The prevailing paradigm for debate in the British press and beyond vis-à-vis the British invasion and occupation of Iraq with the United States five years ago, continues to singles out two main reasons on why the British joined the invasion. The first reason, upheld by those who advocated the invasion, is that Britain is the United States’s most loyal and principled partner and as such should stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the Americans; the second reason claims that Britain tagged along with the United States because it is a subservient and pliant ‘poodle’. I’d argue that the two contending positions are two sides of the same coin and that to explain away Britain’s contribution to the invasion solely in reference to its relationship with the United States is very misleading.
To begin, Continue reading
Five years on from the US-UK invasion ofIraqand it is still commonplace in the literature of the British antiwar movement thatBritaininvadedIraqwith theUnited Statespurely out of Blair’s subservient attachment to George W. Bush. In the introduction to the official manual of the anti-war movement, “Stop War: The story of Britain’s biggest mass movement”, written by Andrew Murray and Lindsey German, the President of the movement and former Labour MP, Mr. Tony Benn asserts that Britain was “taken” into the war “at the behest of President Bush and his neo-con apparatchiks…”. The chair of the movement goes on to state thatBritainwas “dragged” into this invasion “at the instigation” of theUnited States. The evidence, as we shall see, simply does not exist for such assertions.
Yet such assertions are more or less repeated ad verbatim in all walks of life in the UK, Continue reading