The grammar of deceit utilised by Bush, Blair and sundry
neocon/neolib apologists to justify the war has lost all credibility.

Despite the embedded journalists and non-stop propaganda, the bloody
images refuse to go away: the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops
is the only meaningful solution. Real history moves deep within the memory
of a people, but is always an obstacle to imperial fantasists: the sight
of John Reid and the Iraqi prime minister brought back memories of Anthony
Eden and Nuri Said in Downing Street just before the 1958 revolution that
removed the British from Iraq.

The argument that withdrawal will lead to civil war is slightly absurd,
since the occupation has already accelerated and exacerbated ethnic and
religious tensions in Iraq.

Divide and rule is the deadly logic of
colonial rule - and signs that the US is planning an exit strategy coupled
with a long-term presence is evident in the new Iraqi constitution, pushed
through by US proconsul Zalmay Khalilzad. This document is a defacto
division of Iraq into Kurdistan (a US-Israeli protectorate), Southern Iraq
(dominated by Iran) and the Sunni badlands (policed by semi-reliable
ex-Baathists under state department and Foreign Office tutelage). What is
this if not an invitation to civil war? The occupation has also created a
geopolitical mess.

Recent events in Basra are linked to a western fear of
Iranian domination. Having encouraged Moqtada al-Sadr’s militias to resist
the slavishly pro-Iranian faction, why are the British surprised when they
demand real independence?

The Iranian mullahs, meanwhile, are chuckling - literally. Some months
ago, when the Iranian vice-president visited the United Arab Emirates for
a regional summit, he was asked by the sheikhs whether he feared a US
intervention in Iran. The Iranian leader roared with laughter: "Without
us, the US could never have occupied Afghanistan or Iraq. They know that
and we know that invading Iran would mean they would be driven out of
those two countries."

Meanwhile, there is the war at home. A war against civil liberties masked
as a defence against terror. In the face of terror attacks one particular
mantra, shrouded in untruth, is repeated: "We shall not permit these
attacks to change our way of life." But they do. "Oh, may no more a
foreign master’s rage/ With wrongs yet legal, curse a future age!" wrote
Alexander Pope.

Three centuries later, we have Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and
Britain’s own state security prison, Belmarsh, in which some of those held
indefinitely without trial have been driven mad and transferred to
Broadmoor. Nor should one forget the public execution of Jean Charles de
Menezes and the attempted cover-up that followed.

There will be no progress towards peace so long as Tony Blair remains
prime minister. He was re-elected with only 35 % of the popular vote and
barely a fifth of the overall electorate - the lowest percentage secured
by any governing party in recent European history. Britain is undergoing a
crisis of representation: a majority of the population opposed the war in
Iraq; a majority favours withdrawing British troops; 66% believe that the
attacks on London were a direct result of Blair’s decision to send troops
to Iraq. All good reasons why we march and demand an end to war,
occupation and terror on Saturday.

The Guardian

Tariq Ali