X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

The Iraq fury still burns, fuelled by unanswered questions

5 March 2013

3:23 PM

5 March 2013

3:23 PM

I was fascinated to read the reaction to Nick Cohen’s article expressing his view that after 10 years he still believed the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. The heart of Nick’s argument is this:

‘I regret much: the disbanding of the Iraqi army; a de-Ba’athification programme that became a sectarian purge of Iraq’s Sunnis; the torture of Abu Ghraib; and a failure to impose security that allowed murderous sectarian gangs to kill tens of thousands.For all that, I say, I would not restore the Ba’ath if I had the power to rewind history. To do so would be to betray people who wanted something better after 35 years of tyranny.’

I posted the piece on my Facebook wall as something all opponents of the war should read, even if they disagreed with Nick’s viewpoint. The reaction was immediate and passionate. Pretty much everyone disagreed with me. One thought it was ‘bogus’; another said Nick had missed the point because the choice to go to war was not driven by a moral imperative, one former cheerleading interventionist suggested the piece was ‘ahistorical’ for refusing to engage with the suffering inflicted on the Iraq people by the war. A former Observer colleague said the piece failed to engage with the ‘blatant, grievous lie’ that took us to war in the first place. An old friend with whom I often spar on Israel, made the related point that ‘we were sold a lie, not Nick Cohen’s reasons for war’. A respected investigative journalist chipped in with this: ‘Looking back, It’s also a bit cheeky of Nick (to put it mildly) to say the good war was only spoiled by the bad disbanding the army & sectarian de-baathification, when Nick did so much at the time to promote Ahmed Chalabi and his CIA funded Iraqi National Congress.’


The post that came closest to capturing my own position was this one: ‘I tire of the “it was for your own good” line from westerners, as much as I tire of the tendencies among antis that Nick describes well.’

Apart from my obvious pride in the quality of the contributions on my Facebook wall, I also feel a sense of unease as someone who was against intervention. It is too easy for us to say that we also wanted Saddam removed, but by other means. No other means were available at the time.

Ten years on, the Iraq war still has the power to to test friendships and unsettle the liberal consensus. And despite the multiple inquiries there are still some serious questions to be answered. One incident that would still reward investigation is the spying operation on the United Nations uncovered on the eve of war by GCHQ translator Katharine Gun. I wrote about this almost-forgotten episode in this weekend’s Observer.

Jack Straw, then the foreign secretary, has not been challenged on whether he authorised the operation to go ahead, although it is almost certain that he did. Whatever we think of the war, it seems that GCHQ staff were taking their orders directly from the National Security Agency in Maryland during this period, something surely worthy of further comment.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close