Michael White: Is it fair to blame Blair and Bush for continued violence in Iraq?
[Michael White is assistant editor and has been writing for the Guardian for over 30 years, as a reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist.]
As the tumbrels and the bounty hunters converge on the Chilcot inquiry for Friday's climactic appearance by Tony Blair it may be worth a backward glance at what's going on in Iraq nearly seven years after the fateful US-UK invasion.
Not much of a backward glance is needed.
Today's papers are full of chilling details of the series of bombs that exploded around Baghdad, killing dozens of people and injuring more than 80 around hotels used by Iraqi elites and foreigners – including US and British media – in the city centre.
Some speculation suggests they were detonated to mark the belated execution of Ali Hassan al-Majid, the butcher of Halabja in 1988 – though few are likely to mourn Chemical Ali, whose brutality did his own Ba'ath-Sunni cause immense harm.
There again, another theory points to the elections scheduled for 7 March. And bombs always frighten away potential foreign investors, an urgent problem for Iraq – outside the oil sector – as it struggles to restore an economy ravaged by war and decades of incompetent top-down management.
Were al-Qaida or Ba'athists to blame? The Guardian's Martin Chulov reports today that "the Iraqi government's oft-repeated accusation that former Ba'athists have been stirring the violence now looks a lot stronger".
That accentuates a problem for the Shia-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki who led an "Iraq is open for Business" delegation to Washington only last month. His State of Law coalition is competing for Shia votes with the Iraq National Alliance, identified with the radical cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr.
As such, Maliki is sometimes accused of being "soft" on Ba'athist and ex-Saddam security apparatchiks who still wield influence in Sunni regions. Some 500 alleged Ba'athist candidates have been disqualified ahead of the March elections – and the US is involved in haggling its way to a compromise that would allow many of them to stand.
In a week when Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionists, both with unsavoury pasts (is Ian Paisley a "radical cleric" do you suppose?) are haggling over power-sharing at Stormont and outside parties are urging common sense (or is it party advantage?) we should not be too sniffy. Deeply-entrenched sectarian habits are hard to discard.
Back to those Baghdad bombs. Their passage through the security lines was made easier by removed concrete barriers (a sign of growing confidence) and allegedly dud bomb detectors sold to Iraq in large quantities by a British firm, whose boss is now helping police with inquiries.
Are these bombings the fault of Tony Blair and George Bush? Yes, cry the bounty hunters and the tumbrel crowd. They certainly contributed to the instability inside Iraq after the initial overthrow of Saddam Hussein which was – can you dimly remember this bit? – achieved with remarkably few casualties as the dictator's forces and their feared WMD melted away.
But surely, no one is responsible for bombs and bombers who blow up innocent civilians other than the people who detonate the bombs and those who sent them there?..
Read entire article at Guardian (UK)
As the tumbrels and the bounty hunters converge on the Chilcot inquiry for Friday's climactic appearance by Tony Blair it may be worth a backward glance at what's going on in Iraq nearly seven years after the fateful US-UK invasion.
Not much of a backward glance is needed.
Today's papers are full of chilling details of the series of bombs that exploded around Baghdad, killing dozens of people and injuring more than 80 around hotels used by Iraqi elites and foreigners – including US and British media – in the city centre.
Some speculation suggests they were detonated to mark the belated execution of Ali Hassan al-Majid, the butcher of Halabja in 1988 – though few are likely to mourn Chemical Ali, whose brutality did his own Ba'ath-Sunni cause immense harm.
There again, another theory points to the elections scheduled for 7 March. And bombs always frighten away potential foreign investors, an urgent problem for Iraq – outside the oil sector – as it struggles to restore an economy ravaged by war and decades of incompetent top-down management.
Were al-Qaida or Ba'athists to blame? The Guardian's Martin Chulov reports today that "the Iraqi government's oft-repeated accusation that former Ba'athists have been stirring the violence now looks a lot stronger".
That accentuates a problem for the Shia-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki who led an "Iraq is open for Business" delegation to Washington only last month. His State of Law coalition is competing for Shia votes with the Iraq National Alliance, identified with the radical cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr.
As such, Maliki is sometimes accused of being "soft" on Ba'athist and ex-Saddam security apparatchiks who still wield influence in Sunni regions. Some 500 alleged Ba'athist candidates have been disqualified ahead of the March elections – and the US is involved in haggling its way to a compromise that would allow many of them to stand.
In a week when Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionists, both with unsavoury pasts (is Ian Paisley a "radical cleric" do you suppose?) are haggling over power-sharing at Stormont and outside parties are urging common sense (or is it party advantage?) we should not be too sniffy. Deeply-entrenched sectarian habits are hard to discard.
Back to those Baghdad bombs. Their passage through the security lines was made easier by removed concrete barriers (a sign of growing confidence) and allegedly dud bomb detectors sold to Iraq in large quantities by a British firm, whose boss is now helping police with inquiries.
Are these bombings the fault of Tony Blair and George Bush? Yes, cry the bounty hunters and the tumbrel crowd. They certainly contributed to the instability inside Iraq after the initial overthrow of Saddam Hussein which was – can you dimly remember this bit? – achieved with remarkably few casualties as the dictator's forces and their feared WMD melted away.
But surely, no one is responsible for bombs and bombers who blow up innocent civilians other than the people who detonate the bombs and those who sent them there?..