On the fifth anniversary of the US/UK invasion,
Voices in the Wilderness UK takes stock
Iraq: Year Six
Gabriel Carlyle
"I am obsessed with
the next five years in Iraq,
not the last five years in Iraq."
 UK Foreign Secretary,
David Miliband
December 2007
Since the 2003 invasion, over a
million Iraqis have been killed,
over three million have been
forced to flee their homes, and
sectarian violence has led to the
balkanisation of Baghdad, now
broken up into enclaves sealed
off by concrete walls.
186,000 killed
According to an October 2006
Lancet-published survey (using a
methodology described as "close
to best practice" by the MoD's
chief scientific adviser) "coalition" forces have killed at least
186,000 Iraqis  a fact rarely, if
ever, referred to in the media.
A later survey (see PN 2490)
found that 116,000 Iraqis had
been killed by aerial bombing,
and last year saw a five-fold
increase (from 2006) in the
number of bombs dropped on
Iraq by US-led forces, as well as
a huge increase in the number of
bombs dropped by British war
planes, flying from Qatar.
Nonetheless, despite this carnage, the indirect effects of the
last five years of occupation have
been far, far worse.
Provoking civil war
Indeed, according to the Independent's Patrick Cockburn  one of
the shrewdest and most knowledgeable UK reporters on Iraq Â
the US and Britain have "largely
provoked the civil war" that has
claimed scores, if not hundreds,
of thousands of Iraqi lives since
2005/2006.
Most Iraqis agree. According
to focus groups conducted for
the US military last November,
Iraqis from all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the invasion is the primary root of the
violent differences among them,
and that the departure of occupying forces is key to national
reconciliation.
Arming militias
One of the ways in which the
US has helped (inadvertently or
otherwise) to promote civil
strife, has been through the arming of paramilitary groups.
Over the past six months,
much has been made of the so-
called "Anbar awakening",
under which the US has been
arming and financing Sunni
militias  including former
members of al-Qaeda  to help
it fight al-Qaeda.
In reality, this is just the latest
zig-zag in US policy, which four
years ago was backing Shi'ite
militias, such as the notorious
Wolf Brigade (later found running a torture chamber in Baghdad), to help it combat the then-predominantly Sunni insurgency.
Today, many of the United
States' new Sunni allies openly
say that they see the elimination
of al-Qaeda as a preliminary to
an attack on the Shia militias
(see PN 2492/93).
"Sustainable violence"
Nonetheless, for the time being,
the level of killing has dipped
and, in a revealing turn of
phrase, the commander of US
forces in Iraq has spoken of Iraq
being "close to a sustainable
level of violence."
Given current realities  millions displaced, and hundreds of
civilians killed each month  this might sound bizarre.
However, as US author and
peace activist Rahul Mahajan
has noted: "the goal of the United States is not unity and stability in Iraq; it is retention of the
most US influence with the least
trouble."
Consequently, rhetoric aside,
the US actually has much to
gain from continued hostilities Â
as long as they don't spiral out
of control.
No end in sight
Indeed, a 2005 article for Foreign
Affairs - outlining a counterinsurgency strategy later adopted, in modified form, by the
Bush administration  argued
that the threats posed by Shi'ite
domination, the insurgency,
intra-Shi'ite civil war, and Iran,
could provide "substantial portion[s]" of Kurds, Sunnis and
Shiites with "an incentive to
have Iraq retain some US forces
[long-term]... something critical to achieving the United
States' broader security objectives."
As Cockburn notes: "The hidden history of the past four years
is that the US wants to defeat
the Sunni insurgents but does
not want the Shia-Kurdish government to win a total victory...
[and] by preventing a clear winner emerging in the struggle for
Iraq, [it] ensur[es] that this
bloodiest of wars goes on, with
no end in sight."
The British role
Though there are still over
4,000 British troops in Iraq Â
mostly based in the one remaining UK base in south-east Iraq,
Basra air base  Britain decisively lost southern Iraq to Shi'ite
Islamist groups more than three
years ago.
In February 2007, a report for
the US establishment think tank
the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy concluded that:
"[i]nstead of a stable, united,
law-abiding region with representative government and police
primacy, the deep south [of Iraq]
is unstable, factionalised, lawless, ruled as a kleptocracy and
subject to militia primacy" Â
and it is unclear that much has
changed since then.
What is clear is Iraqi opinion
regarding the British presence.
In a December 2007 poll, 63%
of Basra residents wanted British
troops "to leave the Middle East
altogether and return to
Britain."
Mission symbolic
Last October, Gordon Brown
announced plans to reduce UK
forces in Iraq to 2,500, from
spring 2008.
Yet, during a July 2007 visit
to Basra air base, members of
the Commons defence committee were told that such a reduction "would mean that the
remaining UK Force would be
able to do little more than sustain and protect itself."
Senior Whitehall officials
have said that there will be no
wholesale withdrawal of British
troops from Iraq this year.
The symbolic value for the US
of a British presence in Iraq is, it
seems, simply too great.
Gabriel Carlyle, as well as being PN
Reviews Editor, is co-coordinator of
the anti-war group Voices in the
Wilderness UK, formally established
ten years ago (in March 1998) to
oppose economic sanctions and
military action against Iraq. For a
free copy of the latest Voices
newsletter, please phone 0845 458
2564 or email gabriel@voices.netuxo.co.uk
