Evidently, Britons today are living in a world of self-deception investing a great deal of their intelligence in cultivation of ignorance; preparing prospectus of utter lies. This explains why a section of them believes that they may not have stopped the Iraq War 10 years ago but have transformed British politics. It is amazing, indeed, to note how complete and deep is their delusion. Ten years ago, roughly two million people in Britain indeed marched on the streets goading their government not to get involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq. But, it is simply unbelievable, that Britons still believe that the march of two millions on February 15, 2003 created a force that went on to shape —rather reshape— British polity and society.
We in the Middle East are amused by the British delusion (nay ignorance). The march of two million did indeed raise our expectations; we revered the marchers for raising their voices of opposition against imperialism and we expected they would move ahead in changing the course of British polity. But alas! We soon stood belied and betrayed.
Therefore, we do not agree with the national chairperson of Stop the War Coalition, Andrew Murray. The march of February 15, 2003 failed to establish a political coalition that could cut across almost every political, social, ethnic or cultural category in the British society. It was unsuccessful in its objective — to divide imperialists from the rest. In particular, it could not unite the hundreds of thousands of British Muslims with their neighbours in a joint project of peace. The march went a waste.
The march and the protest of two million did not change British politics, but, of course, forced some changes in the attitudes of the Britons towards their politicians. And here Murray is right in his perception of the situation. If the British politicians wonder why they are held in such a low esteem, it's not just their fiddling of expenses, nor their prolonged bipartisan infatuation with bankers and Rupert Murdoch. The rot began with the dodgy dossier, the "45-minute" Iraqi missile threat, the duplicitous diplomacy, and the decision to ignore the wishes of their own voters in preference to those of George W. Bush. Mainstream politics has bought public contempt with the blood of millions.
Yet, Murray represents an entire generation of Britons who believe that their protest march 10 years ago forced politics in Britain to change. True, British troops pulled out of Iraq in 2009 with their tails between their legs, militarily and politically humiliated. And it is equally true that, that was surely due to the reluctance of the Iraqi people to offer them the exuberant welcome Tony Blair had banked on. But in no way it owes anything to the British people's opposition to the war.
Let us call a spade a spade. The most damning proof that British politics has not changed can be traced in the fact that it intervened with the same degree of cynicism and lust in Libya and in extending unconditional support for the French intervention in Mali. In essence, Blair and David Cameron are only two faces of the same coin.
To Murray and others who believe that Britons may not have prevented Iraq War but they had transformed British politics we have a question. How has British politics, particularly its addiction with war, changed? Englishmen once again believed their prime minister, David Cameron, when it intervened in Libya. Once again the Englishmen fell to politicians' rhetorics and became partners in the crime against Libyans. Like Iraq, Libya today stands a failed state "dismembered, never to be reassembled" rather than liberated from the dictatorial dragnets of Muammar Gaddafi. Britain cannot avoid its culpability.
The "humanitarian" intervention of Britain in Libya was equally sinister and pathetic. Britain, in its partnership in biggest crime against humanity of the 20th century with the United States, had broken Iraq. It has again broken Libya and is out to repeat its felony in Syria and Mali. And once again the Britons trusted their politician who simply fooled them saying "it will not be like in Iraq." And in what way was Cameron's intervention in Libya different from that of Blair in Iraq we pray?
The truth is that the bedrock of British politics has survived unscathed. Its "imperialistic quest to secure natural resource reserves for their corporations," which began in nineteenth century, still continues to define British politics. Whether in its 'War on Terror' or a humanitarian war to further the cause of Arab Spring, the real reason has always been "an imperialistic drive for resources."
The marchers and protestors of February 15, 2003, we are afraid, have failed miserably in changing this quintessence of British politics. Tony Blair, the criminal who ought to be behind bars by now, has apparently been condoned by the Britons and he still moves free shamelessly selling to the world how right he was in going with George W. Bush in the war against Iraq. Labour party in Britain is no longer seen as the party that went into war. The party has been let off the hook as it "decided to draw a line under the Blair/Brown era, opting for Ed Miliband and not his brother."
Britons' self-deception is vile. Their belief that they forced changes in British politics is depraved. In Labour and in Miliband, they see their new leader, especially after his Khrushchev moment. He, we believe, has deceived people by his declaration that the Iraq war had been a mistake. But has he guaranteed that the mistake will never be repeated? Has Miliband apologised for the crimes of his party colleague Tony Blair and Gordon Brown?
We are not expecting either an assurance or an apology from Miliband because his nation, his race, and his forefathers have not yet sought any clemency for their