Aaronovitch to war critics: "move on". posted by Richard Seymour

It is time to get a life, and stop harping on about the war. It is over now, and what we must do is support democracy in Iraq. That is David Aaronovitch in The Guardian today revealing the lessons he has learned from the elections on Sunday.

I wouldn't subject readers to the unholy stink of sanctimony and logical confusion that characterizes Aaronovitch's column, so I'll cut to the chase. He says that we must not set a date for withdrawal from Iraq, and of those who say we should, he adds:

The point is, who judges? Do we listen to and consult with the elected Iraqis, or do we just ignore them? Never mind the men and women of Mesopotamia, do we take democracy seriously? Don't the politicians of Iraq, who have refused to be drawn into ethnic or religious conflict despite the most agonising provocations, deserve such consideration?

A unilateral decision about troop withdrawal would be a fit continuation of the west's record of amorality and error in Iraq. But, after Sunday, we have no more excuses. The elections, so vilified in some quarters, were a revelation. Those anti-war people who could escape their hooks saw millions of ordinary people delighting in the process of voting, and many thousands risking everything (where we would risk nothing) to cast their ballot.

That, now, is all that matters. Not whether you were for or against the war, for or against Blair, for or against Bush. Are you for or against democracy in Iraq? The rest is air.

Forget, if you like, that Aaronovitch cannot distinguish between supporting democracy and supporting a colonial occupation. Forget also that he can't tell the difference between criticising shambolic elections conducted under occupation and rejecting the legitimate demands for real elections in toto. Just think about this: In every available poll, the Iraqi people are saying that they want the occupiers out - in overwhelming numbers.

Yet such a decision would be "unilateral"? And why does he think he is entitled to this conclusion: because Iraqis turned out (in what numbers we do not yet know) to vote in the Sunday elections. The one poll in which they couldn't express an opinion on the occupation, and Aaronovitch thinks that legitimizes our remaining there.

No, it is time for those who have been making excuses for the occupation to move on. There is no excuse now: the Iraqis want the occupiers out and soon; the elections have been held and the occupiers have deemed them successful, so there is a process for Iraqi self-governance in place (an excuse previously used by some to support the continued occupation was that it would leave a 'vacuum'); the moral failure of the occupation is established beyond reasonable doubt - criminality on every front including murder, torture, rape and robbery is the hallmark of this occupation; the resistance is growing, and will not subside until the occupation ends.

If you claim to care about what happens to Iraq, you have to demand an expeditious and sensitive withdrawal. And don't give me any of that shit about "oh, there'll be a bloodbath if we leave" (an argument with more than a hint of racism about it) - there is already a bloodbath. The bloodbath will not cease until the occupiers absent themselves or until they are evicted. Troops out, now.

19.3