Wednesday 16 January 2013

Castles made of Sand



There is a Japanese proverb which goes “Vision without action is a daydream; but action without vision is a nightmare.”  It serves, so far as I am concerned, as the prefect epitaph for the Second Iraq War.  I cannot conceive of any action in either American or British history more abysmal than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  It was a monumental error of judgement, the consequences of which are likely to remain with us for generations to come.

Simon Heffer and Charles Moore, two of my favourite press columnists, have expressed some admiration in the past for Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister who took this country into one gung ho war after another, the prime minister who took us into Iraq. 

It perplexes me that anyone can have a good word for Blair; it perplexes me why people are not angrier over the damage he and Gordon Brown, his Chancellor and successor, did to the strategic and political interests of this country.  Quite apart from their other sins, Blair and Brown, the two Bs, bear joint responsibility for possibly the worst military humiliation in British history.  I’ll elaborate on this point a bit later.

Iraq, of course was essentially the third B’s war, the B in question being George W. Bush.  I’ve not long finished The Endgame: the Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor.  This important book is essentially a history of American involvement in Iraq, which probably means that it will have a more limited readership in England.  If so this will be a pity, for the authors have important and uncomfortable things to say about British involvement also.  

Although The Endgame, as the title suggest, purports to be an account of the final stages of the war in Iraq, it’s actually a very good narrative of the course of the entire conflict, exhaustive in its attention to detail.  The authors, who work for the New York Times, are military specialists rather than professional historians.  In some ways this accounts for both the strengths and weaknesses of their book. 

As a blow by blow inside view of the military and strategic challenges faced it’s a superlative chronology.  Unfortunately Gordon and Trainor have left themselves little time to stand and stare, resulting in a weakness in analysis.  Still, given the range of resources used, including classified cables and personal interviews, The Endgame is bound to serve as an invaluable mine for future generations of historians. 

War, as Carl von Clausewitz observed, is the continuation of politics by other means.  If so, the political comprehension of Bush and Blair was utterly abysmal. It was the soldiers on the ground, as well as the Iraqi people, who suffered as a consequence of their ignorance.  To slightly adapt the Roman historian Tacitus, in invading Iraq the American president and the British prime minister made a desolation and called it democracy. 

There were a whole series of political, cultural, religious and historical factors that should have urged caution.  Saddam Hussein was a wicked despot; of that there is no doubt.  But to believe his removal would lead to a brave new world of freedom and democracy is stunningly naïve.  The truth is that Iraq is not so much a nation as a hornet’s nest.  The invasion of 2003, with little in the way of forward political planning, simply set the hornet’s buzzing.  The West won the war only to lose the peace.

The only virtue in Bush is that he kept his nerve and listened to his military specialists.  With the situation almost out of control, the President committed extra fighting forces, ably commanded by generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno.  The so-called ‘surge’ of 2007-8, the account of which is at the heart of The Endgame, effectively broke the back of the al-Qaeda led insurgency. 

The surge was important in recovering the honour of the US military; it was even more important in winning over Sunni tribes, disgusted by the extremism of al-Qaeda, their former shield against Shia extremists, and the foreign fanatics it had introduced into the country. As Gordon and Trainor say of the surge, it was a military event that succeeded beyond any reasonable expectation in tamping down sectarian violence and breaking the back of both Sunni and Shia terrorism. 

The relative success of the American surge stands in sharp contrast to British performance in the south around the city of Basra.  In time to come I am convinced, as I suggested above, that what happened here will stand alongside the most serious defeats in British military history.  It was more than that: the British Army was humiliated.  The fault is not that of the soldiers, who did their duty in the most extreme circumstances, but sections of the senior command.  The fault, above all, is that of Blair and Brown, who gave the army a task and then starved it of the resources that would have ensured its successful completion. 

As the Americans reinforced Baghdad, the British withdrew from Basra, leaving it to murderous anarchy.  As the Americans successfully negotiated with Sunni leaders, the British surrendered abjectly to the Shia fanatics of the Mahdi Army.  The appeasement did little good.  Even in the base around Basra airport, British troops came under sustained mortar and rocket attack.  The insurgency in the south was only broken after Petraeus sent American forces to back up the regular Iraqi army.  Meanwhile the British division commander was off in Switzerland for a spot of skiing.

The authors rightly blame the timidity of the British government for the Basra fiasco.  But the chief political culprit of The Endgame is George W. Bush’s successor, President Barack Obama.  This was not his war, as he was quick to demonstrate in coming to office in 2009.  The chief focus on the 'war on terror' (what a disaster that has been) was shifted away from Iraq and back to Afghanistan.  American troops were gradually withdrawn from the former with the result that all the gains of the surge have effectively been squandered.  Now al-Qaeda is back; now Iran uses Iraqi airspace to send military support to the beleaguered President Assad in Syria.  All this effort, all those lives for what exactly? – for precisely nothing.  Castles made of sand slip into the sea eventually.

12 comments:

  1. The invasion was flawless. The US military defeated the Iraqi forces and deposed Saddam within days. It was the idiotic occupation that came unstuck. Of course, that presumes the objectives were military and political.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calvin, I really do wonder what the true objectives were, to turn Iran into a regional superpower, perhaps?

      Delete
  2. Honestly, I don't think that many people really care about Iraq, just as long as they have affordable gas (petrol). British military success without American intervention, in the last century???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there was, at least at the beginning of the century. It tends to be overlooked but by 1918 on the Western Front the British Army was the world's most effective fighting force.

      Delete
    2. Two million extra American troops and supplies kept the Huns at bay.

      Delete
  3. From the 19th century onwards the West through NGOs and military action have been trying to force Christianity and/or western democracy and values down the throats of Johnny foreigner. Johnny in the 20th century decided that he had had enough and fought back and the West have been on the back foot ever since. The actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, many other places and currently Mali were and are fruitless as any successes are short lived and more often than not counter productive. The cold war was by comparison to today's war against Islam much safer for the West even with the threat of nuclear weapons and as it proved winnable. The fight against Islam is a very different situation as having bigger and better arms does not guarantee success; battles can be won yes but the wars in the end cannot. The West now is also in decline economically and the quality of leadership is at an all time low. The dilemma for the West is how to counter the threat that Islam poses as fighting numerous little wars and aiding regime change is not weakening Islam but strengthening it. Apart from which the enemy is as much within as it is without. If the West carries on with current economic, social policies and military strategies then that will only hasten the end of the West as we know it. We had all better brush up on the Koran. To me the West has been reduced to it's current sorry state by our embracing too many socialist policies and practices since the end of WWII. This lead me to think about what actually was the difference between socialism and Islam and it popped into my head that one offers paradise in the next life and the other in this one. I do not know if that was an original thought of mine or I had seen or heard it somewhere else before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A brilliant analysis, Antisthenes. In the words of Oscar Wilde, I wish I had said that! (You will, Ana, you will).

      As for your general thesis, I'm reminded of Spengler, specifically The Decline of the West.

      Delete
  4. “In the Great War eight million people were destroyed because two persons, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his Consort, had been shot. The Second World War offers even more preposterous ironies. Ostensibly begun to guarantee the sovereignty of Poland, that war managed to bring about Poland’s bondage and humiliation. Air bombardment, which was supposed to shorten the war, prolonged it …”
    – Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is nothing here I can disagree with, Bete.

      Delete
  5. Interesting post Ana!
    I've always wondered about his American compulsion to try and export its values everywhere; somehow they are surprised their way of life is rejected when they attempt to impose it. From the looks of it in a few decades they won't be able to afford these sort of military escapades anyway, but by then we'll have our Chinese overlords to contend with. At least -if their behavior in Africa is any indication- they are not as meddlesome.
    Have you read any book by Andrew Bacevich? I found The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism and American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy to be exceptionally good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Wilson. Isn't it interesting the way history turns? There was America at the end of the Cold War as the world's only super power, the number one nation. It's all been frittered away in one futile 'crusade' after another. Meanwhile China conserves its power and watches.

    Thanks for those recommendations.

    ReplyDelete