The government is using deception to convince us to back the latest bombing campaign in Iraq, writes IAN SINCLAIR
TO gain public support for bombing Iraq the government has deployed a range of persuasive strategies, stretching from the extremely crude to the dangerously subtle. First the obvious ones.
On Thursday September 25, the day before the parliamentary vote to authorise the bombing campaign, police carried out a number of so-called anti-terrorist raids arresting nine people, including the well-known preacher Anjem Choudary.
On the same day news broke that the Iraqi government had “credible” intelligence that Isis militants planned to launch attacks on the Paris Metro and New York City subway system.
Both scares, of course, have now been forgotten, though one can’t help think they served their purpose.
Like the “Heathrow terrorist plot” in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, the recent headline-grabbing announcements elicited deep scepticism in many people.
However the government is also employing far more insidious and successful propaganda, much of which has seeped into and framed the media-driven narrative of the war.
One such propaganda meme is the argument that we are acting at the request of a “sovereign state” (David Cameron) and/or “democratic state” (Ed Miliband).
This has been repeated ad nauseam by those backing the bombing with very little opposition.
While this sound-bite-sized justification may technically be true and therefore provides cover under international law, it’s worth considering what it misses out.
First, it conceals the deeply authoritarian and undemocratic nature of the present Iraqi government and the West’s role in helping to create it.
Writing in the Guardian in June, Professor Toby Dodge, an Iraq specialist at the London School of Economics, noted Iraq’s former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki “first came to power in April 2006 in a deal brokered by the then British foreign secretary Jack Straw and the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.”
This, according to Dodge, “was an Anglo-American attempt to create a facade of democracy in the midst of a vicious post-invasion civil war.”
Dodge went onto explain that though Maliki lost the 2010 election, the US backed the continuation of Maliki’s rule “in the name of predictability and order.”
Echoing the subtitle of Dodge’s 2013 book on Iraq — From War to a New Authoritarianism — David Wearing, a researcher on the Middle East at Soas, notes: “Maliki set about concentrating power — particularly power over armed forces, internal security forces and Shia militias — in his hands, and governing on a narrow sectarian basis, eliciting some frustration from Washington but still, ultimately, enjoying its support.”
In 2013 Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index ranked Iraq 171st out of 177 countries.
The whole Iraqi system, argues award-winning Iraqi journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, is “rotten to the core. Every single soldier is appointed after paying a bribe. Every military officer is appointed after paying a bribe.”
And before we go further, let’s not forget the double standards of the British government.
“It is hypocritical for Mr Cameron to pretend that US and UK intervention are in support of democratic, accountable and inclusive governments when he is in a coalition with the last theocratic absolute monarchies on Earth,” argues the veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn about Britain allying itself with the Gulf states.
Cameron and Miliband’s justification also ignores the recent aggressive and criminal military actions of the Iraqi government — armed throughout by the US.
In May, Human Rights Watch reported that the Iraqi government was dropping “barrel bombs on residential neighbourhoods of Fallujah and surrounding areas” and had “repeatedly struck Fallujah General Hospital with mortar shells and other munitions.”
According to the report: “The recurring strikes on the main hospital, including with direct fire weapons, strongly suggest that Iraqi forces have targeted it, which would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war.”
In June HRW noted that the Iraqi government had carried out indiscriminate air strikes in other cities too — Beiji, Mosul, Tikrit and al-Sherqat — killing at least 75 civilians.
Speaking about the Iraqi government in 2013, Dodge noted “torture is endemic.”
Of course, Maliki was forced out of office last month and replaced by Haider al-Abadi, but many Iraq observers hold little hope in his successor. The new government is still dominated by Shia religious parties.
Cockburn says Cameron’s “stated belief that he is supporting the creation of a government that is inclusive of Sunni, Shia, Kurds and Christians” is “a pipe dream.”
For example, though Abadi publicly called a halt to the bombing of civilian areas, HRW’s Iraq researcher Erin Evers told me the bombing has continued.
More broadly, the Financial Times recently explained that Shia militias have grown “stronger, bolder and more politically influential” since Abadi became prime minister. Maliki himself is now Iraq’s vice-president.
Evers recently reported that Shia militias under the control of the former Iraqi prime minister are laying siege to Latifiyya, a town just south of Baghdad.
The militias have carried out summary executions and bulldozed Sunni areas causing “a broader humanitarian crisis” with many women and children unable to access food or desalinated water.
Wearing is one of the few British analysts to take seriously the threat from the Shia militias.
“If Shia troops wade into Sunni towns and cities with the USAF and the RAF effectively providing cover, or at least having softened up their targets beforehand, the West won’t be preventing another Rwanda, it will be enabling one.”
Unsurprisingly then, though Sunnis living in Mosul and Raqqa do not like Isis, Cockburn explains: “They are even more frightened of resurgent Iraqi or Syrian armies accompanied by murderous pro-government militias subduing their areas with the assistance of allied air strikes.”
All this leads to another criticism of the simplistic “we are acting to support a democratic government” propaganda meme — that by refusing to engage with the reality of the present Iraqi state, it ignores a key reason for the rise of Isis and the responsibility of the West.
Writing in the latest edition of Survival, the journal of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Dodge argues that Isis’s advance across northern Iraq “was the direct result of the contemporary flaws with the political system set up after the regime change of 2003.”
Or as Lakhdar Brahimi, the former UN special envoy to Syria, recently noted, Isis was “originally and still is mainly an Iraqi phenomenon. And that is a direct result of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.”
Ian Sinclair is the author of The March That Shook Blair published by Peace News Press. He Tweets @IanJSinclair.