Are Iraqis better off ten years after the invasion? Is Iraq becoming more stable and is its economy booming?

Supporters of the Iraq war are constantly telling us how great life in Iraq is these days. Scottish Labour party member Doug Maughan writing to the Sunday Herald claims Iraq is progressing nicely along the long, hard road to stability, adding that Iraq’s economy is booming (1).

This echoes Blair’s biographer John Rentoul who hilariously recommended Jeffrey Archer in the Times saying much the same thing back in 2010 “Today [Baghdad] is a boom town, rather than a bomb site. If I were a young man, looking to make my fortune, I would be off to Iraq like a shot.” (2).

Are Iraqis really better off than they were before the invasion?

Iraq certainly goes boom, boom, boom with each set of bombs set off by Al Qa’ida, let into the country by the invasion; and growing stronger again since short-lived US funding of ‘Awakening’ militias to fight them ended in 2009  (3) – (9).

Today NATO are quietly collaborating with the Saudi and Qatari Sunni dictatorships (sorry “monarchies”, because it sounds nicer) to arm, fund and train Sunni Islamist armed groups, in order to target the Shia/Alawite axis of Iran, Assad and Hezbollah ; and this Islamic civil war is spreading from Syria to Lebanon and Iraq, with Al nusrah in Syria and Al Qa’ida in Iraq now openly allied to one another (10) – (14).

Perhaps the fact that the Shia government of Iraq has refused to place sanctions on Syria is relevant there. It may have led the Saudis and the US government may have decided they would rather not have a Shia government in Iraq (15).

Polls of Iraqis don’t back up the dominant British and American media story that “of course” Iraqis are better off now than before the invasion either.

A Zogby poll of Iraqis in 2011 found only 30% thought Iraq was better off than before the invasion, 42% worse off, the rest the same or didn’t know (16). From various interviews with Iraqis the fact that under Saddam you could at least know what was and wasn’t safe to do, while since the invasion you could be killed just due to your religion, or kidnapped to extort money from your family, or caught in crossfire, is one of the major reasons.

A Greenberg poll in April 2012 found a majority believing the country was headed in the right direction only among Shia, with most Sunni Arabs and Kurds disagreeing, showing that sectarian divisions are if anything even worse than under Saddam (17).

As for the supposedly “booming” economy a Gallup poll in March this year found 55% of Iraqis say the jobs and unemployment situation has become worse since the end of 2011 and 34% say it’s stayed the same (18).

Inequality, homelessness and hunger have if anything become worse problems even than under Saddam and sanctions. For much of the occupation many Iraqis were searching for food in rubbish bins, many of them refugees created by coalition offensives on cities, or by sectarian fighting (see sources 41 to 49 on the blog post on this link).

Another cause of these problems is corruption under both the Coalition Provisional Authority and elected Iraqi governments. Under Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority billions of dollars of Iraqi UN oil for food funds went missing (19).

Saddam Hussein was certainly a brutal, torturing and genocidal dictator, but his genocides and massacres were over by 2000 – and sanctions could have been lifted at any time as Saddam had proven in 1991 he wouldn’t risk using chemical weapons any more once all the superpowers were his enemies rather than his allies.

So by 2003 war was bound to kill far more Iraqis than it saved, especially run by Cheney and Rumsfeld, the architects of the Latin American death squads in the 80s, who brought the “El Salvador option” to Iraq, with units like the Iraqi Police Commandos (20).

The occupation’s brutality almost matched Saddam for torture and even massacres of civilians, complete with targeting ambulances, like the one in Falluja in April 2004, only stopping short of Saddam's genocides (21) – (22).  Today US trained Iraqi units kidnap and torture Iraqis with all the same torture methods used under Saddam, including rape and pulling out nails with pliers, often just to extract ransom money from their families (23) – (25). Iraqi forces frequently fire on and kill unarmed demonstrators; while US trained Iraqi Special Forces summarily execute suspected insurgents or dissidents the same way they did under Saddam (26) – (30).

The supporters of the Iraq war do have a point in asking how the Arab Spring would have turned out if Saddam had still been in power. The results might, as they suggest, have been bloody, as in Syria, but then that would be no more bloody than the occupation or the sectarian fighting and Iraqi government brutality during and since it.

While life has improved for many Kurds and Marsh Arabs, with the southern marshes now partially restored, the Marsh Arabs were at war with occupation forces for years ; and disputes between the Kurdish regional government and the Iraqi central government over whether the former can negotiate contracts with foreign oil companies or only the central government can do so has been added to Sectarian violence between Kurds and Sunni Arabs who settled in Kurdistan under Saddam. This could produce civil war if a compromise is not reached.

It’s certainly to be hoped that life will improve for Iraqis, but the outlook isn’t good – and if it does improve it will be despite the invasion and occupation and NATO and the Gulf monarchies encouraging a Sunni-Shia civil war across the Middle East, not because of them.

(1) = Sunday Herald 28 Apr 2013 ‘Iraq well on the road to stability’, http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/iraq-well-on-the-road-to-stability.20907120

(2) = Independent ‘Eagle Eye’ 26 Jul 2010 ‘Iraq, land of opportunity’,
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/07/26/iraq-land-of-opportunity/

(3) = Reuters 20 Mar 2013 ‘Al-Qaida claims responsibility for Iraq anniversary bombings’,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/20/us-iraq-violence-qaeda-idUSBRE92J09C20130320

(4) = BBC News 15 Apr 2013 ‘Iraq deadly bombings hit Nasariyah, Kirkuk and Baghdad’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

(5) = Washington Post 30 Apr 2013 ‘Wave of bombings further tests Iraq’s stability’,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/wave-of-bombings-further-tests-iraqs-stability/2013/04/29/558ea356-b0fb-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

(6) = BBC World Service 13 May 2009 ‘Awakening Councils face uncertain future’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/05/090513_awakening_wt_sl.shtml ; ‘Sunni Awakening Councils, or Sahwa, were paid by the Americans to keep the peace in their neighbourhoods. Often former insurgents who had fought with al-Qaeda, they turned against their former allies and drove them out of much of Iraq. However, the Shia-dominated government has taken over responsibility for the groups and many Sahwa members say they are now being sidelined.’

(7) = McCLatchy Newspapers 01 Apr 2013 ‘Iraqi government at odds with U.S.-funded militias’, http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Iraqi-government-at-odds-with-U-S-funded-militias-1433562.php ; ‘the militias, known as the Sons of Iraq or Awakening councils… undercutting support for… al-Qaida in Iraq …Under the program, the United States pays each militia member a stipend of about $300 a month and promised that they'd get jobs with the Iraqi government. But the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don't intend to include most of the rest.’

(8) = The Hill 29 Jun 2012 ‘Pentagon condemns return of al Qaeda in Iraq, promises 'unrelenting' response’,
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/240877-pentagon-condemns-return-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq-promises-unrelenting-response

(9) = Council On Foreign Relations 18 Mar 2013 ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’,
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/al-qaeda-iraq/p14811

(10) = Washington Post 16 May 2012 ‘Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination’,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

(11) = Sunday Times 09 Dec 2012 ‘Covert US plan to arm rebels’,
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1173125.ece

(12) = Reuters 14 Nov 2011 ‘Syria urges Arab League to reconsider suspension’,
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=245466  ; ‘Gabriel Ben-Dor, director of national security studies at the University of Haifa… Ben-Dor said the decision should also be viewed within the context of Arab and Western attempts to contain an emboldened Iran.…“They’re hoping to dismantle the axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah... to isolate Iran even more by depriving it of its only major ally in the Middle East.”’

(13) = guardian.co.uk 09 Apr 2013 ‘Al-Qaida in Iraq admits links to Syrian jihadist fighters’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/09/alqaida-iraq-admits-jabhat-alnusra

(14) = BBC News 10 Apr 2013 ‘Syria crisis: Al-Nusra pledges allegiance to al-Qaeda’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099

(15) = BBC News 27 Nov 2011 ‘Syria unrest: Arab League adopts sanctions in Cairo’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15901360

(16) = Zogby Research Services November 2011 ‘Iraq: The War, its consequences and the future’, http://aai.3cdn.net/2212d2d41f760d327e_fxm6vtlg7.pdf

(17) = Greenberg Quinlan Rossner Research May 2012 ‘A Major Shift in the Political Landscape - Graphs for the report on the April 2012 National Survey’,
http://www.ndi.org/files/NDI-Iraq%20-%20April%202012%20National%20Survey%20-%20Presentation.pdf , page 28

(18) = Gallup 12 March 2013 ‘Iraqis Say Security Better as Result of U.S. Withdrawal’,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161312/iraqis-say-security-better-result-withdrawal.aspx

(19) = Reuters 19 Jun 2011 ‘Iraq hunting $17 billion missing after U.S. invasion’,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/19/us-iraq-usa-money-idUSTRE75I20S20110619

(20) = New York Times Magazine 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

(21) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Falluja siege’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(22) = Iraq Body Count 26 Oct 2004 ‘No Longer Unknowable: Falluja's April Civilian Toll is 600’, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/9/

(23) = Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 – Iraq – Torture and other ill-treatment,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iraq/report-2012#section-4-5 ‘Torture and other ill-treatment were widespread in prisons and detention centres, in particular those controlled by the Ministries of Interior and Defence. Commonly reported methods were suspension by the limbs for long periods, beatings with cables and hosepipes, electric shocks, breaking of limbs, partial asphyxiation with plastic bags, and rape or threats of rape.’

(24) =  Amnesty International World Report 2010 (covering 2009) – Country Report Iraq, http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=123 ;(once pdf loads, scroll down to page 125 (by PDF page number) or 178 (number marked on page); ‘Iraqi security forces committed gross human rights violations including extrajudicial executions, torture...and did so largely with impunity....Torture methods reported included beatings with cables and hosepipes, suspension by the limbs for long periods...electric shocks to the genitals...breaking of limbs, removal of toenails with pliers and piercing the body with drills. Some detainees were alleged to have been raped….In May inmates of the womens’ prison in al Kadhimiya told members of the parliament’s human rights committee that they had been raped while held in prison or detained elsewhere’

(25) = Guardian 16 Jan 2012 ‘Corruption in Iraq: 'Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don't pay'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/16/corruption-iraq-son-tortured-pay

(26) = Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 – Iraq – Excessive Use of Force,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iraq/report-2012#section-4-6 , ‘The security forces used excessive force in response to anti-government protests in Baghdad and other cities, particularly in February and March, using live ammunition, sound bombs and other weapons to disperse peaceful protests. At least 20 people were killed in the protests that began in February.’

(27) = guardian.co.uk 04 Mar 2011 ‘Baghdad protesters converge on Liberation Square’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/baghdad-protesters-iraq-driving-ban ; Security forces around Iraq clashed with protesters last Friday in the country's most widespread and violent demonstrations since a wave of unrest began to spread across the Middle East. At least 14 people were killed

(28) = Reuters 23 Apr 2013 ‘Tensions high after Iraq forces raid Sunni camp, 23 dead’,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/uk-iraq-protests-idUKBRE93M07F20130423

(29) = Amnesty International 25 Apr 2013 ‘Iraq: Rein in security forces following the killings of dozens at protest in al-Hawija’,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/006/2013/en/9e32213c-789c-48a7-81ca-083659d185e6/mde140062013en.html

(30) = The Nation 22 Jun 2009 ‘Iraq's New Death Squad’,
http://www.thenation.com/article/iraqs-new-death-squad

Why sanctions on Iraq could have been ended without any war of invasion or occupation ; no threat from Saddam’s regime to Iraqis or other countries existed by 2000; the genocide against the Marsh Arabs was largely over by the late 90s and could have been ended by air strikes in the Southern No-Fly Zone

The tenth anniversary of the Iraq war has seen the repetition of many excuses for the invasion. One of the commonest is that UN sanctions on Iraq killed millions of Iraqi civilians, with the pretence that sanctions which killed millions of Iraqis through shortages of food and medicines couldn’t be lifted or else Saddam’s regime would become a serious threat. Another is that it was necessary to end Saddam's genocides and massacres. These are lies; the US could have stopped Saddam's genocides and massacres but either kept supporting him (while he committed genocide against the Kurds) or did nothing (while he massacred Shia and Marsh Arabs); and sanctions could have been lifted at any time ; here’s why.

Saddam couldn’t even defeat Iran in the 8 year Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s; and that was with almost the entire world’s governments supporting him with arms, funding, intelligence and political support. This included as Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians and in his genocidal Anfal campaign against the Kurds, even after Halabja (see post on this link for sources and more details).

(The Halabja attack used US Apache Bell helicopters, whose sale was approved by the Reagan administration, supposedly for “crop spraying”, even though they already knew Saddam was using chemical weapons (1) – (3). After Halabja the US government issued one statement of condemnation, then continued supporting Saddam and suggested that maybe the Iranians had done it (4).)

Saddam showed during the 1991 war that he didn’t dare to use chemical weapons on other countries or the Iraqi Kurds after 1991. He had chemical warheads for his scud missiles, but only used conventional warheads (5).

He could only massacre Shia rebels and their families in Southern Iraq (including Marsh Arabs) at the end of the 1991 war because Bush senior ordered his troops not to intervene ; a massacre that would never have happened if Bush hadn’t given Iraqis the false impression that his forces would aid them if they rebelled (he actually wanted a military regime to replace Saddam) (for details and sources see this post).

Saddam did carry out one horrific campaign of torture, massacres and genocide against Iraqis after 1991; against the Marsh Arabs and other Shia rebels and their families who fled to the southern marshes in 1991 (6).

However US and British aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly Zone could have stopped most of this by bombing Saddam’s artillery, trucks, tanks and bulldozers; but made no attempt to do so, probably for the same reason Bush senior didn’t help the other Shia rebels ; the Marsh Arabs are also mostly Shia and so they were seen as potential allies of Iran (7).

Throughout the 1990s Saddam’s forces shelled Marsh Arab villages and towns with tanks, artillery and mortars, including chemical weapons according to some reports, drained the marshes by diverting rivers, killed many rebels, bulldozed houses, left many civilians to die in deserts; and forcibly relocated most of those who didn’t leave to live elsewhere in Iraq, or weren’t among the unknown number who were killed (one estimate being 120,000), or the estimated 40,000 to 120,000 who fled to Iran (8) – (11).

By comparison dozens of Coalition offensives on Iraqi cities during the occupation killed hundreds of civilians in each assault – e.g  600 in the April 2004 assault on Falluja alone (12). Coalition offensives, Saddam’s earlier campaigns and sectarian fighting had left 2.8 million Iraqis “internally displaced people” (homeless refugees inside Iraq) and 2.2 million refugees in other countries at the highest point (during the occupation in the late 2000s). Today an estimated 1.3 million Iraqis remain “internally displaced” and 1.4 million are refugees in other countries While some have returned home , unfortunately other reasons for the reduced numbers include Iraqi refugees who fled to Syria deciding it’s even more dangerous there (13) – (15).

By the end of the 1990s Saddam’s campaign of genocide against the Marsh Arabs was complete. All but an estimated 20,000 Marsh Arabs were gone from the area they had lived in, compared to an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 in 1991, the last major rebellion being crushed in 1998. Only 1,600 still lived in their traditional reed houses on floating platforms in the marshes (16) – (18).

That’s why Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch concluded in 2004 that the 2003 invasion of Iraq “was not a humanitarian intervention” as no massacres or genocide were being planned or carried out by Saddam’s forces (19).

He could have added that none had been carried out or planned for over a decade. Any war was now bound to kill far, far more Iraqis than Saddam was killing. That’s before we even get into the constant firing on civilians and ambulances in many US offensives on Iraqi cities during the occupation which led western aid workers and Iraqi doctors and civilians to conclude they were being deliberately targeted – e.g Fallujah in April 2004 and in Samarra in October 2004 ; or the US trained Iraqi paramilitary torture and death squads, of which more in my next post  (20) – (21).

(Many Marsh Arabs, who have survived only by becoming bandits or extortionists, also went to war with Coalition forces after the invasion in a rebellion against attempts to disarm them – many joining Al Sadr’s Madhi army or other anti-occupation militias. (22)

Dennis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck, two successive heads of the sanctions programme who resigned in protest over it, said it was not Saddam's regime causing the starvation and shortage of medicines under sanctions, but that the sanctions imposed a limit on oil sales too low to support Iraq’s population ; both opposed the war (23) – (25).

The UN sanctions on Iraq had been demanded by the US and British governments at the end of the 1991 war – a war which began with an invasion of Kuwait which resulted largely from US and Kuwaiti co-operation to put economic pressure on Iraq by slant-drilling across the border into Iraq, by Kuwait exceeding it’s agreed OPEC quotas for oil sales and by it demanding immediate repayment of loans made to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (see this post for sources and details).

We’ve already shown that their reason for not wanting them lifted was not that this would end Saddam’s “containment” and allow him to conquer the Middle East or massacre Iraqi rebels again.

The real reasons were avoiding loss of face; and ensuring US and British firms got oil contracts on favourable terms. The US had punished Saddam in 1991 and put him on their enemies list. If his regime now survived, the US would look weak and this would encourage other governments to defy it.

Even worse, after the 1991 war Saddam had negotiated oil contracts with Russian, French and Chinese oil companies. If sanctions were lifted and Saddam survived in power they would get the oil contracts, with US and British firms excluded.

As the Washington Post reported on the 15th of September 2002 ‘A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition...."It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."’ (26).

The US however failed to get the Oil Law it wanted the Iraqi parliament to pass during the occupation (it’s main reason for it’s war with the Shia Iraqi nationalist Al Sadr, whose Shia Sadrist MPs joined Sunni parties’ MPs in opposing the oil law;) and as a result failed to get contracts on the terms it wanted for most US oil companies (27).

Anglo-American oil giant BP  has managed to get a very lucrative contract for one giant Iraqi oil field on terms extremely favourable to it ; and is seeking others in Iraqi Kurdistan which is in disputes with the central government in Baghdad over the regional government negotiating oil contracts rather than the central government ; and over how favourable the terms of contracts are to oil companies (28) – (31). BP took over the US oil firm Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana and one of the ‘Seven Sisters’ oil giants) in 2001.

Oil and arms company profits and global power were the US aims in Iraq, not protecting Iraqis or promoting democracy – as I’ll show in my next post on how US and Coalition forces and the new Iraqi government still torture and kill Iraqis using all Saddam’s methods short of actual genocide.

 (1) = Mark  Phythian (1997) Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine, Boston: Northeastern University Press

(2) = Washington Post $1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq; Technology Products Approved Up to Day Before Invasion’,

(3) = LA Times 13 Feb 1991 ‘Iraq Arms: Big Help From U.S. : Technology was sold with approval--and encouragement--from the Commerce Department but often over Defense officials' objections.’, http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-13/news/mn-1097_1_commerce-department-approved-millions/3 , page 3 of online version of article

(4) = Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting 01 Sep 2002 ‘The Washington Post's Gas Attack -Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal’, http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-washington-posts-gas-attack/

(5) = Nye , Joseph S. & Smith , Robert K. (1992), ‘After the Storm' , Madison Books , London , 1992 , - pages 211-216 (Nye is a former member of the Clinton administration)

(6) = Chicago Tribune 05 Aug 1993 ‘Briton: Iraq Is Wiping Out Arabs In Marshes’,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-08-05/news/9308050117_1_marshes-chemical-weapons-arabs ; 3^rd Paragraph ‘She said doctors and other experts aiding the Arabs estimate that 120,000 may die from the terror campaign being waged against them by the regime of Saddam Hussein. There are an estimated 200,000 marsh Arabs, and she said more than 300,000 other people from nearby towns and cities fled to the marshes for refuge when Hussein crushed a Shiite Muslim uprising after the Persian Gulf war.’

(7) = Guardian.co.uk 19 Nov 1998 ‘Rebellion in southern marshes is crushed’ ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1998/nov/17/2

(8) = See (6) above

(9) = See (7) above

(10) = BBC News 03 Mar 2003 ‘Iraq's 'devastated' Marsh Arabs’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm ; 6^th to 7^th paragraphs

(11) = The Oregonian 14 May 2003 ‘IRAQ'S MARSH ARABS, MODERN SUMERIANS’,
http://www.simplysharing.com/sumerians.htm

(12) = Iraq Body Count 26 Oct 2004 ‘No Longer Unknowable: Falluja's April Civilian Toll is 600’, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/9/

(13) = Internal Displacement Monitoring Center ‘Iraq: Response still centred on return despite increasing IDP demands for local integration’,  http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/iraq

(14) = 2013 UNHCR country operations profile – Iraq,
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486426.html

(15) = BBC News 29 Oct 2012 ‘Iraqi refugees flee Syrian conflict to return home’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20131033

(16) = Juan Cole (2008) ‘Marsh Arab Rebellion : Grievance, Mafias and Militias in Iraq’ Fourth Wadie Jwaideh Memorial Lecture, (Bloomington, Indiana : Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Indiana University, 2008),   Page 7,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/iraq/iraqtribes4.pdf

(17) = BBC News 03 Mar 2003 ‘Iraq's 'devastated' Marsh Arabs’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm ; 7^th to 8^th paragrahs

(18) = Guardian.co.uk 19 Nov 1998 ‘Rebellion in southern marshes is crushed’ , http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1998/nov/17/2

(19) = Human Rights Watch 26 Jan 2004 ‘War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention’,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/01/25/war-iraq-not-humanitarian-intervention

(20) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Fallujah siege’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(21) = Independent 04 Oct 2004 ‘Civilians Bear Brunt as Samarra 'Pacified'’,
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1004-02.htm (no longer exists on the Independent newspaper’s website – is this connected to Tony Blair’s biographer and apologist John Rentoul being the paper’s Politics Editor?)

(22) = Juan Cole (2008) ‘Marsh Arab Rebellion : Grievance, Mafias and Militias in Iraq’ Fourth Wadie Jwaideh Memorial Lecture, (Bloomington, Indiana : Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Indiana University, 2008),   Pages 7-17,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/iraq/iraqtribes4.pdf

(23) = BBC News 30 Sep 1998 ‘UN official blasts Iraq sanctions’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/183499.stm

(24) = BBC News 14 Feb 2000 ‘UN sanctions rebel resigns’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/642189.stm

(25) = Guardian 29 Nov 2001 ‘The hostage nation - Former UN relief chiefs Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday speak out against an attack on Iraq’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/29/iraq.comment

(26) = Washington Post 15 Sep 2002, 'In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue : U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool',
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/177755831.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+15%2C+2002&author=Dan+Morgan++and++David+B.+Ottaway&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.01&desc=In+Iraqi+War+Scenario%2C+Oil+Is+Key+Issue%3B+U.S.+Drillers+Eye+Huge+Petroleum+Pool ; or read full version at
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-03.htm

(27) = Greg Muttitt (2011) ‘Fuel on the Fire – Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq’, Bodley-Head 2011

(28) = Observer 31 Jul 2011 ‘BP 'has gained stranglehold over Iraq' after oilfield deal is rewritten’,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/31/bp-stranglehold-iraq-oilfield-contract

(29) = Wall Street Journal Online 27 Jan 2013 ‘Iraq, BP Considering Kirkuk Field Deal’,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578247013430825632.html

(30) = BBC News 20 Mar 2013 ‘Kurdish oil exports stall in row over revenue-sharing’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21793783

(31) = CNN 12 Dec 2011 ‘Oil power struggle as U.S. leaves Iraq’, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/12/world/meast/iraq-oil

George Galloway has his faults - but compared to Blair, Biden, Bush, Cameron or Clinton he's a model of honesty and decency

Many of by-election winner George Galloway's political enemies condemn him for flattering Saddam in 1994 and saying Assad was a reformer in 2005. Like most people (most definitely including me) he has plenty of faults. He can be a bit over the top, seem arrogant, exaggerate sometimes, make mistakes, be intolerant of those who disagree with him and sometimes (e.g on Tibet) I completely disagree with him.

He also sometimes talks as though anyone who is an enemy of the US government and it's allies must basically be in the right or admirable (though not nearly as often as some of his critics suggest). Those faults pale in comparison with some of his political enemies' statements and actions and duplicity though, but his political enemies don't get nearly the same amount of condemnation that most of the media have for Galloway.

Tony Blair called President Mubarak of Egypt "immensely courageous and a force for good" even after Mubarak had protesters killed by police (1). US Vice President Joe Biden meanwhile claimed Mubarak was "not a dictator" on the grounds that he was an ally of the US and no ally of the US could possibly be a bad man (2). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's initial view of Mubarak's killing of protesters was that "the Egyptian government is stable and looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people" (3).

To be fair some Republicans were outraged by these statements - they wanted the US government to be even more supportive of Mubarak (4). The Obama administration did eventually call for Mubarak to step down - in favour of his vice President and chief torturer Omar Suleiman (5).

I must have missed Times columnist and Tony Blair fan David Aaronovitch's ringing condemnations of Blair, Biden and Clinton for this pandering to murdering dictators.

Aaronovitch, in one of his Times columns, claims Galloway praised Assad as a reformer in April 2011 during the Arab Spring uprisings (6). The only reports from any mainstream source which I can find of Galloway praising Assad as a reformer are from 2005 and 2006, when everyone thought Bashar Al Assad might turn out to be a reformer (at least compared to his father) (7). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton still said Assad was considered a reformer on 27th March 2011, two days after around 23 protesters were reported shot dead in a single protest in Syria (8) - (9). Again, I must have missed Aaronovitch's condemnation of Hillary Clinton for this - I did see him condemn Galloway for saying something similar though.

(Aaronovitch's article includes the line "Mr Galloway would not have stood in Bradford West had it not contained a very substantial Muslim population." which sounds a lot like the kind of prejudice against Muslims that was common against Jews before the Holocaust was widely known about after World War Two)

Galloway had written a blog post in August 2011 condemning Assad's forces' actions as terrorism and those of a police state and saying there was a "genuine popular uprising" in Syria, while also pointing to a minority among the anti-Assad movement of armed sectarian Sunni extremists who are being backed by various foreign powers for their own ends - a much more balanced analysis of what's going on there than Aaronovitch's ridiculously one sided one (10).

This was seven months before Aaronovitch's column, but Aaronovitch made no mention of it.

(Again, I don't disagree with Aaronovitch on everything. Sometimes he's right, but on most things to do with the Middle East, Muslims, Tony Blair or Iraq, Aaronovitch has either fallen for propaganda or else is one of the propagandists - which I don't know)

What's much worse than their statements of support for dictatorships is that the Obama administration (like the Bush administration before it) and the Coalition government, like 'New Labour' before it, have not only praised but also armed many dictatorships as they're committing massacres - just like all their predecessors.

When Saddam was actually committing genocide against Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s (during the Iran-Iraq war) the British and US and French and Russian and Chinese governments were arming and funding him against the Iranians under Ayatollah Khomeini. Funding from the US government continued after the gassing of Halabja in 1988 and arms sales and "dual-use" exports to Iraq continued to be quietly approved by the American and British governments until 1990 (see the blog post on this link and sources 5 to 10 on it as well as this document and this one from the US National Security Archive on sales of US helicopters and heavy trucks to Saddam).

While Galloway signed eight parliamentary motions condemning and calling for an end to US and British support for Saddam between the gassing of Halabja and 1990, Tony Blair MP refused to sign any of them (11).

Similarly today the US government has continued it's $1.3 billion a year military aid funding to Egypt (plus approving arms sales ) under it's military regime, just as it did under Mubarak, despite the fact that Amnesty International found Mubarak was having people tortured and killed ; and that they have since repeatedly reported that the military regime that replaced him is as bad or worse than Mubarak was . The decision seems to have been that heavily subsidised arms industry jobs in America were worth more than peoples' lives or democracy in Egypt (12) - (14).

The US and British governments have also continued arms and supposedly "non-lethal" tear gas sales ( with tear gas having killed dozens of people when used in high concentrations in Bahrain already) and military training to the forces of the dictators of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain (calling them 'monarchies' is supposed to make their torture and murder and dictatorship more legitimate somehow) as their forces torture and kill protesters (15) - (19).

Tony Blair, who claimed he sent British troops into Iraq to free Iraqis from a brutal dictator (before going on to involve them in US led war crimes and torture) ; accepted money from a South Korean oil firm looking for contracts in Iraq - and has since become a paid public relations consultant for the brutal dictator of Kazakhstan who has striking oil workers and protesters gunned down by security forces with machine guns (20) - (22).

So which is worse? Flattering one dictator once and saying another might be a reformer when most other people also thought that was a possibility? ; or arming and funding dictatorships as they torture, kill and even commit genocide?

I don't agree Galloway on everything - for instance his claim that Tibet has always been part of China sounds to me a lot like the argument made by extreme Israeli hardliners that the West Bank has always been part of Israel on the basis of some 4,000 year old biblical Kingdom of Israel.

However, despite all his faults, compared to most of his political enemies and rivals George Galloway is a fairly honest and straightforward man. Compared to snake oil salesmen like Tony Blair and David Cameron he's almost a saint.

(1) = guardian.co.uk 02 Feb 2011 'Tony Blair: Mubarak is 'immensely courageous and a force for good'',
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/02/tony-blair-mubarak-courageous-force-for-good-egypt

(2) = ABC News 27 Jan 2011 'VP Biden Calls Egyptian President Mubarak an “Ally” – and Would Not Call Him a Dictator', http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/vp-biden-calls-egyptian-president-mubarak-an-ally-and-would-not-call-him-a-dictator/

(3) = Reuters 25 Jan 2012 'US urges restraint in Egypt, says government stable',
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE70O0KF20110125

(4) = ABC News 02 Feb 2011 'Republican Presidential Hopefuls Critique Obama on Egypt',
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egypt-protests-obama-response-draws-criticism-gop-presidential/story?id=12821036#.T5hsO9n86VR

(5) = Observer / guardian.co.uk 06 Feb 2011 ' Egypt protests: Hosni Mubarak's power fades as US backs his deputy', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/06/egypt-protests-hosni-mubarak-sulieman

(6) = Times 31 March 2012 'So why did he choose to stand in Bradford?' by David Aaronovitch http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3369984.ece

(7) = BBC News 19 Nov 2005 'Galloway praises Syrian president ',
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4451848.stm

(8) = Washington Post blog 04 April 2011 'Hillary Clinton’s uncredible statement on Syria' ,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/hillary-clintons-uncredible-statement-on-syria/2011/04/01/AFWPEYaC_blog.html

(9) = Haaretz 25 March 2011 'At least 23 said killed as protesters in Syria clash with security forces',
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/at-least-23-said-killed-as-protesters-in-syria-clash-with-security-forces-1.351815

(10) = Vote George Galloway blog 15 Aug 2011 'George Galloway on Syria',
http://www.votegeorgegalloway.com/2011/08/george-galloway-on-syria.html

(11) = Guardian 18 March 2003 , 'Diary' ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/18/1

(12) = NYT 23 Mar 2012 'Once Imperiled, U.S. Aid to Egypt Is Restored',
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/world/middleeast/once-imperiled-united-states-aid-to-egypt-is-restored.html

(13) = Amnesty International 22 Nov 2011 'Egypt: Military rulers have 'crushed' hopes of 25 January protesters',
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/egypt-military-rulers-have-crushed-hopes-25-january-protesters-2011-11-22

(14) = Amnesty 22 Feb 2012 'Egypt: Recent security force policing 'reminiscent of Mubarak' era',
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19958

(15) = Independent On Sunday 15 Jan 2012 'Britain accused of hypocrisy over Arab arms sales' ,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-arab-arms-sales-6289847.html

(16) = Amnesty International USA blog 30 Jan 2012 'U.S. Arms Sales to Bahrain: 4 Questions for the Obama Administration',
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/middle-east/u-s-arms-sales-to-bahrain-4-questions-for-the-obama-administration/

(17) = Physicians for Human Rights 'Tear-Gas Related Deaths in Bahrain : March 2011 - March 2012',
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/issues/persecution-of-health-workers/bahrain/bahrain-tear-gas-deaths.html

(18) = Observer 28 May 2011 'UK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring' ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/28/uk-training-saudi-troops

(19) = Amnesty International 17 Apr 2012 'Bahrain: Reforms risk appearing hollow as violations continue',
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/bahrain-reforms-risk-appearing-hollow-violations-continue-2012-04-17 ; 'But... in practice, the security forces remain largely unaffected by these institutional changes....security forces continue to face protesters with unnecessary and excessive force - particularly tear gas, which has resulted in several deaths in recent months. At least 60 people have now been killed in connection with protests since February 2011.....at the same time as police reforms are being introduced with much fanfare, detainees are facing torture'

(20) = Guardian 17 Mar 2010 'Tony Blair got cash for deal with South Korean oil firm',
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/17/tony-blair-cash-south-korea-oil

(21) = Independent 31 Oct 2011 'The two faces of Tony Blair',
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-two-faces-of-tony-blair-6255021.html

(22) = guardian.co.uk 16 Feb 2011 'Clashes between police and sacked oil workers in Kazakhstan leave 10 dead', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/16/clashes-police-protesters-kazakhstan-dead

Libya : Why oil profits are the common factor behind calls for military intervention in Iraq, Libya and Venezuela

There’s a second similarity between current calls for military intervention in Libya and the Iraq war, apart from false claims made by defectors to try to encourage a US invasion – a government the US and British governments want rid of because it’s getting in the way of maximising their firms’ oil profits.

After the 1991 war Saddam stopped giving oil contracts to British or American oil companies, switching to giving them to the French, Russians and Chinese instead – which is why the first two countries supported war on Iraq while the last three opposed it (1).

At the same time as condemning the brutal, murdering, torturing dictator of Iraq (who they’d supported, funded and armed even after the gassing of Halabja) the US and British governments kept backing murdering torturing dictators from the Saudi monarchy to Mubarak in Egypt and Karimov in Uzbekistan, strongly suggesting the issue was oil and not democracy, torture or Saddam killing his own people (especially as they continued killing and torturing many of them even after he was overthrown).

The US Energy Information Agency says Libya has Africa’s largest proven oil reserves and that “most analysts agree that the country is still under-explored” - i.e there's a lot more to be discovered. BP's annual statistical energy review 2010 found Libya has proven reserves of 44 billion barrels of oil - the 10th largest in the world.

Western governments were reconciled with Gaddafi’s government and approving arms sales to it since he agreed to pay reparations to the families of those people killed in the Lockerbie bombing and began giving them oil contracts again from 2004 (with US firms going back five years before BP) (2).

However Gaddafi has been less generous on the share of the profits than they’d hoped, having demanded an increasing share of those profits and even making noises about possible nationalisation, leaving American oil firms worried he might kick them out altogether (3) – (4).

Similar actions by Mohammed Mossadeq, democratically elected President of Iran, in 1953, resulted in the British and American governments sending CIA and MI6 agents to organise a military coup which overthrew him and installed the Shah’s dictatorship (5) – (7).

When Hugo Chavez was elected President of Venezuela and set out plans to make US and other foreign oil firms operating in the country pay higher shares of profits, the US government backed a coup attempt against him too, in 2002, but it failed (8) – (10).

So those actions by Gaddafi are much more likely to be the reason the US and British and other European governments want rid of him than him ordering his forces to kill his own people.

This would also explain why Hague and Clinton find Gaddafi’s actions “horrifying” and want a UN resolution against him, while they were merely “deeply concerned” about Mubarak having hundreds of his own people killed – and ditto for the monarch of Bahrain ordering democracy protesters shot - and having the mourners at their funerals shot too. Clinton even said “We call on restraint from the government, (and) to keep its commitment to hold accountable those who have utilized excessive force” as though the monarch of Bahrain had no responsibility for it. The killings in Bahrain haven’t stopped any more than they have in Libya (11) – (17). (Hague seems to dutifully parrot whatever Clinton says almost word for word)

(1) = Washington Post 15 Sep 2002, 'In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue : U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool', http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14 ; ‘A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition...."It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them.’

(2) = CNN Fortune 28 Jun 2004 ‘Libya's Black Gold Rush With sanctions lifted, Big Oil is lining up to do business with Qaddafi’, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/06/28/374397/index.htm

(3) = CNBC 03 Mar 2009 ‘Libya Wants Greater Share of Its Oil Revenue’,http://www.cnbc.com/id/29494495

(4) = Forbes Magazine 01 Jan 2009 ‘Is Libya Going To Boot U.S. Oil Companies?’,http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/libya-gaddafi-oil-biz-energy-cx_ch_0122libya.html

(5) = Pollack, Kenneth M.(2004), ‘The Persian Puzzle', Random House, New York, 2005 paperback edition - pages 27-140

(6) = Curtis, Mark (1995), ‘The Ambiguities of Power : British Foreign Policy since 1945', Zed Books, London & New York, 1995 paperback edition - pages 87-96

(7) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran', Times Books , New York, 2006 - pages 83-96

(8) = Observer 21 April 2002 ‘Venezuela coup linked to Bush team’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

(9) = BBC News 11 Oct 2004 ‘Venezuela raises oil drilling tax’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3732224.stm

(10) = Gott, Richard (2005) , ‘Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution’, Verso, London & New York, 2005

(11) = BBC News 28 Jan 2011 ‘Hillary Clinton 'deeply concerned' about events in Egypt’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12311196

(12) = DipNote US Department of State Official blog 21 Feb 2011 ‘Secretary Clinton: “Libya Has a Responsibility To Respect the Universal Rights of the People”, http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/clinton_libya_statement

(13) = BBC News 19 Feb 2011 ‘Hague condemns violence in Libya, Bahrain and Yemen’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12514696

(14) = Human Rights Watch 8 Feb 2011 ‘Egypt: Documented Death Toll From Protests Tops 300’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/08/egypt-documented-death-toll-protests-tops-300

(15) = LA Times 19 Feb 2011 ‘BAHRAIN: Protesters shot as government seeks to smother protests [Video]’, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/bahrain-video-protest-khalifa-violence-shoot.html

(16) = BBC News 15 Feb 2011 ‘Bahrain man 'shot dead' at protester's funeral’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12463600

(17) = MSNBC ‘Stunned U.S. urges Bahrain to show 'restraint' after bloody crackdown’,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41638606/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ ; ‘Clinton said she expressed her "deep concern" in a telephone call with Bahrain's Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmed al-Khalifa and emphasized that violence should not occur on Friday, when many in Bahrain may attend funerals of those killed or prayer services…"Bahrain is a friend and an ally and has been for many years," Clinton told reporters. "We call on restraint from the government, (and) to keep its commitment to hold accountable those who have utilized excessive force."

Are Iraqis better off as a result of the 2003 invasion and overthrow of Saddam?

This is the third of three posts on Tony Blair’s version of what happened in Iraq from the 1980s to the present – and what really happened; and on whether war on Iraq or Iran could be justified or necessary (the first two are here and here). This post looks at whether Iraqis have been better off since the 2003 invasion than they were under Saddam ; what Iraqis have said about it themselves in opinion polls; and what conclusions might be drawn.

Picture - Iraqi refugees. Many have been deported back to Iraq from the US and UK, whose governments claim Iraq is now a safe destination.

Using WMDs on Iraqis,
 supposedly to stop Saddam doing it – 15 years after he’d stopped

Bush and Blair and their supporters on Iraq claim they had to invade to save Iraqis from Saddam using WMDs on them. Yet Coalition forces then used WMDs on Iraqis, just as they had with napalm and Depleted Uranium shells and bombs in the 1991 war and in enforcing the ‘No Fly Zones’ from 1991 till 2003 (1) – (4). This, the fact that they provided Saddam with money, chemicals and hardware to produce and deliver chemical weapons before and after the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja ; and the fact that Saddam’s use of chemical weapons ended in 1988 with the end of the Iran-Iraq war, make it an empty claim.

It’s a constant refrain of the US and British governments in their foreign policy and wars that their enemies are responsible for everything; and that anything they did was to prevent the crimes of their enemies. In fact they are responsible for their own actions, which include using cluster munitions (effectively land mines deployed from planes or by artillery) and WMD such as Depleted Uranium shells and bombs and White Phosphorus in cities including Fallujah – along with new versions of napalm (5) – (8).  The results have been massively increased rates of cancers and birth defects among Iraqi babies and children from 1991 on (9) – (10). Since the April and 2004 Coalition assaults on the city of Fallujah it has the highest rates of all among babies and infants (11).

Many Iraqi, American and British doctors studying Iraqi children and British and American veterans of the 1991 Gulf War and the Bosnian and Kosovo wars also believe their illnesses are caused by exposure to residue from DU munitions used in these wars – and among some units the rate of cancers and birth defects among their children has been extremely high (12) – (15).

Killing and torturing Iraqis - supposedly to save them from Saddam doing it

Ending rape, torture and murder by death squads and secret police is also supposed to be a benefit of the US led invasion. Except they continued under Coalition forces and still continue under the new Iraqi government.

Actions of the US and British governments in Iraq which Iraq war supporters like to ignore also include approving and encouraging systematic torture , which, including beatings over nights and days, working in shifts , breaking arms and legs with baseball bats ; asphyxiation and electric shocks (that’s according to American and British Iraq veterans as well as Iraqis) (16) – (27), ordering the targeting of both ambulances and civilians in the assaults on Fallujah (according to American aid workers and Iraqis in Fallujah at the time) (28) – (29); and giving orders to force teenage looters into tidal canals to drown. All of this was afterwards covered up by military courts martial pretending either that nothing happened or else it was a few troops out of control, to avoid trials that might ask how high the orders had originated (30) – (31). Courts martial, unlike civilian courts, do not have any minimum legal standards and allow witnesses and evidence to be ignored.

Amnesty International’s annual report for 2010, like UN inquiries in earlier years, found Iraqi police rape women and employ the same torture methods used by Saddam (32) – (33).

Amnesty found that ‘Iraqi security forces committed gross human rights violations including extrajudicial executions, torture...and did so largely with impunity....Torture methods reported included beatings with cables and hosepipes, suspension by the limbs for long periods...electric shocks to the genitals...breaking of limbs, removal of toenails with pliers and piercing the body with drills. Some detainees were alleged to have been raped.’

And that

‘‘In May inmates of the womens’ prison in al Kadhimiya told members of the parliament’s human rights committee that they had been raped while held in prison or detained elsewhere’ (34)

 Iraqi US trained “police commando” death squads and other new elite US trained ‘counter-terrorist’ units torture and kill suspects at a whim, having been trained by officers like Colonel James Steele who trained the notorious US backed death squads of El Salvador in the 1980s, who, like Iraqi security forces today, targeted anyone critical of the US or it’s favoured government, including American nuns , not just armed enemies or terrorists (35) – (39). (for more on the ‘El Salvador Option’ from El Salvador to Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan  see this post)

US Sanctions killed more Iraqis than Saddam after 1991,
Since Invasion food situation worse than under Saddam and sanctions

Keith Gilmour commendably mentions the sanctions on Iraq demanded by the US which were estimated by UN officials charged with enforcing them to have caused the deaths of around 5,000 to 6,000 children per month from 1991 to March 2003 (40). British and American government spokespeople will generally claim Saddam was to blame for these sanctions. Saddam was guilty of many terrible crimes, but the extreme sanctions imposed on Iraq at the demand of the US government weren’t one of them.

Many supporters of the Iraq war argue that the war was necessary to end deaths from sanctions without allowing Saddam to develop new WMD threats. Apart from the fact that Saddam had already proven he wasn’t willing to use WMDs on other countries (see conclusion) and hadn’t risked using them on his people since he lost the backing of the US after 1991, the invasion did not improve the situation once the sanctions were lifted, because the Coalition administration and the new Iraqi governments are so corrupt.

More Iraqis face hunger now even than under sanctions and Saddam. New Iraqi governments have cut food rations repeatedly (and again this year ), to a level around a quarter of that before the invasion,  reducing many Iraqis to scavenging in bins for food. This is despite the new governments having a larger budget than Saddam’s regime (41) – (49). Around $8 billion dollars that could have provided food and medicines went missing from Iraqi UN oil fund money appropriated by Bush’s ‘governor’ Paul Bremer (50) – (54).

What do Iraqis say?

It’s common for both sides in the Iraq war debate to point to the answers to some questions in some opinion polls as evidence that Iraqis did or didn’t support the invasion or do or don’t think they’re better off as a result of Saddam being overthrown. While the majority of polls seem to show a majority of Iraqis saying they backed the invasion and are better off as a result of the invasion, there is as much debate between Iraqis about these questions as there is in the US or the UK. Iraqis’. answers to different questions in the same poll are often contradictory, seeming to provide a majority in favour when a question is phrased one way; but when the same question is asked differently, providing a majority against.

It’s also worth considering the fact that Iraqis have grown up in a situation where answering a question about politics in a way that the current government disliked could end up in torture, jail or death for them and their entire families – and continue to live in such a situation today. This cuts both ways though as they may fear not only the coalition or the new government but their enemies too.

Overall though, from what poll results we do have, the majority of Iraqis do seem to think they’re better off without Saddam and to have considered having Coalition troops there as being less bad than not having them there (though a majority have negative views of coalition forces and governments and the new Iraqi governments). Their responses also suggest they do not approve of many the actions of the new Iraqi government or the Coalition – just that they consider the alternatives even worse (55) – (56).

For instance in a poll in 2007 63% of Iraqis said the invasion of Iraq was wrong, 58% said they had no confidence in US or UK occupation forces, with another 27% saying they had ‘not very much’ confidence in them; and 80% thought Coalition forces had done a ‘very bad’ job or ‘quite a bad’ job; while 79% said they opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq; and 70% said Coalition forces had made security worse. However at the same time 63% did not want Coalition forces to leave Iraq; and 51% said attacks on Coalition forces were unacceptable (57).

During 2010 one poll showed more Iraqis now approved of their own government’s performance than of the US government’s performance (though only a minority approved of either) (58). Yet another poll in 2010 showed a majority thought US troops should not leave Iraq yet (59).

Polls are also a matter of perception and perception is shaped by propaganda by governments and their enemies and by what the media focus on and how they frame issues – as is shown by the fact that poll results in Iraq and elsewhere change massively on the same questions in just a few months. People who are very religious for instance may also consider freedom of religion as important as food supply or safety from torture or death. Even people who aren’t religious may consider the right to vote in elections in which different parties and candidates are allowed to be something they value, even if they’re worse off in other ways.

Conclusion – Murder, Torture, Rape and Theft
are the same whether you call them democracy or not

None of this can make torturing people or murdering them, or corruption reducing their food rations, justifiable on the grounds that they are now carried out by an elected government. People who are murdered or tortured in the name of “democracy”, by an elected government do not suffer less because the ideology used to attempt to justify the act sounds better on paper. Torture and murder are not democratic acts. A “democracy” which allows or orders murder, rape and torture on a large scale is a democracy in name only; and has more similarities to a dictatorship than a democracy in reality. The actions ordered by Coalition governments and the new Iraqi governments in Iraq do not differ greatly from Saddam’s when he was in power, except in exceeding the level of corruption under Saddam by several orders of magnitude and leaving more Iraqis suffering hunger and lack of medical treatment as a result.

Replacing a dictatorship is only a positive thing if you replace it with something better; and if you do so in a way that does not cause large numbers of unnecessary deaths. Neither requirement has been met in Iraq so far.

While many have claimed Saddam would still be in power if Coalition forces hadn’t invaded there is in fact no way to know whether he would have been overthrown instead – no-one expected the sudden and largely peaceful fall of the Berlin Wall and the German Communist Party or of the Soviet Union either, yet they still happened.

More than anything the facts on Iraq show we should beware of accepting the view of the majority as always (or even usually) being the reality given how quickly the views of the majority change – and how greatly propaganda can influence public opinion if it’s repeated enough times.

(1) = Bennis , Phyllis & Moushabeck  , Michael (Editors) (1992)  ‘Beyond the Storm’  ; Canongate Press , London , 1992, p326 – 355

(2) = Lee , Ian (1991) ‘Continuing Health Costs of the Gulf War’, Medical Educational Trust , London , 1991

(3) = Blum , William (1995) ‘Killing Hope’,  Common Courage Press , Monroe , Maine , 1995, pages 334-338

(4) = Pilger , John (1998) ‘Hidden Agendas’ Vintage , London , 1998, pages 49 – 52

(5) = BBC News 29 May 2003 ‘Cluster bombs 'used in Iraq cities'’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2946054.stm

(6) = Observer 14 Dec 2003 ‘Army shells pose cancer risk in Iraq’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/14/iraq.military

(7) =  BBC News 16 Nov 2005 ‘US used white phosphorus in Iraq’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4440664.stm

(8) =  Independent 10 Aug 2003 ‘US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-admits-it-used-napalm-bombs-in-iraq-589508.html

(9) = Independent 10 Jan 2001 ‘These children had cancer. Now they are dead. I believe they were killed by depleted uranium’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/these-children-had-cancer-now-they-are-dead-i-believe-they-were-killed-by-depleted-uranium-705543.html

(10) = BBC News 14 Apr 2000 ‘Iraq's ward of death’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/713670.stm

(11) = Guardian.co.uk 13 Nov 2009 ‘Huge rise in birth defects in Falluja’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defects

(12) = BBC News 07 Jun 1999 ‘Depleted uranium: the lingering poison’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/362484.stm

(13) = BBC News 04 Jan 2001 ‘Q&A: Depleted uranium weapons’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm

(14) = BBC News 18 Jan 2001 ‘Depleted uranium: The next generation’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1122566.stm

(15) = NYT 29 Jan 2001 ‘Doctor's Gulf War Studies Link Cancer to Depleted Uranium’,
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/world/29DOCT.html?pagewanted=1

(16) = Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 - ‘Torture and Inhumane Treatment: A Deliberate U.S. Policy’ - http://hrw.org/wr2k6/introduction/2.htm#_Toc121910421

(17) = Amnesty International 1 Nov 2005 ‘TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT IN THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’’, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engact400142005

(18) = Amnesty International Annual Report 2006 - ‘Summary of Country report for Iraq’’, http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/irq-summary-eng

(19) = Washington Post Wednesday, September 28, 2005; A21,‘ A Matter of Honor’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701527_pf.html

(20) = ABC News 18 May 2004,‘Intel Staffer Cites Abu Ghraib Cover-Up’, http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=131658&page=1 and http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=131658

(21) = ABC News 21 May 2004, ‘Military Punishes Abu Ghraib Key Witness’, http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=131659&page=1 and http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=131659

(22) = Scotsman 27 May 2004,'Soldier left brain damaged after playing unruly prisoner at Guantánamo', http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=602732004

(23) = Independent 14 Oct 2006 - ‘Guantanamo guards 'admitted abusing inmates' - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1870834.ece

(24) = ICRC Feb 2004 - ‘REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (ICRC) ON THE TREATMENT BY THE COALITION FORCES OF PRISONERS OF WAR AND OTHER PROTECTED PERSONS BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS IN IRAQ , Chapter 1 , paragraph 7, http://cryptome.org/icrc-report.htm

(25) = Amnesty International 6 Mar 2006 - ‘Beyond Abu Ghraib: detention and torture in Iraq' - http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140012006

(26) = Amnesty International 15 Mar 2007 - ‘United Kingdom Court Martial acquittals: many questions remain unanswered and further action required to ensure justice' - http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450052007

(27) = Guardian 16 Sep 2004 - ‘UK officers linked to torture jail' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5017135-103550,00.html

(28) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Falluja siege’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(29) = Guardian 17 Apr 2004 ‘'Getting aid past US snipers is impossible'’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/17/iraq

(30) = Guardian 03 May 2006 ‘Iraqi, 15, 'drowned after soldiers forced him into canal'’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/03/iraq.military

(31) = Guardian 07 Jun 2006 ‘Soldiers cleared of Iraqi teenager's manslaughter -Court martial absolves trio of 15-year-old's drowning’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/07/iraq.military

(32)  = BBC News Online 21 Sep 2006 - ‘Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam' ' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5368360.stm

(33) = Amnesty International World Report 2010 (covering 2009) – Country Report Iraq,http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=123 ;(once pdf loads, scroll down to page 125 (by PDF page number) or 178 (number marked on page)

(34) = New York Times 03 Apr 1998 '4 Salvadorans Say They Killed U.S. Nuns on Orders of Military', http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/03/world/4-salvadorans-say-they-killed-us-nuns-on-orders-of-military.html?scp=5&sq=American+nuns+killed+Salvador&st=nyt

(35) = Joan Didion (1983)‘Salvador’ Granta Books, London, 2006, pages 15-17, 18, 38

(36) = New York Times Magazine 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

(37) = Guardian 20 May 2005 ‘British lawyers to pursue Iraqi security forces over killings’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/20/iraq.uk

(38) = Washington Post 11 Mar 2005 ‘Suicide Bomber Kills 47 in Mosul’ ; ‘Third Mass Grave Found; Police Official Ambushed in Baghdad’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23448-2005Mar10.html

(39) = Shane Bauer ‘Iraq’s new death squad’ in The Nation 6th June 2009, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090622/bauer

(40) = Guardian 29 Nov 2001 ‘The hostage nation : Former UN relief chiefs Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday speak out against an attack on Iraq’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,608578,00.html

(41) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 02 Apr 2006, ‘IRAQ: Food prices rise after reduction of monthly rations’, http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26250

(42)= UNOCHA IRIN news service 9 Sep 2007, ‘IRAQ: Food rationing system failing as Ramadan approaches’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=74196  

(43) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 17 Oct 2007, ‘IRAQ: Hundreds forced to scavenge for food in garbage bins’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=74829

(44) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 4 Dec 2007, ‘IRAQ: Government to cut items from its free food handouts’, http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=75677

(45) = Allawi, Ali A. ‘The occupation of Iraq’ Yale UP, New Haven & London, 2007 (paperback edn)

(46) = Refugees International 04 Oct 2007, ‘Iraq: Fix the Public Distribution System to meet needs of the displaced’,  http://refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9971/

(47) = IPS/ Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail 03 May 2008, ‘Corruption Eats Into Food Rations’,http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000795.php#more

(48) = UNoCHA’s IRIN news 08 Nov 2009 ‘IRAQ: Food insecurity on the rise, says official’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=86926

(49) = UNoCHA IRIN news 01 Apr 2010 ‘IRAQ: State food aid package slashed’, http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88646

(50) = CNN 31 Jan 2005‘Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds’, http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

(51) = Guardian 07 July 2005 ‘So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?’http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11

(52) = ABC News 06 Feb 2007‘Waste in War: Where Did All the Iraq Reconstruction Money Go? : Congressional inquiry probes former Bush official's handling of billions ofdollars, http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2852426&page=1

(53) = Guardian 08 Feb 2007 ‘How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish’http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

(54) = Independent 28 Jul 2010 ‘US unable to account for billions of Iraq oil money’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-unable-to-account-for-billions-of-iraq-oil-money-2036925.html

(55) = Iraq Analysis - Opinion Polls in Iraq, http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55 , (provides links to various polls conducted between 2003 and 2007)

(56) = Oxford Research International Feb 2004 ‘National Survery of Iraq’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

(57) = BBC, NBC & AHK poll of Iraqis Aug 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_09_07_iraqpoll.pdf

(58) = Gallup 26 Aug 2010 ‘Iraqis More Approving of Own Leadership Than of U.S.’, http://www.gallup.com/poll/142670/iraqis-approving-own-leadership.aspx

(59) = AFP 24 Aug 2010 ‘Iraqis say 'wrong time' for US withdrawal: poll’,http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100824/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusmilitarypullout_20100824133725