Why I was more right than wrong
01may04
IT wasn’t only western correspondents accompanying the Coalition troops into Baghdad who were "embedded". The overwhelming majority of Australian pundits and editorialists back home snuggled beneath Washington’s doona, happy bedfellows with Bush, Blair and Howard.
As one of the few local dissidents, I copped an escalating amount of abuse and derision. In particular, I recall the nyah-na-na-na-na e-mails and letters that arrived the day Saddam’s statue toppled. Shades of "shock and awe". It was a bombardment of abuse proclaiming me a left-wing loony, pro-Saddam, un-Australian and, worst of all, anti-American.
It is now more than a year since Operation Infinite Justice rolled into Iraq, and the Bushwhackers are falling silent. So I cannot resist the temptation of saying, "Told you so." Though, on a number of important issues, I happily admit to error.
I was wrong to believe the views of US generals like Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf – that taking Baghdad would involve street by street, block by block fighting. Schwarzkopf was one of many who grossly overestimated the military capacity of Saddam Hussein. Clearly we should have remembered those harrowing images of the defeated Iraqi army in Gulf War I – in particular, the "turkey shoot" on their retreat from Kuwait.
But I was right to believe that, in some ways, the invasion would create a new Vietnam – a situation where the US and their loyal helpers would find themselves in an interminable, unwinnable conflict.
I was wrong to believe that the US and its allies might be on the receiving end of some WMDs. While writing that years of sanctions and weapons inspections must have all but destroyed Saddam’s armoury, I couldn’t believe that the mighty US, with its prodigious surveillance capacities, could be 100 per cent inaccurate. However, my side of politics was absolutely right in demanding more time for Hans Blix and his team. Had this happened, perhaps around 100,000 deaths could have been avoided.
I was right, too, to back the UN rather than the US. But Australia went out on a limb for Washington and, yes, greatly increased the likelihood that we’d be targeted by terrorists.
I was right to ridicule the Bush line that Saddam’s Ba’athists were implicated in the events of September 11 – and right to insist that bin Laden’s Islamists were natural enemies of Saddam’s secularists, and vice-versa. And I was right to say that the attack on the twin towers was simply an excuse for Bush and the boys to launch their war against the Iraqis – a conflict planned by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz during the Clinton presidency.
But I was wrong to believe that the regional reaction to the proposed invasion would be immense – that the "Arab street" would erupt in a political frenzy. The rulers of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, for example, remain on their respective thrones. However, it’s early days and the time bombs are still ticking.
I may have been wrong to deny that any regional benefits would flow from the invasion. Perhaps it has been influential in stopping nuclear programs in Iran and Libya. On the other hand, the US invasion has had a negative influence on Iranian politics, emboldening the conservatives against the reformists.
I was right that a principal motive of the war was to support Ariel Sharon – and right again to dispute the Wolfowitz hypothesis that strong-arm tactics would force the Palestinians to behave. Far from improving stability in Israel, the war gave Sharon cover to escalate his war against the Palestinians who, in turn, upped the ante.
Along with the millions who marched in protest, I was right to oppose the notion of pre-emptive war. But I was wrong to believe it would lead to others in rapid succession. Because of what’s happened in Iraq, Washington has stepped back from those brinks.I was right to argue that the Coalition would get bogged down in Iraq, that it would finish up costing the US budget billions, that there was no sign of an exit strategy. I was right to argue that the US showed little interest in postwar nation building – as evidenced in Afghanistan where, as my side of politics stressed, things would soon return to the ghastly mess of the pre-Taliban years.
But I was wrong in arguing that all attempts at nation-building in Baghdad would be fruitless. The proposed national constitution, cobbled together by the US, is in some ways an inspirational document. But I was right to believe that the Sunnis and Shiites would insist on a dominating role and an Islamic state – and right to suggest that Washington, having promised the Iraqis freedom, might not like the sort of Iraq that the Iraqis wanted.
I was wrong to imagine that the war in Iraq would destroy the political careers of its most enthusiastic protagonists. Bush, Blair and Howard are still there. While George and Tony have been in terrible trouble, their dishonesties and hubris revealed, they survive. A Bush defeat in the forthcoming elections is by no means certain and, despite a hundred humiliations, it’s unlikely that the Tories’ Howard would beat Labour in a new election. As for our Tory Howard, he’s been able, for over a year, to escape responsibility. There are still many "embedded" journalists in Australia who continue to give Howard an armchair ride on Iraq. And I agree with my friend, the researcher Hugh Mackay, that on balance Howard is more than likely to win the next election.
On that note, I hope I’m wrong.
theaustralian.news.com.au |
