GEORGE GALLOWAY
MAY
26th 2006
Mr
Galloway maintains it is logical for those who have had their
countrymen, friends and family killed during the current campaign in
Iraq to feel morally justified in fighting back against the forces
responsible, their commanders and the political architects of the
campaign, personally. This is true if you are an Iraqi who believes
that the
military overthrow of Saddam was wrong, and that he and his supporters
should have been left alone to run Iraq in the way he was doing it. It
might even be true if you are an Iraqi who thinks that the military
operation was started and continued without due regard to what is
euphemistically called 'collateral damage', though in that case it
would be more for revenge than any other motive, as murdering Tony
Blair is not likely to improve at this stage the circumstances of
anybody in Iraq. It seems hard for some people to believe that every
effort was made at the start of this operation to remove Saddam without
an invasion, and that the invasion when inevitable was planned to take
as few lives as possible.
There
are those indeed who think that bringing democracy and open government,
freedom of assembly and speech to Iraq is wrong; but there are very few
who believe it could have been achieved by asking Saddam to do it, or
his inheritors. Mr Galloway has never explained his view of how things
should have proceeded under an alternative scenario. He is much better
informed on some matters than the people whose feathers he ruffles.
When he was accused by the Daily Telegraph and members of the US
Congress of certain things I warned they could end up with egg on their
faces That in no way makes sense of his claim that Blair, or even Bush,
have given the orders to murder thousands of people. Peace to a
tolerable extent could have come quickly if the legacy of Saddam's rule
had not left so much inter-ethnic distrust and hatred or if the
coalition had made the proper preparations to control the country after
the removal of Saddam. But the moment the UN shirked its responsibility
and the US military had decided 'we don't do peace' there was nowhere
to go but through hell, as was pointed out on pages on this website at
the time. Preparations of that sort take years in the planning, and the
public, even in the coalition of the willing, were unwilling to allow
the process to be taken in advance so long as they thought there was a
chance to either prove Saddam had no WMD, or force him from office.
There was no chance of either without a UN determined to follow
through. Hans Blix and others wandering around was just a joke played
on the mathematically challenged, of which he appeared to be one.
To
carry out an operation of this kind, the national powers acting for the
UN had to be united, domestically and amongst themselves. They were
not. They should have been. To pull the fat out of the fire now, Iraqis
must put their common good and their country first. All terrorism and
crime cannot cease immediately, anyone can understand that. But amongst
those of reasonable intelligence who have a will to work for the
future, it can. Galloway is still more interested in Galloway than
anything else. His contribution today is not helpful.