Iraq: come on, we're on the same side!

There's nothing more stifling of intelligent debate than oversimplifying an opposing position in argument in order to criticise it. This is exactly what is happening over the issue of the links between Iraq and the suicide bombings.

Gary Younge (or perhaps his sub-editor) writes in a piece titled "Blair's blowback" in the Guardian that "of course those who backed the Iraq war refute any link with the London bombs - they are in the deepest denial". A few people may hold these views, but don't tell the rest of us what we think, thanks.

The Guardian writes that "Straw rejects war link to bombings". No he doesn't. Nowhere in the article does Straw reject some kind of a link. And despite listening to dozens of news bulletins, I have yet to hear Blair deny a link. Or you can go to the BBC site to read that "Ministers reject Iraq terror link". No they don't. Read the article.

In fact, what Gary and those others harping on about "the link" are stating is blindingly obvious, as evidenced by the Guardian's opinion poll summarised online this morning. There is a link in that Iraq is used as a justification again and again by the perpetrators of these crimes and their apologists. There is a link in that one of their demands (such as we can determine them) is that we withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Rather than just telling us what we all know already, I'd like some intelligent debate from those privileged to have a voice in the mainstream media. There are several arguments that reveal simply asserting "the link" to be an oversimplification and totally unconstructive:

• if Britain wasn't trying to help create a better Iraq, wouldn't we just move the problem? Wouldn't the terrorists attack someone else or find another excuse to attack us? Since there were attacks before the invasion of Iraq the government argues that this exactly is what would happen.
  
• would it be in our interests in the long-run to give in to the terrorists' demands? Or rather, should we let our foreign policy be influenced by the fear of terrorist events like 7/7? The government argues that we can't: we have to choose a foreign policy and pursue it consistently. The alternative is some kind of "I'm all right Jack" non-involvement, but where do you draw the line? We may be attacked because our trade policy supports a regime the terrorists object to. Do we change our policy then? Or maybe we're attacked just for being part of the "West". In today's interconnected world we have a duty to help resolve international problems. (The lack of consensus on the Iraq problem ahead of the invasion in 2003 was a disaster, for which the US must take much of the blame, but what exactly was the position of France? That there wasn't a problem? When the sanctions were killing thousands of Iraqis as well as being a corrupting influence, with no end in sight? Should we have normalised relations with Saddam, perhaps? Is that the sort of world we want to live in?).
  
• what exactly are we going to do about it? Let's say the government says you're right, fair cop, it was our fault (not those nice boys from Leeds or their al Qaeda mentors, no, we made them do it). Are we going to pull out of Iraq tomorrow and leave the Americans to try to stop a civil war? In any case it is already our policy to pull out as soon as we can (which perhaps the government should stress more), but we've now taken on a moral obligation to only hand over to Iraqi security forces when they are able to maintain order.

Instead, let's move beyond arguing that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, and focus on issues that something can be done about now. The energy and column inches that are being wasted on the "you were wrong to invade" arguments could be much better spent. For example, is the behaviour of the coalition soldiers in Iraq the best it could be? I hate to pick on Gary Younge again, but in his article he repeats as fact that "100,000 people" ... "have been killed in Iraq." This comes from a Lancet paper of October 2004 and is significantly higher than other estimates such as that of 24,865 (civilians only included) published today (see BBC story). Now, I don't know whether the real figure is nearer 100,000 or 24,865, but what bothers me is that the 100,000 figure is rhetoric - used for effect - and not analysis of the problem. But the figure of 24,865, based on media reports, can be discussed sensibly. It has increased since last October, for example, which the 100,000 figure seemingly hasn't. We can agree that one civilian death is too many, each is a personal tragedy and makes it more difficult to win "hearts and minds" - and, yes, exacerbates the problems we face with "insurgents" and terrorists.

Moreover, quoting "100,000" repeatedly does the Iraqis themselves a disservice. Looking at each incident allows the causes to be explored. Are there problems with the culture or training of the US and other forces in Iraq? Are the occupying forces unjustifiably using weapons (such as cluster-bombs) and tactics that take a heavy toll on civilians? How many civilians have been killed in cases of mistaken-identity (or bombing the wrong house)? Should procedures at road-blocks be changed?

Look, the invasion was 2 years ago, we've just had a General Election where Iraq was a major issue (and, in my opinion, undemocratically given undue prominence by a set of institutions, including the BBC, who are there to mediate between the public and the politicians, not set the agenda). We are where we are. It's time to start to discuss the issues we face now, not a decision that was taken over 2 years ago. It seems to me that voices of the left have more to gain by participating in a constructive debate, not a destructive one. Many on the left - who, with their concern for civil liberty, should have a lot to offer in these difficult times - are excluding themselves from this debate, by fighting an old battle. Guys, we're on the same side!