Redeployment of British troops shows flaws of Iraq war
Balder Hageraats

The decision by the Blair government to fulfil the request by the US to redeploy British troops (the first battalion of the Black Watch) to Baghdad highlights one of the fundamental problems that lies at the heart of the war in Iraq: domestic political interests are too close to the decision making processes behind the war. In modern-day democracies, it simply is no longer acceptable to the domestic audiences to either go into a war that is not borne out of absolute necessity- either moral necessity or directly defensive- and it is no longer acceptable to use soldiers as partisan political tools. The decision to go to war broke the "necessity test", and now Tony Blair is breaking the second test by essentially supporting George W. Bush's bid for re-election by providing such highly significant support to his presidency one week before the polls open.

Aware of the tight leash politicians are on nowadays when it comes to sending soldiers into harm's way, Blair enthusiastically played along with the White House in selling the war as one of actual necessity (first Weapons of Mass Destruction, followed by the current line that the world is safer because it has one brutal dictator less). Afraid for the voter backlash in next year's elections, Blair continues to blur the picture by not admitting the fact that the war was indeed one of choice, not necessity.

Now, just before the US elections, Blair commits the other political- as well as moral- crime of using British soldiers in order to support his ally in Washington. Again, knowing the dangers at home of playing with British troops in such a manner, Downing Street spokespeople are spinning the redeployment as a "military choice", not a political one. Unfortunately, in Iraq, and especially during the weeks leading up to the 2nd of November, it is not possible to make a decision like this without it being political. Even in the unlikely event that the motives were truly purely military it still remains crystal clear that it plays into the hands of the current presidential incumbent, and the implications and interpretations are political, whatever the motives.

The advantages to the Bush administration are clear: Bush can point to the strength of his "international coalition", showing that not only countries are willing to participate, but that they are also sharing the dangers and costs in lives. Moreover, the US forces are currently active in large scale assaults on rebel positions in Fallujah and other cities as part of a strategy that also seems purely political: Bush needs to show his determination and clarity in order to contrast himself with "flip flopping" Kerry. By allowing the redeployment, Blair is in effect supporting these political motivations.

Time will tell whether or not the British and American public will decide that their leaders are indeed involved in (domestic) political, rather than military, strategies in Iraq. The British, already highly sceptical about the true motives of going to war in the first place, seem most likely to show their disapproval in the next elections. More important than the political consequences for Blair and Bush, however, are the consequences for the international community.

The political games that are being played with soldiers from democratic regimes make future involvement abroad much less likely. If this would only reduce the chances of another disastrous military operation like the one in Iraq, it is not necessarily a bad thing. However, the broken trust between politicians and voters will make it also much more difficult to intervene military when it is actually a necessity, either because of a foreign genocide like in Sudan or when an acute threat to homeland security actually does exist. This will be the true cost to the world; Blair's actions are making it increasingly hard for future governments to act forcefully when they need to.

The events in Iraq, London and Washington show once more the importance of having military action only when it is with truly international acceptance and leadership. It is unlikely that a single nation will ever be perceived to be sufficiently sensitive to international opinion, and the political games that are being played at the moment highlight all the more clearly that truly effective intervention should come under the flag of the United Nations or other multinational command structures.

In the end, a world where national leaders unilaterally decide on international intervention- regardless of their motives- will not be one that is perceived to be fair or just. Without non-national leadership, any military intervention will be prone to perceptions of imperialism, neo-colonialism or will simply be seen to be motivated by national partisan politics. Leaders of democratic countries such as the UK and the US have a responsibility to be particularly aware of this, given that the very foundations of their power come from the same principles. Blair should realise that by putting his own instincts over the wishes of the large majority of his own people and that of the world in general, he undermines any possibility for a truly safe and secure 21st century.

* Balder Hageraats - Economista y colaborador del Instituto de Estudios sobre Conflictos y Acción Humanitaria (IECAH)
Madrid, 30 de octubre de 2004.