The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Whoever Wins the War, The US has Lost the Peace

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

Published on Friday, March 28, 2003 by the <A 

Whoever Wins the War, The US has Lost the Peace

by Adrian Hamilton

The propaganda war has now spread from the war to the diplomacy of post-war.
To listen to British briefers you would think that Tony Blair had been
leading a fully mechanized brigade over to the US to force Washington to
admit the United Nations to the task of reconstructing Iraq, and to reverse
its pro-Israeli stance.

It's largely flim-flam, of course. Just as the Pentagon had prepared its war
plans for nearly a year before this invasion, so it has prepared its peace
plans for almost as long. In the same way that George Bush was prepared to go
to the UN in the run-up to war so long as it backed his plans, so he is
prepared to see the UN participate in relief and fundraising for
reconstruction so long as it in no way dilutes US control. "He who holds the
stick, owns the buffalo," as the old Indian saying has it.

If Bush has been prepared to be rather more positive (although still not
committed to a date) about publishing the "road-map" to Middle East peace, it
is not so much because of Blair but more in answer to the demands of the Arab
states providing facilities in this war that the US do something to appear
more even-handed (if only to help them to pacify their populations). Whether
Bush is actually prepared to face down Ariel Sharon depends partly on the
course of war. If it ends in dramatic victory, the administration may be
emboldened to push for real progress; if it doesn't go so well, Bush won't
risk antagonizing the domestic Jewish vote.

Yet in a real sense it no longer matters just what Washington thinks or plans
for post-war Iraq. Just as it struggles to win the war, and still seems
certain to do so, so it is losing the peace, and is probably too late to save
it. America, and with it Britain, may try to project the war as one of
"liberation" for the Iraqis, but the rest of the world has largely made up
its mind to the contrary. This, in their eyes, is an American invasion fought
for American reasons.

In the Allies' Central Command HQ in Doha, they produce images to show the
precision of Western bombing and the rapidity of the US push on Iraq. Walk
down the road and the studios of al-Jazeera are pumping out images of a Third
World country trying vainly to fight back against a hyperpower of infinite
technological superiority. There is no doubt which version most of the world
believes. Even in India, where anti-Muslim feelings lie close to the surface,
you don't meet a single person who thinks this is anything other than an
American enterprise fought for selfish reasons. "Why," they ask you in
genuinely concerned terms, "is Blair going along with it?"

It's difficult to know what would shift this view. An early victory would
only confirm the image of humiliating Western technological superiority.
Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons might raise a counter-reaction,
although even here many in the Third World would regard this as
understandable given the technical disparity. But an outpouring of Iraqi
delight at being freed from Saddam won't change opinion, as it would be taken
as a byproduct of American actions, not its main intention.

Donald Rumsfeld's suggestion that victory will bring a thousand friends
misses the point. Of course small countries, and even quite large ones, must
accommodate America's position as the world's only superpower. But to boast,
as President Bush did in yesterday's press conference, that this "is a larger
coalition than in the last Gulf war" is self-deluding nonsense.

The 1991 war was fought with the active participation of half-a-dozen Arab
armies (including Syria) and the support of almost every country in the UN
aside from Russia and China (who both accepted it at the end). This war is
being fought by the Americans and British, with a few thousand Australians
and a couple of special forces companies from Poland – an entirely Western

Other countries have acceded to American requests for facilities, but if they
have wanted to keep their help discreet, it is for good reason. Public
opinion is clear and unambiguous and the war is only making the streets
angrier at their governments' sell-out. It is not for nothing that the ruler
of Qatar acts as host to the Allied headquarters and al-Jazeera at the same
time, or that Turkey finally failed to give the US more than rights of
overflight. Democracy in the Middle East should not be understood to
presuppose pro-Americanism. Just the opposite.

If that is what Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney believe then
they are fooling themselves, never mind anyone else. When this war is over,
Washington will be faced by a single demand throughout the Middle East,
including many in Iraq itself, at least among the Shia. And that is to get
out of the region as quickly as possible. And they mean weeks, not months
never mind the years that the Pentagon is talking about. Whatever it may seem
to Iraqis, a continuing military presence by the Americans will be seen by
its neighbors as a US occupation, with all the instability and invitation to
terrorism that it this will invite. Yet a prolonged occupation is seen as
necessary by Washington as the only means of ensuring order in Iraq and
keeping it as a unitary state.

That is America's dilemma. Tony Blair's is that he knows it and there is
nothing he can do except make the right noises of passionate concern.

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]