[Hitchens] Is there any good reason for staying in Iraq?

Oooops sorry basso, it's Peter, not Christopher.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/05/is_there_any_go.html

Is there any good reason for staying in Iraq?

Here is an imagined conversation between a normal human being and one of those people who still thinks our troops should be in Iraq.

" Q: Why did we invade Iraq?

A:To stop Saddam Hussein developing and using 'Weapons of mass Destruction'.

Q. But he didn't have any, did he?

A: No, but he might have done, and why are you complaining, do you think brutal dictators are good, is that it? Are you some kind of Fascist?

Q: Hang on a minute, I only pointed out that the main reason for the war turned out to be fake. What do you say to that?

A: Well, I generally try to change the subject, and I will now do so again. The great achievement of the invasion was to establish a true democracy in Iraq.

Q: Ah, well in that case, why can't we just leave this nice new democracy to get on with running the country?

A: Don't be silly. Haven't you noticed that there is virtually a civil war going on in Iraq?

Q: I'm asking the questions. But yes I have noticed. Why is there a civil war if it's a democracy? Surely the whole idea of democracies is that the people's will can be expressed without violence?

A. Er, yes. But we did not foresee the resentment of the Sunnis at being ruled by the Shia majority they used to control.

Q: Really? It sounds pretty predictable to me. But leave that for a bit. Can our troops, or the Americans, contain or control this civil war?

A: Actually, no. It's far too widespread and in many places we've already handed over control of the streets to Iraqi militias.

Q: So if our troops cannot stop the civil war, what exactly can they do?

A: Well, what they are mostly doing now is defending their own bases against attack.

Q: So what difference would it make if they left, except that British families would not be suffering the loss of their sons, brothers, and fathers?

A: We can't possibly leave. That would be completely irresponsible. What would the world think?"

You will see that I have skewed this a bit, and made the pro-war person a good deal more honest about the Iraqi reality than most of them are. What makes me grind my teeth is that these chancers, who bamboozled two great free nations into a wrong and unjust war, had made almost no plans about what to do once they had won it, and had hardly any idea of what sort of country it was. It is hard to think of anything more irresponsible. How dare they use this word - as they always do - of those of us who opposed the war and call for the withdrawal of troops.

Many of them are stupid, and able to fool themselves as stupid people so often are. Others are just cowards, afraid to admit they were wrong. Even where they have been proved to do so. Our Prime Minister, absurdly, is sometimes described as 'brave' for sending other men's sons into battle and backing George W. Bush when everyone else was backing away from him. I don't think so. He was advised by the Foreign Office to stick as close to the White House as he possibly could - which is what they always say. When he realised that there was definitely going to be war, even though there was no justification for it, the courageous action would have been to say "Sorry, but this is where we get off".

The courageous action now would be to persuade the Iraqi government to ask us to leave within six months, and to do so. It would strengthen that government, stop exposing our men as targets to terrorists, and would concentrate the minds of the Arab world and of Iran, and of Turkey, who have all - I suspect - been irresponsibly stirring the Iraqi pot in the hope of getting something out of it. As long as we remain, they can blame us for the trouble. Once we go, they will need to seek peace. I doubt very much if Iraq will become a law-governed democracy anyway. All we can hope for now is that the new dictator who emerges from the mess we made will not be any worse than Saddam was.