Today The Pensive Quill carries a response to Fred Halliday's obituary by guest writer Mick Hall
On reading of Fred Halliday's and other former socialists take on the Iraq war, it is difficult not to be enraged. First, most of us leftists did not make our judgment to oppose the US war and occupation of Iraq by looking at Saddam’s crimes. Sure, up until then many of us did what little we could to oppose him and his rotten clique, but we looked much closer to home to justify our refusal to support the US/UK military machine's murder and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s.
We knew the type of people who were members of the Government of GW Bush, and the type of man GW was, and made a decision they were not going to war on the Iraqi people for altruistic reasons, but to enrich their multinational financiers, and, so they thought, to improve the USA's geo-political and economic position in the Middle East and the rest of the world.
We also concluded all the humanitarian talk and WMD crap which Blair was full of, was not only fraudulent, but also wicked. As no one has the right to send young men and women to war, based on a lie, to kill and be killed. Personally, I cannot think of a greater negation of any political leaders duty.
Were we wrong to have concluded this? I think all the evidence cries out: we were not. Firstly, there was no WMDs in Iraq, nor any units of Al Qeada. Today, the latter can be found active throughout the land. Before the war, the influence in Iraq of the Islamic Government of Iran was negligible, and expressed through small Shia and Sunni groups exiled in Iran. Today the Iranians have their people at the centre of the State apparatus which ‘allegedly’ runs Iraq.
To top it all, last week the front line units of the US army scuttled from Iraq in the dead of night, leaving no government in place months after the general election, with the leading contenders still squabbling with each other like cats in a sack, although dogs would be more appropriate.
As to the mass of the Iraqi people, do I really need to go over the dreadful state the country is in due to the US/UK war and occupation? To summarize, 60% of the working age population is unemployed; this in a nation which had not experienced high levels of unemployment prior to the occupation. Areas of Baghdad get only 2 hrs of electricity a day, in the countryside it is worse. This in a country which has massive oil reserves which should be driving its power station turbines. Less women are in full time work or education today than at any time in Iraq’s history, and blowing up shops which sell music CDs is once again top of the pops. Need I say more?
The problem I have with the likes of Fred Halliday (and he is far from alone), he made his bed and supported the Afghan and Iraq wars, but instead of laying in it and enjoying the trinkets and plaudits he was sprinkled with, many due to his Damascus like political conversion from socialism to supporting the most reactionary US president in the post WW2 period, his conscience kept biting him; [he never] faced up to the truth and realized he made a mistake over Iraq and Afghanistan by entrusting the futures of their peoples to a cretin like GW. Bush.
He dresses his old comrades up as pantomime villains with real power, and then places the blame for some of the world's worst ills on their shoulders. In reality, the responsibility lays with his new found friends, as his former comrades like Tariq are what they have always been, well intentioned leftists, but powerless political activists. Nevertheless, unlike Fred, when push came to shove, they actually did step up to the plate and sided with people who were being shafted by a great power; and for no fault of their own. When offering what little support they could, the left did not first ask them if they were devout Muslim, or Islamists, former Saddamists, [most Iraqis were] whatever. We rightly did not care, for we knew what Bush and Blair were engaged in was plain wrong and when we marched through our capital cities, we did not give a fig whether those walking alongside us were Muslims, Christians, atheists, or even Tories. All we needed to know was they had enough humanity in them to see this war was wrong and needed to be opposed.
By the way this absolute belief power has the right to invade other people's countries whatever the consequences, as it will benefit the natives in the long run, reeks of the white man’s burden.
What gets me about these supposedly clever intellectuals who went over to the right is their ‘seeming’ inability to understand democracy cannot be exported on the end of a bayonet. Myself, I believe they are being totally dishonest, as whether it was Hitchen’s (former SWP) or Fred Halliday, (former IMG, I think) both understood perfectly that socialism could not be exported via a bayonet, it was one of the reasons they turned their backs on 'official' communism. So why would ‘democracy’ be any different? Perhaps, like many before them, they were mesmerized by US military and economic power in the 21st century. Who knows? Whatever their reasoning they got it wrong.
You can read more of Mick Hall at his blog, Organized Rage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I for one would like like to thank Mick for once again another thoughtful piece,spot on Mick well said and presented,
ReplyDeleteMick, found this a very thought provoking piece.
ReplyDeleteMust admit, I know absolutely nothing about Halliday, read some of Hitchen's stuff though and I must admit I find myself agreeing with a lot of the things he writes.
When they US/UK initially invaded Iraq, I think public opinions and perceptions were pretty much split.
Saddam was presented as the personification of evil and many people bought into that.
So convincing was the case presented for war, that I would say, some people who tend to occupy the Left politically would have been just as likely to be fooled by the lies, deceit and spin as those who occupy the Right and Centre.
I think the real disgrace was the amount of people who remained silent once the extent of the lie was exposed.
Bush and Blair were both greeted here by local politicans, long after the spin began to unravel.
Many of those same politicans who claim to fly the flag for causes such as the Palestian one, sat silent, while nearly 1 million Iraq people were butchered by cluster bombs and other toxic anti-personnel weapons.
I read recently that Tony Blair is set to make 4.6 million from his memoirs.
Instead of being locked away for war crimes against humanity this man is set to be rewarded.
Who ever said crime does not pay, certainly got it wrong!
Mick, can I just hasten to add, that I was no-way contesting your analysis of Halliday.
ReplyDeleteI was merely trying to say, that they, Blair and Bush were able to sell a lie to a considerable amount of people. They were also able to sell the lie to a considerable amount of people who should have known better.
I just think people, even well educated people with the purest of ideals can also become the victims of lies and manipulation.
From the outset a lot of people were able to see through the deceit in relation to the Al-Qaeda and Saddam. However, September the 11th touched a raw nerve and a lot of people decided it was safer to go along with the lie or at the very least stay quiet.
I know Hitchens was very vocal in relation to condemning Blair and Bush, however, at what stage of the war he actually took them to task I don't know.
I know Mandella and the Pope both issued a few watery statements. The only consistent condemnation I remember came from the Left and people like Pilger.
Our own watery crew , were led by the nose as per usual, wearing their shamrocks and green ties they actually celebrated with Bush before the invasion.
Totally agree with you though, we always believe that we should expect more from the educated Left .
Mick, some good points there, particularly that neither democracy nor socialism should be imposed by force. It was really cynical how the arguments for the invasion of Iraq were presented. If I recall correctly, the humanitarian intervention argument was like an afterthought; it wasn't used very prominently until it was clear that no WMD's could be found. But the humanitarian intervention argument raises all sorts of questions: Was there a pressing need to intervene? Was it clear that the people of Iraq wanted a Western intervention? How many lives was it worth to establish a democracy (of sorts) in Iraq? Personally, I do believe that there are times when intervention is necessary - for example, the West should have intervened in Rwanda to stop the genocide - but I do not think the invasion of Iraq was one of these, and I would question the motives of the invaders. I don't know much about Fred Halliday but the "Decent" Left is too keen to go to war and doesn't seem to care what price has to be paid.
ReplyDeleteAlfie, what did you mean, by establising a democracy (of sorts) in Iraq?
ReplyDeleteDo you honestly believe the West went into Iraq to establish a democracy?
It is now looking highly likely that they murdered Dr David Kelly to cover up their lies.
Do you honestly believe, people who behave the way they have behaved are remotely interested in democracy?
Mick,
ReplyDeletea good piece. While you are much more hostile to Halliday than I am there are issues you raise there which seem pretty much on the money.
I never felt easy with the causes he chose to back but I do feel he was confronted by a host of difficulties and analysed things differently from we do.
One issue that you article does not address is what to do in the event of a genocide? Stopping the Hutu Power genocide in Rwanda was not about exporting democracy or even human rights but putting a halt to mass murder.
While I opposed the interventions that Halliday backed I very much think the US need criticised for not intervening in Rwanda in 1994. And if we criticise it for not intervening the logic has to be that we would have supported them if they had chosen to intervene.
I think his criticisms of the Left are something we should think about. For long I have taken the view that the Right has come to hegemonise not by the strength of its own ideas but by the implausibility of the Left.
I know you and others have tried to raise the issues of repression in the countries that the US and Britain like to invade. But as you know from experience on your own blog when you did that in defence of women you took some vile abuse from a Trot who thought it was more important to stand shoulder to shoulder with misogynists than with the women they were oppressing.
This type of stance put wind in the sails of Fred Halliday's critique.
Before you slag off the USA,just like to ask you people,who are the yanks. where did they come from. And on Mr Blair, and his 4.6 million,he will give it to the brave fighting men of the UK. willie
ReplyDeleteFionnuala, I don't think Bush or Blair were really interested in bringing democracy to Iraq. I think they would have preferred a friendly dictatorship there, like that of Mubarak in Egypt or the royal family in Saudi Arabia. It would have been much easier to control. However, they could never have gotten away with installing a dictator, so they were obliged to follow their pro-democracy rhetoric and assist the establishment of a democracy in Iraq. The government is elected in Iraq now, albeit not completely freely or fairly as election candidates are banned, voters are intimidated and any elected government is still somewhat under the thumb of the US. So yeah, I'd call it a democracy, but whether it was worth over 100,000 civilian lives, the millions of internal and external refugees, the radicalisation of a generation of Muslims, not to mention the unknown number of combatants killed, is another matter. Incidentally, what makes you think Dr. David Kelly was murdered?
ReplyDeleteAlfie, I would say the election in Iraq was rigged to ensure the West has a puppet in power.
ReplyDeleteThe death toll in Iraq stands at over 655'000. According to John Pilger in the 'New Statesman' 1million is a more credible figure.
All these people died so that the West could rid the world of a dictator. A dictator who do not happen to bother them, until they lost control of him.
These people died so the Western super-powers could have unlimited access to oil.
The economy in Iraq has been restructured along the lines of neo-liberal agenda. Which is a slow drip feed of local resources, that will guarantee the invaders a forever return.
I really don't think this is a democracy, not in any sense of the word.
Nine leading doctors in England, have called for another inquest to re-examine the medical evidence presented to the Hutton investigation in relation to Dr David Kelly.
At the time the para-medics who attended Dr Kelly argued, that the injuries and the amount of blood at the scene appeared inconsistent.
Now Michael Powers QC for the Royal College of Physicians has questioned the adequacy of Lord Hutton's investigation.
All of those nine doctors calling for another investigation into Dr Kelly's death, have cited, that they believe the original findings are unsafe.
All of these specialist doctors argue that, the severed artery and the amount of tablets he supposedly took, 'were highly unlikely to be life threatening'
Always believed they hounded him and murdered him, whether or not the truth will ever emerge remains to be seen!
Fionnuala, I was using Iraq Body Count's estimate of over 100,000 civilian violent deaths due to the war. It admits that that may be too low a figure; a better estimate is probably the Iraq Family Health Survey, which puts the number of violent deaths at about 150,000 and the total excess deaths due to the war at over 400,000. I didn't use the figures you cite, namely the Lancet and ORB surveys, as they are disputed.
ReplyDeleteI didn't like how neoliberal laws were foisted on Iraqis either. If you're interested in reading a damning expose of the undemocratic neoliberalisation of Iraq by the Coalition Provisional Authority, check out Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse".
I don't think David Kelly was murdered. I mean, his death didn't benefit Blair and his government, who were accused (rightly, I think) of hounding Kelly into his grave. Plus the medical experts you mention are not forensic pathologists; they are not experts in determining how people have died. A number of eminent forensic pathologists have come out in support of the suicide verdict, stating that, for a 59-year-old man with severe heart disease, the wound and the amount of drugs would have been enough to kill him. That said, I think there should be a proper inquest into David Kelly's death to put to bed all of the lingering doubts and questions.
Also, as best as one not living in the country can tell, the Iraqi elections are not rigged. Where is the evidence? If the US had rigged the elections, wouldn't you think they'd have given their man (Ayad Allawi, I presume) a clear victory?
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
ReplyDelete"A number of eminent forensic pathologists have come out in support of the suicide verdict,"
Nicholas Hunt, the Home Office Forensic Pathologist is chief amongst those you mention. I think what has aroused most suspicion is what is contained in his autopsy report that necessitated Hutton to classify it for 70yrs?
Just a couple of links that may be of interest of you haven't come across them before.
ReplyDeleteThis is Johann Hari, who initially supported the war on Iraq and then withdrew, explaining his decision:
http://www.johannhari.com/2006/03/18/after-three-years-after-dead-why-i-was-wrong-about-iraq
And this is Bernard Henri-Lévy, who claims at least to still be on the left, but certainly offers a good critique worth the listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGO1kMj1u1U
Good article Mick. This is one thing we agree on.
Yeah, I agree, Robert, it arouses suspicion to classify Kelly's autopsy records for 70 years. It was a profoundly stupid thing for Hutton to do as it just gives fodder to conspiracy theorists. As I said, I would welcome a proper inquest (as is normal) into David Kelly's death in order to address the issues that have been raised. Nicholas Hunt himself said that he would have no problem with one; he says he has nothing to hide. My opinion is that David Kelly committed suicide; that's what I think the evidence points to. I could be wrong though. Maybe Blair bored him to death with an early draft of his memoirs...
ReplyDeleteAlfie, firstly I was not finding fault with your statistics, however, I don't believe you can get a more accurate source than people such as John Pilger.
ReplyDeleteIf he says, the most likely death total in Iraq is around one million, then I think you could safely say that's what it is.
In relation to the 2005 elections, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians certainly though the election was rigged, people took to the streets in their thousands to demonstrate against them.
Do you honestly believe that the US and the UK who murdered and lied to get into the country, then behaved as honest brokers when it came to elections?
David Kelly was about to prove a huge embarrassment to Blair and the entire government, well the ones who argued the case for war.
Kelly, had already dismissed their theory that trailers they had found in Iraq had been used as mobile warfare laboratories.
In a covert interview with the BBC, he had suggested that the government had 'sexed up the case for war'
He had blown a huge hole in their weapons of mass-destruction theory and I believe that is why the had him killed.
However, the theory that Tony may have bored him to death certainly sounds viable. Maybe it was Adams I really don't think too many have survived any of his memoirs!
Met a half a dozen young Brits in Borneo gettin ready for the Iraq invasion of 2003. They were eager and champing at the bit to see action. When I insisted there were no WMD's in Iraq they surrounded me in the bar insisting there ABSOLUTELY were. Young men eager for action. Wonder how they all are today, they were all quite decent young lads if I'm honest. Only hassle I had was near the end of the night when myself and a Glaswegian got into it a tad over the 'Old Firm'. But as with the banking crisis, 'joe dopes' like me could see that coming too. It suggests you can talk about right and wrong til you're purple in the face, there's something evil about leadership/government in todays world that they factor future realisation and anger into their dirty schemes. It, and we, are UNIMPORTANT. For Bliar and Campbell to maintain they believe they did the right, it thing has zero to do with morality.
ReplyDeleteFionnuala,
ReplyDeletePilger has made big mistakes in the past. For example, in the "New Statesman" and elsewhere, he wrongly claimed (or implied) that no mass graves had been found in Kosovo/Serbia from the 1998-99 conflict.
With regard to the Iraqi elections, I think you have to look at their outcomes together with the testimony of independent election observers and media in order to decide whether they are legitimate or not. In both previous parliamentary elections, Ayad Allawi, the candidate favoured by the coalition, failed to win enough seats to become prime minister. That seems like pretty poor vote-rigging to me. Also, independent monitors and media deemed the 2005 and 2010 parliamentary elections broadly free and fair, though there were problems.
You present a good case for Blair and co. having motive to kill David Kelly. It is true that Kelly told reporters in confidence that he thought the evidence for WMD's in Iraq had been "sexed up"; however, he did believe that Saddam possessed some chemical/biological weapons and that the West would probably have to go to war to disarm him. His only gripe was the way the data was being presented. I don't think he had any crucial information in his possession that could have torpedoed the case for war; he certainly didn't indicate this to the journalists he spoke to. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Blair in the dock, that shit-eating grin wiped off his face. But I like it to be for Iraq and Afghanistan, not for an airport-novel-style conspiracy theory.
Alfie, doubt Pilger was wrong! His has to be the most consistent, enduring and unshakeable voice against injustice on a global scale.
ReplyDeleteIf Pilger ever says the elections in Iraq were fair and 'democratic' then I would believe it.
Until, then sorry, I will not.
Dr Kelly, had a massive gripe, he eventually realised that he had been sent to Iraq on a lie.
I do not ever remember him even hinting that there was a case for war.
They actually said he had major psychological problems. He suddenly went from being their top weapons inspector to a lunatic.
The speculation which has led to the believe that this man could have been murdered can hardly be described as airport-novel-theory.
If you believe that, perhaps you can also explain, why Dr Kelly's post-mortem reports and the photographs of his dead body have been classified for 70 years!
Suppose you think, that was just to add a bit of edge onto the old conspiracy theories?
Fionnuala,
ReplyDeletePerhaps "airport-novel conspiracy theory" is too dismissive a term to apply to the claim that David Kelly was murdered. I apologise if that seemed like a sneer. And I agree that the decision to classify his autopsy report for 70 years is suspicious. But, on balance, I still don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that he was murdered. We'll probably have to agree to disagree in that respect. By the way, here is the article outlining Kelly's hawkish views on Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/davidkelly.iraq1
Also, this is one of the articles in which John Pilger implies that no mass graves of Kosovar Albanians were found in Kosovo/Serbia:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200412130010
By the time Pilger wrote the article in 2004, there was ample evidence of mass graves. For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/19/world/serbia-exhumes-269-bodies-from-mass-grave.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Serbia/Kosovo
In his article, Pilger even puts the term 'mass graves' in quote marks. That's disgraceful.
Alfie, without fear of contradiction I doubt if anyone has presented as much evidence of injustice on a global scale as John Pilger.
ReplyDeleteFor four decades he had made countless documentaries and films, highlighting injustice and corruption where ever he found it.
Why then, would someone like him want to deceive people in relation to Kosovo, what would it benefit him? What would be his motivation?
To say a war is inevitable (Dr David Kelly) can hardly be described as 'hawkish'
I doubt a man like David Kelly would incite a case for war and then renege when the war appeared less than favourable.
Both Pilger and Kelly, appear to be people with very high levels of integrity, well certainly the former, hardly people to lie or manipulate facts or the truth!!
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteI don't know what made Pilger opt for the view that no mass graves were found. He was not alone in questioning their existence. But he and others were so wrong. There was ample evidence of atrocities and war crime out there.
I have liked the work of Pilger myself but none are infallible.
Mackers, maybe I am a little overzealous when it comes to the John Pilgers and Michael Moores of this world, but I would never apologise for that.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the fact, that I did make it sound as though everything Pilger said is infallible.
However, on reading more of what he said in relation to Kosovo it is not as black and white as was first pointed out.
On reading 'Kosovo The Killing Fields'(New Stateman 1999)
Pilger does cite, that he disagrees with a lot of the evidence presented by the U.S. and the U.K.
Reading through his analysis of the evidence it is very clear why he arrives at the conclusion he does. In fact, throughout the entirety of the article, he presents the evidence, the sources Then, he outlines the fact, that a lot of the evidence and the sources have been disproved.
Like other left-wing writers such as Chomsky. People like John Pilger seem to be in a genuine quandry as to whether Western intervention in countries like Kosovo were in fact humanitarian or imperialism dressed up as humanism?
Chomsky once described this type of intervention as an 'opportunity for relegitimizing their role' and I have a tendency to agree with that.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteand of course I did not read the piece!
I recall the charges and his involvement in the debate. But I think you make a good point.
Michael Moore I am not a fan of. Were you at his West Belfast Feile contribution?
Mackers, I do not ever attend anything at the Feile. Would be very interested in hearing what he had to say though.
ReplyDeleteReally love Moore's documentaries, thought his last one the 'Love Affair with Capitalism' was spectecular, however, I would be very interested in other people's opinion.
Nuala,
ReplyDeletehttp://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu:81/swm.html
Mackers, if I had a white flag I would wave it, instead I will just cringe and bow to your superior knowledge.
ReplyDeleteYour article was absolutely brilliant.
Nuala,
ReplyDeletehe just didn't impress me. I know he has been very good on some things and has campaignd well but I went that night and was disappointed.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteBefore the war, David Kelly wrote:
"After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq."
That seems like a pretty hawkish analysis to me, especially since he described the threat from Saddam as only "modest". He didn't change his mind even after visiting Iraq post-invasion and not seeing any evidence of WMD's; he told Andrew Gilligan that he believed Saddam possessed them:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/fac_1_0024.pdf
I agree that John Pilger's is a consistent voice against global injustice; I think he's wrong about Kosovo and Bosnia though. In his articles in 2004 and 2008 about the Kosovo War, Pilger used outdated reports to suggest that no mass killings of Kosovar Albanians had been perpetrated by the Serbian security forces when there was more current information available of mass graves having been found. Perhaps Pilger was unaware of these reports, but that is no excuse for a journalist of his calibre. He has left himself open to accusations of deliberately ignoring reports of mass graves in order to strengthen his argument against NATO's intervention in Kosovo.
Anthony,
I agree with you about Michael Moore. I think he's glib.