tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post5048277597589068304..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Fake News and Fake HistoryPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-17255508140437713792017-02-08T12:16:56.043+00:002017-02-08T12:16:56.043+00:00I think, as well as the fact that people will tend...I think, as well as the fact that people will tend to wish soldiers well as soon as the fighting starts, the shift in opinion was driven by something else. The first phase of the war seemed to go very well; the fighting was over relatively quickly, and you had all the drama of Saddam’s statue being torn down (granted, we now know that was staged by the US army for the cameras, but it was presented as something bona fide at the time). I remember the likes of Andrew Marr and (especially) Andrew Rawnsley loudly proclaiming that Blair had been vindicated and all of his critics proved wrong.<br /><br />It was only towards the end of 2003 and getting into 2004 that a few things became clear. First of all, the armed resistance to the occupation began in earnest; the officers and soldiers in the Iraqi army hadn’t been keen on fighting to the last man to keep Saddam in power, but once he was gone they reorganised themselves as local militias and started attacking US troops. Secondly, the full picture of what the US planned to do with Iraq came into focus, and it was worse than the direst predictions of the anti-war movement; everything from the beserker free-market policies they imposed on the Iraqi economy, and the carpetbagging by Bush administration cronies, to the torture chambers at Abu Ghraib and the destruction of cities like Falluja. <br /><br />By the way, even though public opinion shifted against the war, I don’t think the whole picture of what the US was doing in Iraq after 2003 is nearly as well known as it should be. The sectarian violence that reached a peak in 2006–07 is still usually presented as something that happened in spite of the best efforts of the occupiers; US officials had been quoted declaring their intention to organise Shia fundamentalists into death squads (the ‘Salvador option’, they called it), but somehow they still get to pose as helpless by-standers in the face of Shia-Sunni bloodletting. And I don’t think many people are aware that the occupation forces were the single greatest cause of violent death in Iraq after 2003; that’s so far out of synch with the way Iraq was usually reported, it seems incredible, but it’s been well documented. <br /><br />Take this BBC report on the best academic survey of mortality in Iraq under the occupation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256/; it does tell you how many people were killed, but nowhere does it mention that the occupation forces were the biggest killers. That should have been the main focus of the story, in the headline and the opening paragraph, but it’s not even mentioned; you have to follow the link and read the report yourself. I guess Blair, Campbell and Lord Hutton really did a number on them, no-one wants to step out of line after that. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, I was watching a BBC report where their security correspondent explained that one of the killers had been brainwashed by a jihadist preacher while in prison; he said that the first thing the jihadist had done was to show them photos of Abu Ghraib. The reporter described Abu Ghraib as a place where ‘rogue soldiers had abused some prisoners’; he must know that’s a flat-out lie—there was nothing ‘rogue’ about those soldiers, the orders to waive the Geneva Conventions came right down from Rumsfeld at the top, and torture was systematic—but you can’t say that sort of thing in polite company. The respectable view of what happened in Iraq after 2003 is a pretty striking example of ‘fake history’, and it’s been internalised even by a lot of people who opposed the war; it’s okay to say that the war was foolish, ill-judged, etc., but if you say that it was a crime from start to finish and from top to bottom, that puts you beyond the pale. <br />Ednoreply@blogger.com