The Fanonite

‘The price was right for some’, writes The Fanonite contributor Paul de Rooij in his sharp critique of the propaganda being churned out by the UK ‘liberal’ press on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war.

The fifth anniversary of the US-uk war of aggression against Iraq is upon us and with it the obligatory discussion about the consequences and whether it “was worth it” — to use Madeleine Albright’s infamous response. Raymond Whitaker and Stephen Foley penned The Independent’s evaluation of the war and proceeded to create a balance sheet with pluses and minuses, and discussed whether the war was justified at all. It is worth discussing their ledger and their cursory justifications of this war.

The article starts by suggesting that the war’s rationale was correct (fear of WMD, Al Qaeda, etc.), even if none of these fears actually materialized. In fact, Whitaker and Foley simply ignore all the evidence demonstrating that the stated aims of the war were all a ruse, a pretext for the war. In light of subsequent revelations, in particular the Downing Street memo, it is absurd to suggest that the motivation was anything but a deliberate lie to sell the war. Just like at the beginning of this war in 2003, no valid justification has been proffered by George Bush et al. Soldiers in Iraq today don’t know why they are there, why they are fighting and risking their lives; they merely are told to “do their job”. It is the hidden motives that are most important to provide an assessment of this war and whether it was really worth it. Alas, that is not Whitaker and Foley’s line of inquiry. It is surprising that the real reasons for the war, its geopolitical rationale (control of resources, the creation of an Israeli sphere of influence and US control of the region), don’t feature anywhere in the article.

There is no mention anywhere in the article that this was a war of aggression, and that all the subsequent destruction and killings amount to serious war crimes and crimes against humanity. [1] The subsequent UNSC resolution ratifying the occupation doesn’t absolve the parties involved of having been involved in the supreme crime of aggression. The other casualty of this war, and an item that could be placed in the “minus” side of the ledger, is international law.

Whitaker and Foley (W&F) then cursorily tread over the casualty statistics — the US and uk first, of course — they count more. They state, “so far 3,987 American soldiers and 197 British troops have died in Iraq.” Well, these statistics must make all the “coalition” countries very pleased that they participated in this war. The other 133 coalition troops are not worth tallying — their blood is presumably cheaper. Similarly, the mercenaries are not worth counting; they knew what risk they were taking, so tough luck. The thousands of veterans committing suicide State-side also don’t feature in their tally. It is also remarkable that W&F don’t mention the hundreds of thousands of injured soldiers; hey, there are only 70,000 cases of serious hearing loss [2]; 330,000 veterans will be seeking treatment for some condition in 2008 [3], 50,000 cases of eye damage… Joseph Stiglitz’s analysis indicates that the bulk of the cost of the war will be run up providing medical care to these veterans. But a cost that will be incurred in the future doesn’t need to enter into the dodgy ledger today.

Now W&F turn to the Iraqi body count: “So, five years on, who can be said to have won the war? Certainly not Iraqi civilians, at least 90,000 of whom have died violently since 2003, at the most conservative estimate.” Well, is the 90,000 body count really a “conservative estimate” or simply a dubious statistic? Obviously W&F have used the Iraq Body Count (IBC) “estimate”[4] IBC’s estimates are dubious because fatalities are only registered if they appear in media reports, and thus rely on a biased and flawed methodology.[5] A statistic that deliberately downplays the cost in Iraqi blood is useful to those still seeking to justify the 2003 war. If Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State, thought the half million Iraqi infant deaths caused by the UN sanctions were “worth it”, then the “mere” cost of 90,000 Iraqi corpses, must be a bargain! W&F mention the displacement of Iraqis in these terms: “Two million Iraqis have fled the country, and at least as many again are internally displaced.” Only in Syria one finds about 1.5m refugees, Jordan another million, thousands are stranded in no-man’s-land on the border of these countries… and one quickly obtains a higher refugee estimate. W&F have a penchant for emphasizing the lower bound of pertinent statistics. W&F also tend to use unfortunate terminology, e.g., that the refugees “fled”; in most instances they were terrorized by groups operating openly under American cover, e.g., death squads affiliated to the current Iraq regime’s Ministry of Interior. Another element that certainly must enter the “minus” side of W&F’s ledger is journalistic integrity, but then that today is almost an oxymoron.

W&F discuss the Iraq’s economic plight as follows: “Baghdad households suffered power cuts of up to eight hours a day in Saddam’s time; now they can expect less than eight hours of electricity a day on average.” That is it! There is no mention that the public health system, water purification, sanitation, education… have all collapsed. Two years ago the Americans announced that they would no longer invest in the Iraqi infrastructure, and that it was up to them to pick up the pieces. If the US is not willing to develop the country and is only interested in siphoning off the oil, then it is evident that the grand larceny of Iraqi reserves comes with no trickle down attached. As a matter of fact, the US didn’t have a reconstruction plan for Iraq; it only had a plunder and pillage plan. W&F neglect another item in the “minus” column: the Iraqi infrastructure and economy. There is no mention of the $9bn Iraqi reconstruction funds that according to the General Accounting Office have gone “missing”.

W&F also discuss the cost of the war in terms of treasure in this manner: “In early 2003, Mr Rumsfeld mused on what might be the cost of the war to come: $50bn (£25bn) or $60bn, he and White House planners thought. Five years on, the bill is already 10 times that, while here the Commons Defence Committee has just warned of a “surprising” 52 per cent increase in the cost of operations in Iraq to nearly £1.45bn in the current financial year” In 2006, Joseph Stiglitz’s estimate put the cost to the United States at $3trn+ and to the rest of the world at an additional $3trn. The cost of the war is therefore at least 60X of what Rumsfeld and others admit to. A neglected “minus” ledger item is the opportunity cost of the treasure burned in Iraq: schools, hospitals, etc.

W&F then discuss the fate of the architects of the war: Rumsfeld, assorted neocons, Bush, Blair… their “popularity” and image has been tarnished, or they have had to relocate to neocon think tanks. W&F place the neocons on the “minus” side of the ledger, but they simply don’t understand the difference between the neocons having been cast aside or merely now lying low and out of the limelight. Cheney’s office and the NSC still remain neocon strongholds; in Congress and the media they are still remain entrenched and beating the drum for their next foray against Iran. Of course, W&F wouldn’t be as indecorous as to suggest that this gang belong in a war crimes tribunal. Instead, Blair is writing his memoirs for a £4.5m advance by a Murdoch-owned publisher, and getting other multi-million deferred bribes from corporations, e.g., Carlyle Group (the premier private equity fund involved in the armaments industry), JP Morgan, etc. Well, if this is considered to be “gone”, it isn’t too bad. W&F simply misplace the some of the architects of the war in their ledger, and certainly miss including the politicians’ “honesty and integrity” in the “minus” ledger column.

W&F suggest that Al Qaeda has been a winner in this war, but such claim is rather dubious. Maybe Al Qaeda — whatever that means — operates in Iraq, but they are also a very convenient ruse for the Americans to continue the occupation of Iraq. If the US were to leave, “Al Qaeda would take over and win”, and of course “we” couldn’t countenance that. It is these false justifications for the continuing occupation that have to be demolished, and not given credence. One must also remember that during the Vietnam war American GIs would assassinate Vietnamese civilians, and then justify the kill after the fact by stating that the victim was a “Vietcong”. In Iraq the same thing is happening, i.e., Americans kill Iraqis, and then claim that they are “Al Qaeda”. It is not Al Qaeda that is ascendant, but it is barbarity and the dissolution of a society that are Iraq’s current predicament; the cause of this can be put directly at the feet of the Americans and their acolytes. Another item that W&F neglect to put in the “minus” column: Iraqi democracy and civil society.

W&F spend nine paragraphs discussing assorted corporations and mercenary groups which have gotten fat contracts in Iraq, and it is not surprising that these operators are in the “plus” side of the ledger. What is not mentioned is that the contracts they obtain are not for the benefit of Iraqis. Most of these companies only work in the oil fields or the essential infrastructure to maintain the dozen or so US military bases in Iraq. There are no contractors working on roads, communications, electricity, etc… Furthermore, the mercenaries are an unaccountable force used to suppress the Iraqis; they certainly weren’t hired to guarantee the Iraqis’ safety or rights. The war in Iraq has seen the emergence of an unaccountable private military force to the detriment of regular armies. These mercenaries are only accountable to the whims of those who hired them.

Other items W&F don’t mention: torture, environmental devastation, destruction of world heritage, etc. The war in Iraq has given rise to the rampant use of torture, death squads, rendition flights, and secret prisons. All these are items have the potential to eventually blowback into the states that created or condoned them. Once it is evident that there has been such a rampant mass abuse of the rights of others, we can never be secure again. Furthermore, “our” fascism abroad inevitably breeds fascism at home, and this is yet another missing “minus” in W&F’s ledger.

It is evident that Whitaker and Foley haven’t read Patrick Cockburn’s articles in their newspaper. Cockburn presents a picture of devastation and of a country that has been torn apart by several wars and a sanctions regime. A whole country has been destroyed with appalling consequences for millions of Iraqis and people in the area. Cockburn’s assessment of the consequences also has very clear lessons that are pertinent today. First of all, that the recourse to war by the US and its allies is totally unacceptable, and it is obscene to find today the same gang who beat the drums for war against Iraq now baying for war against Iran. No lessons seem to have been learned.

Whitaker and Foley present a deceptive assessment of the 2003 war against Iraq; they utilize a false accounting to suggest that there are winners and losers, thus the war cannot have been all that bad. The principal fraud perpetrated by W&F was to neglect the Iraqis’ interests and well being from their dubious ledger. A proper accounting of the cost of such war requires a more honest assessment of the cost in terms of blood, treasure — the easy part. Alas, there is also a moral cost which is not discussed. Just like Maddie Albright, W&F operate like common accountants discounting lives demonstrating that they may know about prices but certainly not about value.

The question W&F’s article sought to address was “Who won the war?”, and the answer to that question is trivial because we know who lost it: the Iraqi people. However, wars aren’t zero-sum games; just because the Iraqis lost doesn’t mean that the Americans won. At this late stage, what is more important is not who won, but the “why” questions. Why was Iraq subjected to war and sanctions? And why does the torture of this nation continue today? Alas, Whitaker and Foley don’t address these key questions.

– Notes –

1. Note that crimes against humanity are more serious than war crimes. Crimes against humanity are precursors to genocide or genocidal actions.
2. Greg Mitchell, Media Matters with Bob McChesney, 9 March 2008 (around the 23min mark).
3. Mitchell, ibid.
4. Iraq Body Count, W&F round of the number found on this website. Accessed: 17 March 2008
5. Burying The Lancet - Part 1: An Exchange Between The Independent’s Mary Dejevsky And Lancet Author Les Roberts, Media Lens, 5 September 2005; Burying The Lancet - Part 2, Media Lens, 6 September 2005. There were subsequent exchanges and further analysis on the Media Lens website.