Iraq and the Lancet Report

An Apocalyptic Slaughter of the Innocents.

That's all I can find to say about the recent Lancet Report  which puts the casualties in Iraq since the 2003 invasion at well over 600,000, and that's on top of the 1.5 million acknowledged deaths caused by the "genocidal" (Denis Halliday, UN Under Secretary General) sanctions regime from 1990 onwards.


Whether we like it or not, this makes a strong case for Tony Blair being a prima facie War Criminal, given not only the dissembling leading up to the invasion, but it's botched aftermath.

The worst bit is that he has made us in the Labour Party ambivalent and effectively complicit to what has gone on in Iraq, as it is now effectively relegated to an annoying interlude, a silly distraction from this, the most successful and just Government in our modern history.

As far as the Conference went, it was like Iraq didn't exist, and as for the War? It never happened.

The language used in the media is just breath taking. Iraq is described as Tony Blair's "folly", thought of a "mistake", labelled a "blunder",  we are told it is time "to move the debate on".

Sickeningly mendacious banalities that belie the inhuman and relentless suffering of a people who are desperate for some kind of normal life in the midst of a massive insurgency which has led the UK Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannat, to call for our troops to come home "sooner rather than later" as our presence "serves to exacerbate rather than ameliorate" the situation.

John Pilger in the New Statesman tells us that the proof of the Coalition as the problem is that in July 1,666 bombs were detonated by the so called insurgents of which 70% were directed at Coalition troops, 20% at the new Police Force, and 10% of these devices were aimed at rival Iraqi groups so nailing the myth of Civil War and a sectarianism.

Dannat also accuses the Prime Minister of "being naive"  if he believes democracy can ever take root if the current arrangements continue.

The Chief of Staff, when pressed on the Today Programme, admitted that Iraq could "break" the army.
"I want there to be and army in five years time", he concluded.

None of this, of course has anything with Dannat's concern for the Iraqi people. It is purely operational pragmatism and should be listened to all the more readily as it is objective and rational.

We can be "liberal with a small l crying in front of the TV", as Billy Bragg put it, or business will go on at Westminster as the Labour Government continues to drive Britain forward and if Blair changed his mind and stood for re- election then I would vote for him without a second thought.

But the War and it's aftermath diminishes, sullies, pollutes and taints the Government, the Party, the country and every UK citizen as we ignore it's horrific tragedy and pretend in reality that it never happened, the very ambivalence that allows terrible things to happen everywhere, every day, every hour, every moment and every second, be it domestic violence, petty criminality or in this case, genocide.


Display: Sort:

Re: Iraq and the Lancet Report (#1)

An interesting if somewhat scattergun rant.  The question remains "what it Saddam remained in power?" Do you really think that the Hussein regime would have remained stable indefinitely?.. Do you think that with a more militant Islam that  the Hussein regime (That only paid it lip-service to Islam. ) could have withstood the Shia Muslims aspirations from both within Iraq's borders and from Iran?.. Do think that the aspirations of the Sunnies, the Kurds, and other ethnic and tribal groupings within Iraq could hold the nation in its present form together?.. That's not counting the various territorial claims of Iran, Syria, and Jordan, following the fall of the Caliphate in 1917.
Saddam may have hung on for a few more years. But with this level of pressure, the inevitable would have happened without any form of restraint. If you think things are a mess now the collapse of the Hussein regime would be far worse, due to the explosive mix of  pan Arab politics. This would truly be devastating through out the entire region.
The real tragedy of the situation is that the nettle should have been grasped at the time of the first Gulf war. But the UN was politically weak. Now we all live with the consequences of the UN's inaction.

Howlers Hwole........ the ranting bit....
You also mention the media and the war on the government by it. certainly the BBC is in the forefront of this anti-government campaign ever since Greg Dyke was removed from the Director General's Post...( "God bless him.... he gave us better contracts, and sorted out our pensions".) Now just about every news programme has some snide anti-government spin in it.( I'm expecting postman Pat to be interviewed for his "carefully edited" unfavourable comment on the subject soon.) You also mentioned the New Statesman which is the most famous magazine for being wrong on all subjects. If it told me that black was black I certainly wouldn't believe it.
As to be Chief of staff's comments on breaking the British Army. I haven't heard so much claptrap since Billy Bragg claimed to be a singer.
And let's be honest, in the world of realpolitik.  The war in Iraq truly is a small war a long  long way away.

Re: Iraq and the Lancet Report (#2)

As a Socialist and advocate of International Solidarity, that last comment chilled me to the bone

Re: Iraq and the Lancet Report (#3)

"As a Socialist and advocate of International Solidarity, that last comment chilled me to the bone"
It's this sort of naivety that chills me to mine

Re: Iraq and the Lancet Report (#4)

Maybe you should both invest in a good jumper!

Re: Iraq and the Lancet Report (#6)

The last paragraph of my first posting was meant to be ironic. whilst I generally don't agree with Dermots rant, this article was recently sent to me. Unfortunately I don't know where it comes from, but it certainly makes Dermot,s point about ambivalence.

In the United States, the dead and wounded of the Iraq war haven't been so fortunate as to be grown accustomed to. They've been ignored. Chalked up to an abstraction indistinguishable from the kind of "dead" Americans see on their nightly television shows and in Shwartzenegger movies. "In any given period during prime time viewing hours," the Boston Globe once reported <http://pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-394.htm>, "there are at least 50 people killed, shot, maimed, or raped across the spectrum of broadcast and cable television channels." The dead and wounded of the Iraq war are barely visible because they can't compete with the numbers in prime time-neither in factual numbers nor in dramatic effect. Prime time's dead are more interesting. They're simple. They usually have no names, make no emotional demands, and they're excellent props for plots that use them as means to obvious ends: within forty-eight minutes-if it's an hour-long drama and the ads for vaginal lubricants and other orificial commodities are excluded-"justice" has been done, the dead have been avenged, usually by killing those who killed them, and wisecracks have been exchanged all around. The credits, as they roll, are as meaningless as the names on a war memorial. The 11 o'clock news, local as it is, won't even mention the real dead in those real war zones far, far away.

Re previous comment (#8)

Re previous comment (#9)

Re previous comment (#10)

Re previous comment (#11)

Re previous comment (#12)

Re previous comment (#13)

Re previous comment (#14)

Re: Iraq and the Lancet Report (#5)

Of course saddam hussein was responsible for cloise to close to 3 million deaths when his wars are considered.

This study is above even the most credible anti war movements.

Lets also make a few important points:

This survey used just 47 cluster points (the technique it used) . The UN report from iraq in 04 used over 2000.

By their own admission, they did not use demographics (massively important in a place like iraq)

Those two points along show how very crazy these results would be, though suffice to say, we all know the ammount of deaths there has been is awful enough.

Re: Iraq and the Lancet Report (#7)

Kelvin Mackenzie says "Bring back Saddam" on the politics show...23/10/06