Let me tell you about Reg Keys. And also something about a war.

Reg Keys, a Brit, is a remarkable person. His twenty-year-old son Lance Corporal Tom Keys was killed on June 24, 2003, in a place called Al Majar in Iraq. He died believing he was performing his patriotic duty serving his nation in defense of his country. He was one of six soldiers killed by what is said to be a mob on that fateful day barely three months after the invasion of Iraq.

What I find so remarkable about Reg is that he did not take the news of the death of his young son lightly. As would be expected of a father who lost a young son in an untimely and violent death, he got upset. He got even more upset when upon further reflection it dawned on him that his son might have possibly died in vain. The life of his beloved son was brutally cut short fighting a war he feels was from the outset “based on deceit of WMD not on regime change” which makes it “clearly against international law”.

Reg firmly believes that his young son and the others who are currently serving and those who have served and died in Iraq “have had their Oaths of Allegiance betrayed and their patriotism exploited by a prime minister who lacked the integrity and moral fiber to resist the pressure of war from US President George W. Bush.”

To put his point across and try to do something about it, Reg decided to stand in the general elections held in Britain in May 2005. He stood, as an independent candidate, and took on Tony Blair in his own backyard, the Sedgefield constituency. He managed to win 4,252 votes against an incumbent prime minister who polled 24,421 votes, out of a turnout of 41,475 voters.

To this day Reg has not come to terms with the death of his son in this “questionable” war. He maintains, “had the invasion been backed by international law and the UN and had Iraq possessed WMD then I am sure the families of servicemen killed would more readily accept and come to terms with their deaths.”

But where Reg failed, a certain figure by the name of George Galloway triumphed. He fought in the same elections on an anti-Iraq war manifesto and managed in a shock result to oust Ms. Oona King, one of Tony Blair’s most loyal supporters. Galloway overturned a 10,057 majority for Ms. King, polling 15,801 votes to Ms. King’s 14,978.

In his acceptance speech he said: “Mr. Blair, this defeat is for Iraq and the other defeats that New Labour has received this evening are for Iraq.”

Thus did the Respect Party and George Galloway manage to take the Labour safe seat of Bethnal Green & Bow in East London.

Recently, in an interview broadcast in Britain on ITV1 in a program called Parkinson’s Show, Blair proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq. That we know will indeed happen in good time, but Blair may be surprised and find that the judgment he alludes to may not necessarily be in his favor, much as he may like people to believe. It may very well decidedly be against him.

Those who lost their near and dear ones in the war are unhappy that Blair can find time to tape an interview for a chat show, while they have tried unsuccessfully to find a few minutes of his time to meet with them face to face. They cannot be blamed in thinking that Blair is actually avoiding them and simply does not wish to see them.

Blair argues that the Iraqis are happy and proud now that they have recently held “free and fair elections.” But going by his now well-proven words of mass deception, many people will find that a bit hard to swallow. This is the same person who hysterically declared that Saddam was in a position to launch weapons of mass destruction “within 45 minutes”. It turned out, as has been clearly proven, Saddam did not possess the weapons, let alone the capacity to launch them in any given time frame.

The argument is also somewhat lame and tepid in that Blair simply does not have any right in Iraq. He has not been appointed, and not, too, for that matter his good friend George W. Bush, as custodians of Iraq and or its spokesmen nor to interfere in any manner or form on how it should be governed. The 24,421 votes that Blair got in the Sedgefield constituency entitle him to oversee and run the affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain only. He has no mandate or say in any other sovereign state.

Bush and Blair should sit down, ponder and reflect seriously on the following statistics, products of their ill-advised war. That it has so far caused the deaths of over 30,000 Iraqis, 2,300 US soldiers and 103 British troops, with many more thousands maimed or injured. A word of caution is in order here, though, that the above given numbers are given according to “reliable statistical figures” as churned out by the “highly reliable” number-crunching, highly paid statisticians, and as widely disseminated and circulated in the Western media.

While they are at it they could probably also consider and take a closer look at the statistical figures of, say, the infant mortality rate (and the under five years old), the health care facilities, the literacy levels, the disposable income and the personal security level and general well-being of the ordinary Iraqis before sanctions were imposed on them and compare them with the quality of life they are now living and currently enjoying at their watch. And then maybe delve a little further on and take a good look around, and consider also, the fact that, Iraq may seriously be teetering on the brink of a debilitating civil war if not in the midst of one raging right this very moment.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” It appears to be slowly but surely pricking the consciences of many upright people in the West and elsewhere. People have started asking some tough and awkward questions. This is reflected in the opinion polls where the popularity ratings of Messrs Bush and Blair and the proponents of the war are taking a major tumble. You will not be surprised to find cars on the roads adorned with stickers proclaiming, for example: “Great Is The Guilt Of An Unnecessary War — John Adams.”

The anti-war sentiments are taking root and are bravely sprouting up and seeing the light of day in many places worldwide. They realize to be silent is to be complicit in the commitment of a grave injustice to humanity and to a helpless, defenseless people, who have had a war visited upon them, without a clear knowledge of the reason why, what plan B is if there ever was one and what exactly they are supposed to do next.

It is generally acknowledged that to help someone is to give him something at least better than what he had before. Can anyone honestly say in all seriousness that Iraq is now better off than it was before? In the same vein, if the aim was to make the world a safer place the question is: Is the world really any safer at this moment with the situation developing and as it stands now in Iraq?

What exactly was the real objective of this war? Pray tell. But we won’t hold our breath while we await the answer.

— Abdullah Bajaber is an independent commentator on current affairs based in Kenya.