It has been a week when Iraq has moved right up the media agenda. For example, John Humphreys, the Radio 4 Today presenter, has been in Basra giving vivid verbal pictures from that troubled city, and BBC TV Newsnight has had a serious and sensible discussion of the options at this stage.
But even with considerable coverage of Iraq on TV and radio the picture is still distorted. There are two reasons for this. First, Iraq in 2006 is far too dangerous for journalists to be able to roam about and ask questions; even British soldiers tend to only venture out of their bases when they really need to, and then using Warrior armored vehicles, which were previously employed on the streets of Northern Ireland. Second the British government is still very much in the business of trying to control what news does come out of Iraq.
Up to this month government ministers and Ministry of Defense spokesmen have fallen back on a generally defensive position, unable to comment on an exit strategy for there is not one — and there never has been one. We are told regularly British troops are carrying out an important task bringing democracy to Iraq and will stay as long as required by the Iraqi government. It is hoped to be able to reduce their number, area by area, as the Iraqi Army and police — some 300,000 — are brought up to standard.
But times are changing and it is today impossible for government spokesmen to deny that Iraq is sinking fast, and that means that aims and objectives are going to have to be scaled down. In July and August 6,600 Iraqis suffered violent deaths according to official figures. Heaven only knows how many are seriously wounded in mind and body as the fighting spreads. A highly controversial report in the Lancet, based on random sampling, suggested that 650,000 more Iraqis have died since the start of the war in 2003. This means all those people would have been alive if the invasion has not taken place.
On both sides of the Atlantic senior and respected figures have been telling it as it is — and not keeping to the official line.
On Oct. 13, Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, who took over as chief of the general staff, the head of the British Army, at the end of August, gave the Daily Mail an extraordinary exclusive interview. He thought that UK troops should withdraw from Iraq “some time soon” as their presence was “exacerbating” the violence. While I broadly agreed with his comments on Iraq I was alarmed at the impropriety of this interview, for he gave Prime Minister Tony Blair’s policy on Iraq a verbal mauling.
Britain’s new and unimpressive Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett recently admitted that Iraq might be seen one day as “a foreign policy disaster”, a very odd remark from the lady who, in theory but not in practice, is responsible for the nation’s foreign policy. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, previously British ambassador in Iraq, has described the invasion of Iraq as “a failure” and “a mess”.
In the United States a senior State Department official spoke of the “arrogance” and “stupidity” of the Bush administration’s strategy. Amazingly he is still in office. The State Department has been horrified, with every reason, that it was Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, who was given the task of looking after Iraq with the Pentagon.
Both in the United States and the United Kingdom there is a desperate search for a middle way between “staying the course” and “cut and run”. This is a clear change of direction. In December 2005 Tony Blair visited Basra, and told the British troops there that when the Iraqi forces have built up their strength:
“We can eventually draw down our own capability ... We still have troops in Bosnia today, but it is not the same number as ten years ago.”
It was normal then for British spokesmen to talk of a long-term commitment to Iraq.
In the United Kingdom, William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, asked if the government is going to clarify its thinking on Iraq and put forward its proposals not only to the British people but also to the Bush administration. The House of Commons has not been allowed a debate on Iraq for many months — no doubt because Labour MPs are increasingly critical.
In reality, when President Bush decides to bring the American boys home Tony Blair will decide the same for the British boys. Working closely day by day with the White House is the hallmark of this government. The United Kingdom’s policy on Iraq has been described as the biggest foreign policy blunder since Suez. Failure at Suez was damaging for the United Kingdom and the region for years. Iraq now looks like the biggest foreign policy blunder since the end of World War II.
