iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Des Freedman

GET UPDATES FROM Des Freedman
 

Was the Iraq War Worth It? Ask the Public

Posted: 05/02/2013 23:00

There are two major events this week in London marking the tenth anniversary of the biggest demonstration in British history when some two million people marched against the prospect of a war in Iraq.

The first is a The Huffington Post debate at Goldsmiths, University of London featuring pro- and anti-war voices including the former shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin MP and the former cabinet minister Clare Short, journalists David Aaronovitch and Owen Jones and Iraqi activist Haifa Zangana and commentator Ali Latif. The overall question is whether the war was 'worth it.'

The second is a conference hosted by the Stop the War Coalition, who organized the original protest in 2003, and features a stellar cast of anti-war activists including Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Tony Benn, Jemima Khan, Seamus Milne, Salma Yaqoob and Lindsey German. Here the focus is very much on learning lessons from Iraq in order more effectively to oppose both present and future wars.

This is a crucial task. The 'war on terror' may have been rebranded as 'overseas contingency operations' and US and UK troops may have left Iraq and are preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan but the threat of military action from Syria to Sub-Saharan Africa remains very much alive.

In this context it is worth reminding ourselves of some of warnings posed by the marchers back in 2003. Chris Nineham's excellent new book, The People v. Tony Blair, captures the febrile atmosphere of the demonstrations that took place around the world on 15 February where anywhere between eight and 30 million people marched in 600 cities demanding that George Bush and Tony Blair call off their plans for an invasion and occupation of Iraq. In the UK, many marchers held placards simply saying 'NO' while many others insisted that any war would be 'NOT IN MY NAME'. Protestors made it clear that they did not believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that a US/UK onslaught would lead to the deaths of huge numbers of Iraqis and increased instability throughout the Middle East.

Ten years on, we meet to ask 'was it worth it?'

Presumably not for the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in the conflict. The figures may vary (Iraq Body Count put the number at around 120,000 while the Lancet counted upwards of 600,000) but the story is one of devastation nonetheless.

Presumably not for the 4400 US soldiers killed in combat and presumably not also for anyone seeking peace, security and democracy in a region whose tensions and rivalries have been intensified by the occupation.

Presumably not for former prime minister Tony Blair whose reputation was utterly tarnished following the war and who continues to be met with cries of 'war criminal' whenever he appears in public in the UK.

Yet some did rather well out of the war. The US company Halliburton won contracts from government agencies worth $17.2 billion from 2003-6 to construct and maintain military bases, repair oil fields and other infrastructural projects in Iraq. The private equity firm, Veritas Capital, through its DynCorp subsidiary, earned $1.44 billion by training the new Iraqi police force before selling the company to another fund, Cerberus Capital Management in 2010.

None of this would have been a surprise to the millions marching to stop the assault on Iraq. One of the most popular slogans was 'No Blood for Oil' reflecting a widely-held view that the war was about securing Western strategic interests rather than about humanitarian motives.

What is so impressive is that despite news coverage that, with some honourable exceptions like the Daily Mirror, reproduced an official narrative that Iraq presented an imminent danger to the West, by and large ordinary citizens failed to buy into this. Polls showed that, while in 2003 the UK and US publics were each split in their attitude towards a war in Iraq, their opposition to the war hardened quite quickly. The last poll in the UK that showed a majority in favour of the war was in May 2004 and the picture has remained the same ever since.

There is a similar pattern in the US where, less than a month ago, a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 59% of Americans said Iraq war wasn't worth it. This followed a Pew survey from 2011 which showed that a similar number of Iraq veterans argued that the war was not worth fighting. Indeed, a majority of the US public still do not believe that the Iraq War was 'morally justified' and think that sending troops to Iraq was a 'dumb thing to do.' Most continue to believe that the US government deliberately misled the US public about the existence of WMDs.

Polls in Iraq also demonstrated a substantial majority of the public opposed to the US occupation with some 78% of those questioned in a 2006 poll stating that the presence of foreign troops was 'provoking more conflict than it was preventing'.

Of course, opinion polls are far from the most reliable expression of the 'truth' of any situation and are often the product of highly selective questions as well as providing a static and potentially misleading picture of individual beliefs on a particular issue. This is why the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu railed against what he saw as 'manufactured opinion... mobilised around a system of explicitly formulated interests.' Public opinion, as a tangible and meaningful phenomenon, 'does not exist.'

But 15 February 2003 shows that Bourdieu may have miscalculated. What the New York Times called the 'second superpower', world public opinion, took to the streets to demonstrate its firm opposition to the war in previously unheard of numbers and, in the UK at least, came within a whisper of making it impossible for Tony Blair to secure a parliamentary mandate for joining the US in attacking Iraq.

With British troops set to have some presence in Syria and a new 'Scramble for Africa', Tony Blair once again calling for a generation-long fight against al-Qaida and with President Hollande looking to restore the flawed philosophy of 'humanitarian intervention' by sending troops into Mali, these debates matter- not least to remind ourselves of the importance of calling our governments to account and of the need to re-awaken the 'second superpower.'

The Huffington Post UK with Goldsmiths, University of London event 'The Great Iraq War Debate: Was It Worth It? Iraq, Ten Years On' takes place on 7 February 18:30 - 21:00 (19:00 start).

Venue: Great Hall, Richard Hoggart Building, Goldsmiths, University of London, SE14 6NW
Price: Free, but reserve your place at www.amiando.com/iraqdebate

 

Follow Des Freedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lazebnic

FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 57
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:45 AM on 02/11/2013
the greatest opportunity was missed.

how many millions in every country, marching for peace ?

the greatest protest in human history, a unique time, a unique moment in human history, and it was asking for peace, not war, but for finding a new, as yet unseen, path.

does it matter that it was Iraq ? it might have been any country.

the whole of humanity was together in wanting a different kind of world,. A world they weren't sure they knew how to create, but they knew that they wanted it.

And ten years on, as we have grown used to endless wars with no purpose and no goal. to drones assassinating people by remote control. To security measures overturning human rights. To a seemingly irrevicable conflict between Christian and Muslims. To concrete blocks and airport searches and guantanamo.

And above all as we have become used to the idea that peace may never be possible, let alone a way forwards,

And we wonder - what solutions might have happened otherwise - what hopes might have been realised, or countries liberated, but in a wholly different way, and out of humanity, not greed.

And we ask - was it worth it ?
12:05 PM on 02/09/2013
.

"Stop the War on Terror" start with the Mossad

.
10:33 PM on 02/08/2013
NO,NO,NO
02:59 PM on 02/07/2013
Do you even have to ask the question? Bush's various foreign adventures have all been complete disasters.
07:04 PM on 02/07/2013
Highly profitable though!
06:34 AM on 02/07/2013
it's frustrating how people responsible for this war and lie will never face justice. Hopefully there is a God and I hope they all burn
11:45 PM on 02/06/2013
No it was not worth the lives lost. Seeing that the US installed Hussein in the first place and armed him as he battled the Iranians we know the war was not because of weapons of mass destruction.
01:13 AM on 03/29/2013
Hi, please remember I speak of the world after the 2nd world war and before the Vietnam war, The movie The Lord of War was very close, don't you
photo
Ezekiel 2517
Face your fears or they will climb over your back.
10:04 PM on 02/06/2013
No.
08:20 PM on 02/06/2013
After reading a little about what Christopher Hitchens had to say on Iraq, I somewhat came round to believing that Saddam should have been removed. Hitchens spent a reasonable amount of time in Iraq in between wars, familiarising himself with the Kurds and other rebellious groups. He admitted after that in his enthusiasm to see the psychotic murderous gangster removed, he also overlooked the details of the American plan.

The irony of the American psyche is that it took the conservative Republican mindset to attempt something as audacious a invading Iraq, but it was that same mindset that meant they were always going to screw it up. Any integrity about removing Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq was totally undermined and corrupted by their desire to control the country, the region and by insisting things be done the American way.

If they had supported another attempt to topple Saddam by the Kurds and the desire from the army to get rid of him as Hitchens believes was the case, and if they handed the country straight back to the Iraqis to let them run it the way they knew how instead of imposing American systems and infrastructures, then there is a chance that Bush and Blair might have got away with it. But these are all fairytale 'ifs'.
jhNY
Mercy.
09:00 PM on 02/06/2013
And Hitchens was a gifted, very gifted teller of fairy tales on print that suited his notions, while ever on the ready to kill off other tale-tellers whose tales he found to clash with his beloved conclusions.

Hitchens, always mounted, sword out, would battle with dragons, or would have, had there been any. But he moved on to other objects, often windmills of his own reviling, in succession, over the course of a very public lifetime.

He was a fine polemic writer, often insightful, always readable, if not the finest attributor or the finest researcher. I miss reading him, but he was very wrong to work himself into so many enthusiasms in the early days of our faux-Manichean struggle with Saddam Hussein. He should have, after years covering DC, been far more finely attuned to high-minded notions purveyed by the irretrievably cynical. Instead, he befriended Chalabi.
10:02 PM on 02/06/2013
The Kurds had their own "mini-state" protected by a no-fly zone. They were not being threatened by Saddam in 2003. If we wanted to help the Iraqis then we would have done it in a way that they actually wanted. It is fantasy to believe that the Americans cared about Iraqi lives or freedom. They insisted on punitive sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of children for no gain.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Veater
06:43 PM on 02/06/2013
Had Tony Blair known the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job", would he have taken the stand he did? Had Parliament known they were being hoodwinked on a number of fronts, would it have supported invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Had the public known would an even greater proportion voiced their opposition and more strenuously? After the debacle of the "dodgy dossier", for which government scam no-one has been held to account, nothing the Labour led government could be trusted, and I for one thought and said so at the time. The whole "War Against Terror" is a misnomer built on lies, and should be regarded, with the invasions, as one the biggest criminal deceits ever imposed on the international community. So was it worth the destruction, the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, the hatred of the West it has engendered, the billions of dollars/pounds it has cost? What do you think?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richie2012
Your micro bio is empty.
07:04 PM on 02/06/2013
Inside job?
photo
Ezekiel 2517
Face your fears or they will climb over your back.
09:57 PM on 02/06/2013
I agreed with some of what he said, but inside job. And one statement ruined the entire post.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Veater
10:17 PM on 02/06/2013
Examine the evidence. It is the only reasonable conclusion. Steel framed buildings do not collapse from fire alone. Even in ideal combustion conditions the temperature is not high enough. Nor do they free fall. Unless there is controlled demolition. Even if you are not convinced by this and the fact that multiple witnesses report multiple explosions you MUST be convinced by the collapse of the third building 7 not hit by any plane eight hours later. Lots more factors but not room. Still sceptical? There was no remains of a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon. The hole was only 5 m wide for an aircraft over 100 m. This was the most malignant con-job ever pulled.
10:05 PM on 02/06/2013
" Had Parliament known they were being hoodwinked on a number of fronts, would it have supported invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? "

Yes. MPs are not half-wits who believed everything they were told. It's just an excuse they use.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Veater
10:23 PM on 02/06/2013
You may be right. Amazing the irresistible pschology of war fever.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beenzrgud
Can't say what I'd like to here.
06:08 PM on 02/06/2013
Was it worth it? Absolutely not. Then again I knew the answer to that question 10 years ago.

An article on the front page of HP today stated that Blair was now worth £80 million, so maybe he might have a different opinion since history seems to be treating him significantly better than most of those he has affected.
05:04 PM on 02/06/2013
afghanistan iraq vietnam are all wars caused by the usa because these countries refused to step in line with the usa version of democracy and capitalism
04:34 PM on 02/06/2013
We need to hold someone accountable for the WMD claim. Maybe the higher-ups in the Bush Administration are beyond accountability, but the returning troops aren't. If you take it on faith that Rumsfeld knew exactly where the WMDs were three weeks after the invasion, we can blame the troops on the grouond - they are the ones who failed to find Hussein's WMDs due to their incompetence. It was the troops who failed to keep us safe from the threat the WMDs posed. Ask a returning veteran: why did you fail to find the WMDs? Why didn't you keep us safe from them? Why are you so incompetent?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
03:35 PM on 02/06/2013
It was worth it for war criminal Tony Blair. Sure hundreds of thousands of civilians died, but he still gets paid £6 million a year by JP Morgan.
03:10 PM on 02/06/2013
Iraq was illegal, but it served the U.S. admin's purpose, having a base with which to go into Iran. That was the purpose. North Americans are simply cannon fodder to be used to fulfill the proxy wars that are designed to never end.
09:14 PM on 02/06/2013
kind of. It has more to do with Saddams attempt to trade oil with the euro rather than the dollar.
That is why the French and Germans did not involve themselves in Iraq.
The yanks have little else economically other then their control over oil via fact that oil is traded in dollars which then must be spent back in the US economy.
Far fetched? The US nearly crippled the UK by almost destroying the pound because of the Uk's refusal to help in Vietnam. Business the American way...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Z0diac
If I agreed with you we’d both be wrong
02:46 PM on 02/06/2013
For Tony Blair, yes.
For George Bush, yes.
For military contractors, yes.
For defence contractors, yes
For everyone else, no.