Bush-Blair's 'Iraqgate': The crisis and the conundrum

of the mess they have made by invading Iraq on the basis of "flawed intelligence" (or lack of intelligence, one is not sure), their irresponsible comments on the not-so-inevitable killing of Saddam Hussein's sons by US troops smack of their desperation to salvage their political future. Bush has defended the killing as a step towards crushing the "Baathist resistance" (as if no other Iraqis are unhappy with the occupation army), and Blair sounds amateurish in surmising: "This is a great day for the new Iraq". What "new Iraq" he is talking about, we do not know. What can be seen is the beginning of the end of Iraq as one political entity. Unless the UN peacekeepers replace the Anglo-American troops and restore confidence amongst war ravaged Iraqis by establishing the rule of law through an acceptable regime (democratic or otherwise), Iraq is going to disintegrate at least into three parts -- Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite. And the Anglo-American occupation, ironically in the long run, will be responsible for the rise of Islamic militancy in the country. Ever since people started pointing out the flaws in the Bush-Blair doctrine of the war on Iraq, especially in the wake of the invasion, which has failed to unearth the much-hyped Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the duumvirate is fast losing its credibility at home and abroad.

George Bush's ambivalence, his usual not-so-convincing style of placing an argument, on top of his specious defence of the State of the Union Speech made last February, as being innocuous and based on "flawed intelligence", do not sell well. It is ominous for George Bush as his intelligence people and security advisers have gradually started telling the truth, albeit under the pretense of helping the President, stating that he was not responsible for those sixteen damaging words he used in the speech, wrongly implicating Saddam Hussein in buying uranium from Africa. Although it seems the average American may be befooled for a longer period than his British counterpart as he is programmed to glorify Rambos and Terminators, the constant home-bound flow of US flag wrapped body bags will eventually prompt him to raise the question as to what the American troops are doing in Iraq well after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He is also not very comfortable with his government's failure to produce the WMD, the main raison d' etre for the war.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Things are worse for Tony Blair as the bulk of the British citizenry not only vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq with or without UN sanction, but are also much more aware of the state of affairs both within and outside their country than their American counterparts. One wonders how Blair justifies his going to war while millions of British citizens came out on the street condemning his bellicosity. Has Blair any defence against why Dr David Kelly had to die? And if he thinks the killing of Saddam's sons and eventually the death of Saddam himself at the hands of the Coalition troops will turn him into a war hero a la Winston Churchill, he is not far from daydreaming in these long summer days.

The rising cost of the war, both in men and material, the growing uncertainties about the political future of Iraq as well as that of Bush and Blair, along with the lack of signs of normalcy returning to Iraq in the foreseeable future, are all indicative of the crisis the Coalition is in -- it is fast sinking further into the quagmire of "Iraqgate". Hence the frequent use of the red herring by the not-so-smart masters of distraction, justifying the war as the harbinger of peace and democracy in Iraq.

Undoubtedly, people everywhere were surprised, shocked, happy and some even angry or sad, at the slaying of Uday and Qusay Hussein. However, it is too early and oversimplified to suggest that the killing signals the end of military resistance to the Coalition forces and that this will lead to the capture of Saddam Hussein, dead or alive. As we know, Iraqi resistance has not died out even after the killing of Hussein's sons. In view of the nature of his crushing defeat on April 9th this year, Saddam Hussein, dead or alive, poses no threat to the Coalition. However, both Bush and Blair tell us otherwise, as they need him and his sons, preferably dead, to regain their fast receding popularity. Contrary to the claims of the Coalition, democracy and the principles of freedom, justice and human rights have been the main victims of this illegitimate war both within and outside the US, UK, Australia and other countries that supported the Coalition. It is hard to understand how this invasion, leading to the deaths of more than 8,000 Iraqis, and the cumulative effect of the UN sanctions and frequent bombing of the country's "no-fly-zones", dating back to the early 1990s, have "saved democracy and freedom" in Iraq or elsewhere.

It is highly unlikely that Bush and his Party will eventually be able to answer such questions in a convincing manner. There is no point worrying about the nemeses of Bush, Blair and their associates -- Bushs and Blairs will come and go. What is worrisome in the long run is the grave danger confronting international law and order, and the inviolable sovereignty of nation states and human rights. It is shocking to witness the way the Bush administration has been flouting all norms of decency and civility in the name of protecting US interests. This administration has also violated the well-established US policy of banning political assassination, spelled out in an executive order by President Gerald Ford in 1976. While George Bush is the second US president after Ronald Reagan to invade another country without UN approval, Tony Blair is the second post-war British prime minister after Anthony Eden (who invaded Egypt in 1956) to sanction unprovoked invasion of a country with the wrong excuses and a hidden agenda.

The upshot is, unfortunately both for Bush and Blair, the brewing and nerve-wrecking "Iraqgate" crisis. By now not only are Iraqis and others in the Third World considering the unnecessary killing of Saddam's sons and others by US troops as being out of their legal bounds, but American Rep Charlie Rangel has also classified the killing of Uday and Qusay "illegal". If former ambassador Edward Walker is correct in saying: "The deaths are likely to signal to Iraqis that there is no going back", then the Bush-Blair lobby has every reason to worry about how to come out of this quagmire.

Taj Hashmi is Research Associate, York Centre for Asian Research, York University, Canada.