I was watching a very interesting programme about the Iraq war on Channel 4 this morning called 'The Iraq War Commision' where a public jury were set up of logistical, military, ministers and other politicians assessed whether the war in Iraq was legal, and what is the best thing that needs to be done. It also assessed the strength of Al-Qaeda etc. I have unfortunaly missed most of the episodes but the last one that i saw was great for information.
The first witness was a Al-Qaeda expert who said that the greatest threat to security worldwide is the growing refugee camps in Jordan. He put it bluntly "We pissed them off really badly: because they are desperate and forced to live in poverty without electricity and clean water. It is in these camps where extremism is bred very easily. For example in the early seventies the Black September terrorist group, who were responsible for the kidnap and murders of 11 Isreali Atheltes in the Munich games, held a terrorist campaign in one of the refugee camps in Jordan, against Jordanian forces who were trying to expel them from their country. Hence the reason these friendly arab nations haven't tried to expel these refugee camps. Hizbollah also have a huge following in Middle Eastern camps, they are less extremist than Al-Qaeda, and are more focused on destroying the Isrealis, which is bad enough. The problem however is these fanatics are being turned into Al-Qaeda suicide bombers, Hizbollah, although a terrorist group, didn't usually resort to suicide attacks, and preferred less effective tactics like firing missles 100 of miles away. Hizbollah was seen as weak after the stalemate with Isreal in the summer, so Al-Qaeda is gaining more ground.
The second largest threat, according to this expert (can't rememeber his name) , came from the Sunnis forming a mini Sunni State in central Iraq, where there is the second largest oil reserve in the world. This is also creates other difficulties, especially with the Iranians who are Shiite and are still bitter towards their neighbour after the war in the late 80's. If we allowed such a state to emerge the entire region would fall into a conflict with three camps, Al-Qaeda, the west and her muslim allies and Iran maybe with China or Russia defending their oil interests along side them.
Contary to common believe 90% of Al-Qaeda is actually now made up of Iraqis. A couple of years ago CIA estimates put it at 60%, this shows a growing bitterness towards the US and their coalition allies in Iraq, with the growing number of Iraqi civilians turning into refugees or being killed.
Anouther major problem is funding, any organization needs money to run, especially terrorist groups. The most worrying fact is that Al-Qaeda had and still has defence deals with private companies in the US and China. Also the Iraqi Shiites are being supplied by the Iranians, which the British and Americans have accussed them off since the bombings started against coalition forces. Also, just like the IRA did during the troubles, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups make money from perfectly legimate companies, for example it was found that Al-Qaeda made €300,000 out of a legal cleaning firm in Paris.
The next witness was Sir Malcolm Rifcind who's first comment to the panel was
"It really is as grave as most people have commented"
Not just in Iraq, but certainly, Riifcind comments, at home where the nation is greatly divided over the Iraq war. His main view was
"We set up the Iraqi government, which was democratically elected and should therefore have our support"
Which i completly agree with. He quoted a Saudi Arabian Prince who said
"The Coalition came in uninvited, they can hardly leave uninvited"
Anouther comment which i completly agree with. I seemed to share most of his points of view, for us to leave or even to form a timetable for withdraw would have many disastrous consequences. The media are only showing whats worth to be reporting, the bad stuff, not the good. They never report that infact coalition forces actually want to be in the MIddle East, largely, and be helping out. On a personal level i know a lot of soldiers who have been to Iraq and they all say that a) they want to be back there to help out b) they would be betrayed if we retreated out of the middle east.
When Sir Rifkind was asked what we should do if we were caught up with the growing tensions between Iran and the US he responded that if there was such a war over the Iranian enrichment programme then there would be consequences from the UK. Also what people don't really seem to get is that unlike the Second Iraq War ,the UN and the EU strongly supports economic and even militaristic action against the Iranian government. So we would have Germany, France and other powerful EU nations providing forces, with maybe help from Russia and China, it's not clear which side they are on as of yet. He said that this was a extremly unlikely situation and what we should be concentrating on what we are doing in Iraq, not what might happenen in Iran....anouther comment which i agree with.
When asked on our 'special relationsip' with Washington he said
"Its not to the benifit of us, the US, the EU or the world for us to distance ourselves away from the Americans"
It is true that the Americans are a extremly resourceful ally, we can't just turn away from them. To leave America's side will send a clear message to the Extremists that they are winning. He also said that we were not, and are not puppets of the United States. We invaded because most people at the time in the UK felt it was the right course of action, after all Parliament voted for the war against Iraq, so we can't pin it down on Tony Blair. Sir Rifkind said
"We're not really puppets, they have been instances where British Prime Ministers have openly shown their spite towards the Americans"
Famous examples involve Magerat Thacthers outburst over the BBC agaisnt the American invasion of Grenanda, John Major's disagreements with Clinton over Bosnia and it was well known that Churchill argued a lot with Roosevelt.
When asked if we should leave if the Americans wanted to stay, he said that we shouldn't be infuenced by the Americans if our presence is not diserary to eithier us, or the general effort. He also said that there's a limit to what we can ask our servicemen and women to do in such hostile situations. I disagree with this, people join the army and are perfectly aware of the threats facing them , it's not like they are forced into the army and they have to accept that death is a key part of life in the army.
When asked what would happen if the coalition forces retreated out of the middle east he said that the Saudi Arabian, Egyptian and Turkish governments will feel the need to put their own forces on the ground. This could escalate in a regional conflict, dragging Isreal down with it. This would mean yet anouther world war as Russia and China linger on the sidelines seeing wich side would benifit them more. He said what needs to happen now is that the moderate and stable governments of Saudi Arabi, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc should try extremly hard to have more influence over Iraq and form a very warm relationship to it, which to thier credit they are doing at the moment .
When asked about a timetable for withdrawal he felt that it was a very bad idea to have a rigid timetable for withdrawal. It gives out the wrong message to the extremists that they would have to only wait to a certain date where they can cause mass havoc and prepare for a revolution in Iraq. It's also not flexible, what happens if that date is unfeasible in the end? He said
"We should EXPECT to leave by the end of the year, not commit ourselves to that date"
I think there is one more episode to watch. It is a very interesting programme and is great if your interested in the Iraq War and the moralities surronding it. For more visit www.channel4.com/iraqcommision.
