The Paris attacks were not a consequence of the invasion of Iraq

If the rise of ISIS was a consequence of the invasion of Iraq, it would be difficult not to conclude that the recent atrocities in Paris were, to some degree, a consequence of the invasion of Iraq.

If that was the case, further uncomfortable conclusions would be unavoidable. Those who actioned and abetted the 2003 invasion would, in some sense, be rendered culpable for what just happened in Paris. Of course this is very different from suggesting that they desired this outcome. Children may enjoy playing with matches without any suggestion that they desire to burn their homes down. Nevertheless, that sometimes is the outcome, and we should note that their despairing parents will feel no compunction about yelling at them straight – ‘you burned the house down!’ They won’t feel the need to qualify this assertion, and factor-in the child’s actual desires when they played with the matches, after being implored, time and again, not to do so.

Similarly, if the Paris attacks were a consequence of the invasion of Iraq, surely doubt would be cast on the appropriateness of the current response. If the merciless attack on Iraq led to the merciless attack on Paris, should we not despair of leaders who pledge a ‘merciless’ counter-attack? Shouldn’t the cycle of mercilessness stop here, better late than never?

Indeed, if Iraq led us to Paris, wouldn’t it be time to stop taking advice from the politicians and journalists who led us into Iraq? Shouldn’t their opinions be mud by now? Shouldn’t we be listening to alternative thinkers? Wouldn’t all those Labour MPs currently standing shoulder to shoulder with a Conservative government be better advised to find themselves a leader of their own – perhaps a politician who has a track record of better judgement in such matters? Perhaps one who campaigned against the 2003 invasion, and isn’t scared to mention the names of those funding ISIS? Any suggestions?

Clearly, many well-placed people would have a lot to lose if such a connection was established. Various strategies are currently at play to prevent this from happening. The simplest is omission. History is presented as beginning with the Paris attacks: Civilisation was minding its own business when the barbarians breached the city walls and began the carnage. Of course this strategy won’t work with everyone, some people do insist upon remembering stuff. So the next best gambit is to deny any causal relationship – no mean feat given the succession of events:

2002 Iraq is a functioning country – deeply troubled – but functioning;
2005 Iraq is a pile of rubble and corpses;
2006 Islamic State in Iraq arises amid the carnage.

It’s hard not to see a chain of causality there. Here’s a popular but rather weak attempt to break the link:

You can’t say that ISIS is a product of the invasion of Iraq because they are just a bunch of savage lunatics.

The suggestion here seems to be that because the aims and objectives of ISIS cannot be seen as a cogent or meaningful response to the invasion then the invasion cannot be said to have led to ISIS’s creation. But then no one is suggesting that the specific nature of ISIS was forged by the invasion. Of course ISIS didn’t have to turn out exactly like ISIS. But considering what was done to Iraq it was all but certain that something hellish would be sucked-in. ISIS was certainly a more likely outcome in Iraq than a network of sewing circles, or for that matter, a stable, representative democracy.

This is the sense of ‘caused’ John Pilger alludes to, drawing parallels with Cambodia in the 1970s. I hope the following ‘only connect’ doesn’t oversimplify his argument:



To put it another way, if you turn an earthly landscape into a Hieronymus Bosch landscape you shouldn’t be too surprised when it becomes populated by axe-wielding skeletons. That is the sense in which, some would argue, Iraq led to ISIS, and so led to Paris.

Importantly, we should note that this sense of ‘caused’ also stands up to a key counterfactual. What if there had been no 2003 invasion? Let’s say it was shelved due to lack of international support, and the persistently-unfortunate citizens of Iraq still suffered under Saddam. Obviously the world would be a very different place. Indeed, knowing the fickleness of western power, by now Saddam might well have been rehabilitated, and joining hands with the US in the destruction of, say, Iran (stranger things have happened – Gadhafi, Mao, Stalin.) For all that uncertainty, one outcome seems vanishingly unlikely – the rise of Islamic State within Saddam’s Iraq. That is surely a crucial sense in which the invasion can be said to have led to the creation of ISIS.

In the face of all this you can understand why some commentators find it easier to throw in the towel, and admit the causal connection. Not that this heralds any change in strategy, of course. The answer to bombs must always be more bombs. Denial of a connection only changes to, ‘so what if there is a connection? Who cares how we got here? – ISIS are an existential threat and we must do something!’

Along with the owl-eyed ‘Well what would you do?!?!’ ‘do something’ is of course code for ‘kill people’. Blood for blood, regardless how many innocents are killed in the process, regardless of whether it further enflames the situation, regardless of whether it increases the likelihood of reprisals in our own cities. And when, in league with Assad, we’ve finished with ISIS, we can then move back onto…..Assad. And when we’ve finished with Assad, we can deal with whatever demonic acronym has been sucked into the vacuum left by him.

This is why it is so important to deny any connection between Paris and Iraq, or failing that, deny the relevance of that connection. Because if we did consider the record we would be forced to contemplate the unthinkable. We would be forced to doubt our previous conduct and consider change.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn Unelectable?

As our media and political establishment continue to impress upon us, the Labour Party has no hope of entering office with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Whatever the truth of this claim, it needs unpacking.

It could mean that his politics are so intrinsically unattractive that even if they were presented dispassionately to the voting public he would remain unelectable. We might call this the democratic reason to call him unelectable. On the other hand it could be taken to mean that certain people, more powerful than the average voter, simply will not tolerate him being elected. They will strive to misrepresent him and his agenda, so that the public will be dissuaded from voting for him – not least by ceaselessly impressing upon us his un-electability – who wants to back a loser? We can fairly and dispassionately call this the undemocratic reason he is judged unelectable – a transparent case of power usurping democracy.

A clue can be inferred from his opponents’ focus on the personal and irrelevant. If his policies are so unattractive why the need to concentrate on his beard, or shoes, or reluctance to sing patriotic songs, or pledge commitment to acts of genocide against as yet unformulated enemies? If his social and economic policy is intrinsically abhorrent, and such a sure turn-off to the public, why not concentrate on that? He’d be very happy to discuss it, and presumably dig his own grave that way.

Indeed the sheer ferocity of the attacks against him don’t suggest complacency on the part of his critics, not as one would expect if there really was no chance of him winning. He can’t be hopelessly unelectable and the most dangerous man in Britain. So let’s assume he could win. Let’s imagine that, given a fair hearing, the public really might vote him into office. Why then the campaign to write him off?

First there are his obvious enemies. As a man of the left, we can assume that he is opposed by anyone significantly to his right (as equally we can assume that almost everyone to his left supports him – beggars can’t be choosers.) Obviously this includes default enemies of Labour – the current government and any other rival political parties. In addition, given his economic plans, much of the world of big-business and finance; companies benefitting from tax avoidance and zero hour contracts; companies benefitting from a cowed and demoralised workforce. He will certainly find few friends in the boardrooms of those industries he has earmarked for renationalisation, or amidst our large and happy band of arms manufacturers. Membership of CND, Stop the War and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign conjures a wide range of highly vocal adversaries. Likewise, humble flag-wavers from Alf Garnet to Lord Helpus will see him as a threat to all they hold dear. Last but not least, there is the corporate world’s mouthpiece - the corporate mass media.

Trickier to untangle are the motives of the enemy within, within the Labour party that is. We can again usefully divide these nay-sayers into two distinct groups. First there are those who oppose him ideologically, for many of the same reasons as above: Those who remain wedded to the Thatcher/Blair economic project; Atlantic patriots, those pro-NATO pro-Trident diehards who can’t abide the idea of the UK losing its long-lost world player status; and of course there are those who directly assisted Blair in his war crimes. The last thing they can stomach is being led by someone who had the good judgement to oppose the disaster from the start.

Finally, we move onto potentially the most interesting group – those within his party who secretly agree with his policies but oppose him for reasons of political expediency. While many of them first joined the party in the hope of enacting policies well to the left of anything Corbyn would dare to suggest in 2015 they now see him as a threat to their seats and a threat to the party gaining office. After years of campaigning against project-Thatcher presumably they now see its consequences as irreversible. Too much has already been privatised, the unions have been crushed, and the mainstream media are uniformly satisfied with the consequences. Maggie won - there is no alternative.

The choice as they see it then is electoral disaster with Corbyn, or another stab at Thatcherism-lite under the leadership of one of the translucent figures to his right. It’s certainly a schizophrenic strategy. They find themselves shouting down their own political convictions, coming as they do from the mouth of someone braver than themselves. All this in the hope that they can get themselves and their party re-elected on an agenda contrary to their true desires.

The great shame is that the one thing that certainly will render Corbyn unelectable will be lack of support from within his party. Labour’s opponents can be relied upon to continue the blitzkrieg of slander and smears – politics as usual. But if those within his party won’t struggle to deflect and correct the misrepresentations, and argue the benefits, it really will be game over. A sad irony for those who secretly support his policies.