/

Who’ll pay for the Iraq sins?

by Stephan Richter

Globalist

Will the purveyors of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq ever do penance for their sins of warmongering?

In the history books, the U.S. Republicans will never live down the fact that they “Iranified” Iraq, disrupting thousands of years of calibrating regional balance. That country long served as a buffer state for one purpose only — to suppress the implosion of the region.

True, the Democrats who backed the invasion aren’t much better, because they were swayed by the idiotic “patriotic” fervor of 2003. But at least they seem to recognize the error, even if it should have been visible at the time: Any U.S. leaders who take an action that, historically speaking, must inevitably hand Iraq to Iran and restore Iran as the dominant regional power needs to have their heads examined.

It is well known that John McCain, the former U.S. presidential candidate and prisoner of war, likes to pour oil into any fire he sees. It is in his nature to do so. The question is why we let him without at least first forcing him to pay penance for his past sins of warmongering.

The senior senator from Arizona now wants to take his pyromaniac style of foreign policy into Iraq once more, echoing his “bomb, bomb, bomb” spirit of a decade ago. In that, he is guided not by any sense of patriotism, but by the impetuousness of an anarchist.

McCain is not only one of the chief propellants of the American pyromania that destroyed Iraq but also one of the most senior still holding political office.

The most basic fact of the matter is this: Anybody who was out to topple Saddam Hussein — and thereby turn all of Iraq into a powder keg — at best showed complete ignorance of the history of the region.

A deep-seated sense of religiously fueled enmity throughout the ages has shaped life in West Asia. Shiites and Sunnis, when pitted against each other, and then presented with an opportunity, have always been inclined to make a blood sport out of pursuing the other.

The crucial role that Iraq has traditionally played in that kind of highly combustible environment was that it served as a satellite buffer state that essentially separated the Levant and Asia Minor from Iran/Persia, providing a check on the expansion of empires from either direction. Internally divided due to shifting borders and occupiers from repeated conquests, Iraq has often stood at the crossroads between large Western Sunni powers and the Shiite Persian power to the east.

Even before the rise of Islam and its factions, the area was the dividing zone between western and eastern empires. Rome sometimes held Mesopotamia during its long-running struggle with what is now Iran.

However, with the Cheney/Bush/McCain clan’s resolutely amateurish move into Iraq, that crucial buffer disappeared and turned itself into a wall of fire. Their collective amateurishness is only superseded by the ahistorical U.S. foreign policymaking in the region.

The whole Iraq episode and the current conundrum also show what a terrible ally the United Kingdom has been for the United States over the past decade or so. True, the post-empire U.K. has long made it a habit of punching above its weight class, usually by acting as America’s sidekick. But for all the immense ambitions that this points to, traditionally the U.K. government has at least usually been mindful of history.

To be sure, the British Foreign Office had enough smart people who knew about Iraq’s historic role inside the Muslim world as a buffer state — to keep religious emotions from exploding.

Evidently then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair was so eager to please his American master that this most critical advice was suppressed. Even if the American ally had been unprepared or unwilling to listen, it would have been all the more incumbent on the U.K. to speak out loud. That is what good allies do. In fact, that is what Germany and its then-chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, did at the time — when he warned the U.S. government publicly of an ill-advised “adventure.”

Which is exactly how this all turned out to be. But that public courage, of course, didn’t keep Schroeder from becoming the U.S. political establishment’s favorite bête noire. Yes, it is true that once he left office, he made some distasteful career choices. But that does not invalidate the character he displayed while in office, when he warned the Americans of the inferno(s) to come.

Blair, meanwhile, the snake-charming, bomb-throwing sidekick to U.S. President George W. Bush, is still in the good graces of many Americans. The only promising step of sorts toward penitence that Blair has made since then is that he has converted to Catholicism.

That is very unusual for a British leader, and it at least puts him on the right track. He has much to atone for. It will take a long line of Catholic priests to hear all the confessions Blair still needs to make.

On the U.S. side of the disaster initiated in 2003, however, it seems that all such confessions of guilt will go entirely unspoken.

If the recent round of cheerleading for re-invasion is any indication, McCain and friends are not only unrepentant but still actively in denial that they ever made any mistake in the first place.

Stephan Richter is publisher and editor in chief of the Globalist. © 2014 Globalist

  • Tando

    “However, with the Cheney/Bush/McCain clan’s resolutely amateurish move into Iraq, that crucial buffer disappeared and turned itself into a wall of fire. Their collective amateurishness is only superseded by the ahistorical U.S. foreign policymaking in the region.”
    I wonder whether it would have been possible to publish such an analysis during the patriotic/nationalistic hype 10 years ago. Billions of dollars spent, thousands of people died and it is worse than before. But who said that this was not on purpose. “Divide and rule” was the guiding theme of the british empire. Maybe Americans will have an answer to the question “Why do they hate us so much”, next time something like 9/11 happens.

  • lex

    So by the same reasoning US should now support Putan’s friend Assad in Syria (aka barrel bomb gas em all Assad), right? Speak up all you democrats. Let’s go back to the “bad ” (or is it “good”) old days of supporting dictators which you always disliked. Then again, the ones in the past were usually more benign than those today.