Defeat: Why America and Britain Lost Iraq

I watched the interview of Jonathan Steele and his book, "Defeat." I was impressed by his research and conclusions. Revealing information about Tony Blair's involvement in the decision to invade Iraq. ---BBB

Defeat: Why America and Britain Lost Iraq
by Jonathan Steele

Book Description:

As the dreadful reality of the coalition's defeat in Iraq begins to sink in, one question dominates Washington and London: Why? In this controversial new book, Jonathan Steele provides a stark and arresting answer: Bush and Blair were defeated from the day they decided to occupy the country. Steele describes the centuries of humiliation that have scarred the Iraqi national psyche, creating a powerful and deeply felt nationalism and spreading cultural landmines along the road to winning Baghdad. Steele shows for the first time how the invasion and occupation were perceived by ordinary Iraqis, whose feelings and experiences were completely ignored by Western policymakers. The result of such arrogance, Steele demonstrates, was a failure that will forever resonate with such dark chapters of American and British history as the Vietnam War and the Suez Canal crisis. Blending vivid reportage, informed analysis, and sweeping historical narrative, Defeat is the definitive post-mortem on this pivotal catastrophe.

Editorial Reviews

"Critics of the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq often begin with the faulty (or deliberately skewed) intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction. Even those politicians who continue to support the venture are willing to criticize the military and political mistakes that followed the initial thrust into Iraq. Steele, a senior correspondent for the Guardian, offers a deeper and more damning indictment. He asserts that the effort was preordained to fail, doomed by the twin sins of ignorance and arrogance. At the core of these sins was the inability of policy makers to comprehend that even the best-intentioned and "benign" occupation of a foreign nation usually means humiliation for the occupied and will trigger eventual resistance. Steele suggests that a rapid overthrow of Hussein followed by a rapid withdrawal of American and British forces could have resulted in a successful, or at least a tolerable, outcome. Instead, the invaders chose to "rebuild" Iraqi institutions, resulting in a prolonged stay. Although some of Steele's criticisms may be unfair, he presents a well-argued work demanding serious consideration."
?- Jay Freeman, Booklist

Superb study of a criminal war, April 24, 2008
By William Podmore (London United Kingdom)

Jonathan Steele, the Guardian's Senior Foreign Correspondent, has written an outstanding account of the war on Iraq. He argues that from the start the occupiers were bound to lose and that they have in fact already lost. As the Iraq Study Group said in December 2006, "The situation is deteriorating ... The ability of the United States to shape outcome is diminishing."

Why? Because nobody wants foreign troops in their country. As Steele writes, "Most occupations fail. In the Middle East, they fail absolutely." People there have a deep sense of national dignity, honour and sovereignty.

Opposing Saddam Hussein did not mean supporting the occupation, as Blair and Bush thought, in a mirror-image of their slander that opponents of the war were supporters of Saddam. After the invasion, some Iraqis thought `thank you and goodbye', but most thought just `goodbye'. The majority have consistently wanted foreign troops out immediately and approve of attacks on them. 92% of the unfortunate US troops in Iraq also want to leave within a year.

The occupiers have not achieved the politicians' claimed goals of democracy and a pro-Western regime, nor will they. More people have been killed in the occupation's five years than in Hussein's 32 years. Mass detention of innocent civilians in a brutal counter-insurgency war breeds resistance not support. In 2004, the USA estimated there were 5,000 insurgents, in 2005, 16,000, in 2006, 20,000 and in 2007, 70,000. 2007 was the deadliest year yet for the USA.

In a poll last December, 85% of the people of Basra thought that the British occupation had a negative effect; just 2% thought it positive. The British forces are serving a political, not a military, purpose. They are Downing Street's hostages.

Blair blames the continuing violence in Iraq on `blowback from global terrorism', as if it was a natural but unfortunate effect of his good war. But the war is a defensive war against foreign invasion not a clash of ideologies or of civilisations.

To the US and British ruling classes, victory is the only exit strategy, but their `victory first' means exit never. Staying is a trap, not a strategy. Exit is the only good option and the sooner the better.