societies. No amount of democratising will make a difference - at best, they would still be applied parallel to the modern laws introduced. Even the Saudi King couldn't save a
Saudi princess' life some years back. She was a member of the royal family, and was a student in
Beirut, where she secretly eloped with her cousin, also a student, but not acceptable to her family.
They were tricked into going back to Saudi Arabia under the pretext that everything was forgiven, where
against the King's wishes, but with the insistence of her grandfather, the head of their tribal family,
she was publicly stoned to death and her husband, decapitated in the town's square. This was just
some years back, which might give you some food for thought.
As for the Arab foreigners you talked about, and their "deadly game of crusaders and martyrs".....
they're descendants of those early Al Queda, who were called "hashashins" in those earlier days of
the Crusades. They were, as today, a clandestine group dedicated to the assassinating the first European Crusaders who were plundering Jerusalem and other parts of the region like Cyprus, Syria,
and Lebanon. They were said to have taken hashish before going off on their killing- crusaders spree,
hence, the name, Hashashin, or Hashishin. They had their hideout fortresses in the mountain areas of Persia, or Iran. by the way. Interesting to note, also, is how the modern Hashashins, or Hashisins
referred to the U.S. and British troops in Iraq as "Crusaders". That should have given Bush and
Blair a fair warning of what's to come, but alas, nobody listens to history.
It is interesting to get freedom and to end Saddam's period, but in such away it is painful and nobody has a sense of humanity can accept the bath of blood which had been started since 2003 and still continue, to what extend also noone cares? when it is over, nobody knows?
Surely that's excessive reaction by the Brits? Did the Iraqis have tanks and planes and did they first attack Britain?
I am interested here in the numbers. During the Vietnam War the US routinely lied about the numbers of American soldiers killed, making it one third or one quarter of what the number actually was. At the same time the US exaggerated the number of the Vietcong and North Vietnamese enemy killed. Anti-war activists were onto the lies and called the official US on them.
It has been different in the Iraq campaign where the US has surely lied about the number of Americans killed, which has to be three or four times the numbers reported. At the same time, the US has lied about the Iraqi deaths, deliberately, radically underestimating the murder of innocent Iraqis.
As Bush's lapdog, Blair had to be doing the same thing, though the UK had less of a stake in the bloodshed.
Just as the US occupation force has RULES for reporting and counting "non-combatent" casualties ie, shot by a US weapon (bullet) doesn't count, can not figure out how person died, does not count, the US Military has rules for reporting US casualties ie: No family, does not count. Foreigner serving in the military (hoping to get citizenship) does not count (they are not american). These are just a few of the Orwellian ways of compiling statisitics of the dead.
Insane.
"Israel can shape its strategic environment...by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions".
Excerpt from A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, prepared for then Israeli prime mininster Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996.
And who wrote this? Step forward George W Bush's leading Middle East advisors, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and others. Under George W Bush they were able to put Israel's plan into effect using the U.S. and British military as Israel's proxies.
And now the latest crop of Israel firsters in the U.S. are hoping for the same in regard to Iran.
As Robert Fisk makes clear, history repeats itself.
environment by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria". He should know: Years ago,
a very clever Israeli spy almost became president of Syria, until his identity was revealed and was
hanged by the Syrians Let's just hope there won't be a repeat performance of this, but who knows what's to come, with the newly elected Israeli government being what it is.. . . land-hungry.
As for one of the most fundamentalist whisperers of G.W. Bush, Richard Perle...he went the way of most
Third World dictators a la Idi Amin, or a Papa Doc of Haiti, namely, enjoying life like God in France (a German expression), in a luxurious villa in southern France. Once in a while once still sees him, in
political roundtable discussions on TV5, a French television channel...still spewing his neocon poison.
So the UK and US cannot escape their responsibility for the appauling outcome of this war and pretend 'oh its just the Iraqis'. As General Powell said: 'If you go into the china shop, then you own it' - ie he accepted that once the US/UK chose to invade, THEY would be responsible for what followed
Euroepans, having opposed the liberation of Iraq, are now sniffing round for the oil contracts that they lost when their client Saddam was removed. Maliki contempt for the French and germans a few weeks back when they first ventrured back to Iraq (now it was safe) was palpable.
In fact we can see a whole feast of nasty violence and death inciting lies now exposed
1. The US did not steal/control/wink at Iraq's oil
2. No permanenet bases are to be established
3. A sovereign, constitutionally elected govt has been voted in by free Iraqis
Clearly these are impossible for "people" like Fisk to admit. Just like the villagers walking home from stoning the paediatricians house thinking it was a paedophile, how can these vermin acknowledge what they have done? How can they acknowledge what the coalition has done?
The truth is that while thew WMD excuse was a lie, once the die was cast the narrative of people like Fisk has cost many lives. We can only wonder how many fewer would have died in the fight for Iraqs freedom had poeople like Fisk not led a hysterical lying campaign to discredit the effort. Had the UN stayed and the world (that doesnt care) sent its troops then perhpas hundreds of thousands may have been saved. Or maybe Fisk thinks that Iraqis should never have been freed as he says the cost is too great? I would say that making such a decision for them is pure colonialism. Unlickily for Fisk Iraqis casn now make their own decisions. This year they will vote a new govt. I hope it chokes you,
The sacrifice of the coalition soldiers in contrast has delivered emancipation for 27 million
Freedom. Longed for by those who do not have it, abused and dismissed by people like Fisk who think it their inalienable right.
Iraq is free, for better or worse, despite Robert Fisk and in spite of Robert Fisk.
Just as The Middle East Peace Envoy didn't show his head above the parapet when the Israelis were slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza he is keeping a low profile here. He is Britain's worst politician since his mentor Maggie.
It could happen.
But caution: the British have NOT left Iraq. A contingent remains, ignominiously acting under American orders.
And of course Obama's fake "withdrawal" will leave Iraq's oil under American control. And Iraq's government. I don't think the Iraqi people will put up for this for very many years.
This is a LIE with no basis in the reality, that being a govt elected by Iraqis that continues to debate what Iraqis want to do with their own oil.
Later this year Iraqis will voote a new govt. Anyone (save Baathists, like banning Nazis in germany) can stand. They are free
I think these self indulgent (self excusing) lies incite feeling of victimhood, conflict, and death.
What a disgusting pass-time dont you think
So TomIn London, what Iraqi oil is controlled by the USA and how? Or were you just hysterically and in ignorance just shouting fire in a crowded room?
isnt that what freedom is all about? well, if you listen to the phconnel fantasy it is. may i ask you mr connel, when did the west become the standard that all others must live by. we are not by any means without our faults. we are overwhelmed by greed, warmongers, media spin and government lies and corruption every day. however, our corporate press keep as much as they can off the front pages. bush and blair have killed a million people, maybe more, 179 of them being our own troops. saddam was nowhere near that figure. work it out for yourself man and get your head out of the sand. who should be on the gallows now if all was fair and square in this world?
Lie.
Anyone can stand for election in Iraq (save the Baathists)
Later this year Iraqis will vote for who they want. Who the hell are you panic2009 to deem these Iraqi democrats US/Israeli shills? Will you present us some proof, or just some shallow hysterical witch hunting drivel to meet your own base emotional needs
No system, western or otherwise, has been "imposed". Iraq has a constitution that allows for democratic constitutional change. That means that Iraqis can vote for whatever form or method of govt they want. They could have a constitutional vote to impoes theocracy of the majority want it. But they dont, Iraqis vote for democracy. To you this seems to be poison panic2009. Ask yourself why it upsets you. Its a nasty reason so you may want to do this in private (i.e. leave free Iraqis alone you nasty baby shaker)
Irak not only has been receiving trillions of dollars from the US but also made huge profits in the 2008 oil price boom. It certainly has no need to go begging anywhere, if its oil revenues are properly managed and used.
All along it was these exploitative non tendered oil PSA's that paid for European UN vetoes and lies about US intent. Ask a South Ossetian, a Bosnian, an Algerian, a Rwandan, the list goes on and on, who the filth of the world are. They will tell you. Fisk never writes about them of course though. Fisk is history, a new world is emerging and it will, I think and hope ,hunt the witch hunters instead (and do nasty things to them with luck)
The first objective was to find and destroy Sadam's weapons of mass destruction. Well we never found any weapons to destroy and not even much evidence of an active program to develop them.
The second objective was to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. Well there is no freedom or democracy for the huge number of Iraqi civilians who had died in the last few years and many of the survivors still live in constant fear of violence, their lives controlled more by the whims of the various malitas and terrorists than by any elected government.
The second objective, to emancipate Iraqis so that, for better or worse, they can choose what form and colour of govt they want, is also acheived.
The objective (reason) demanded by those that were happpy to leave Saddam in place and 27 million Iraqis enslaved, that of WMD, was not achieved.
We must assume that had WMD been fouund and a theocracy left behind after immediate wothdrawal that ajwimble would have been content. This speaks volumes I think, dont you?
Irak not only has been receiving trillions of dollars from the US but also made huge profits in the 2008 oil price boom. It certainly has no need to go begging anywhere, if its oil revenues are properly managed and used.
I used to be naive and believe that terrible, anti-human ideas could be destroyed by dilligence, application, equality... I no longer believe that. Obama will do what US presidents do and bomb Pakistan and or Iran. China, Russia and whomever will react badly to that. Reading what some Chinese Generals have said about the US, Japan and UK I wonder that we are not to smouldering already but first we have to see the collapse of the Dollar and Euro for the real fireworks to begin.
Hopeless doesn't quite capture what has happened to me and billions of others. Leadership on the revolutionary left is rudderless and capable of zeroness. Looking to the masses, when they are in the throes of the greatest Depression that human history has recorded (not yet but wait, just wait a little) is a little like expecting Berlusconi to kiss Lewis Hamilton and welcome him as a long-lost brother.