Saturday, 27 March 2010


There is no doubt that Sadam Hussein was a murdering tyrant, but you have to wonder if the mess that has replaced this once friend of the United States (and therefore the UK) is any better.

We were promised for all our tax pounds (or dollars) and all those lives, Iraqi and Western, that democracy would be brought to the country.

But today Iraq is heading for a dangerous and uncertain future after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, lost the election narrowly but refused to step down. That’s democracy for you?

It has taken 3 weeks of counting marred by accusations of fraud, but in the final count the nationalist Iraqiya bloc led by Ayad Allawi won 91 seats, to 89 for Mr Maliki's State of Law.

Mr Maliki accused election officials of fixing the result and has demanded a recount. He said he did not accept the result. His supporters have threatened a return to sectarian violence if Mr Allawi were to be declared the winner. There have been demonstrations in Baghdad and chiefs from southern Iraq, the power base of Mr Maliki’s State of Law party, have said that there will be a "major escalation" unless there was a recount.

However, officials have refused, and election observers from the United Nations have reported only small irregularities. The UN representative in Iraq said that the elections had been credible and he called on all parties to accept the result.

In the weeks that follow it is likely then that sectarian violence will erupt again, as the parties battle for supremacy. Neither of course can form a government alone and both will be looking to the third-placed Iraqi National Alliance to work in coalition with them.

As I read this sad story in
The Telegraph, it occurred to me that once again the US and UK poked their noses where they were not wanted. First they removed a dictator without the slightest notion of what or who to put in his place. Then they forced a so-called democracy on a country which a hundred years before they had cobbled together, ignorant of, or at least uninterested in, the composition of it, from three very separate regions with different peoples with different religious beliefs and customs.

The chances of this working were so slim that they really were discountable.

Under Sadam the Iraqi people were lacked democracy, and with weapons that we sold him Sadam kept them in check, and yes, there was slaughter: gassings, torture and murders.

But, if you kept your nose clean, got on with your work, and didn’t criticise the government, most could go about their business without fear of violence or intimidation. Iraq was relatively progressive. Women were relatively free to take up careers, adopt Western dress, and enjoy some level of freedom.

All of that has gone. Quite apart from the misery wished upo
n innocent people during “Shock and Awe”, the frightful violence that has been visited upon the Iraqis by the incompetence displayed by the conquering governments has wrecked lives. From leaving open the borders to allow Al Qaeda to penetrate the country to the foul atrocities of a small number of Western troops we have let these people down badly.

When, oh when, will
Stupid White Men learn to look after their own countries, instead of poking their noses into things they do not understand? Lord knows there was enough wrong with the UK to have kept Tony Blair occupied for years.

Pictured: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his main rival Ayad Allawi (GETTY IMAGES), Iraq, and Torture in Abu Ghraib.


  1. Ah the benefits of democracy. Clearly Mr Maliki is peeved that he did not think to fix the election the first time around. He can’t be so naive as to have though he would win it fair and square? Could he? Well he the poor old Iraqis are democracy virgins after al!l I amazed that they did not get any advice from their friends in the Labour party about postal votes, but doubtless that e-mail has winged its way from the foreign office in time for the demanded re-count. Such a shame they have already lost the election but I am sure they wont let that stand in the way of what the west wants. So Mr M better get on that phone to Mr Obama and be ready to do a serious amount of butt licking.

  2. Munguin. I'm left to wonder why Maliki didn't have a word with Karzia... when it comes to "winning" elections he's a dab hand. But of course, the postal votes...erm... must lost. I can see wee Dougie Alexander having to pop across and sort that out.

    I've a sneaking suspicion, Munguin, that butt licking, as you so delicately call it, has no effect whatsoever or President Obama.

    The whole of the Western world is having to learn new diplomatic techniques here.... Brown is totally perplexed. No matter how hard he tries Obama just disregards him...

    Could it be we have a man of principle in the White House? Jeez, that will be a problem for Brown and Sarko

  3. But if the butt licking, that George W liked so much, does not work on Obama how come Mr Karzia was allowed to erhem "win" the election and have everything declared all nice and above bored?

  4. Mr Maliki has oviously not yet counted the votes of people who are spending a year dead for tax purposes, they always come in a bit late. So he better hang on to power in a democratic sort of way until then.