A few weeks ago, former police officer Julio Ribeiro — speaking at a book release function in Mumbai — talked of a certain strategy for dealing with street violence that he had been told about while meeting with colleagues in the UK. The strategy consisted of letting the “eye of the storm” pass by, that is, doing nothing until the turbulent passion was spent and then taking action. Clearly the underlying assumption for such a strategy would be that some reactions are beyond control and, in such cases, it is best to allow for some steam-letting before moving in to establish normalcy. Whatever the merits of such a strategy in policing — the celebrated ex-cop for one, did not seem to think much of its applicability to local situations — it is an interesting analogy for what is happening to Iraq. I say “to Iraq” in the widest possible terms because what I am referring to is really the players in, and the events following, the so-called war against Iraq. Who could have predicted that Bush and Blair, the two most powerful men in the world — so powerful that they could ignore the United Nations, friendly nations such as France and Germany, not counting vast swathes of the Islamic world, and bitter criticism in the form of some of the largest public rallies ever, in pursuit of their joint aim — would seem so shaky in a matter of months? Who could have imagined that the British prime minister would face stern inquiry committees, a case in the International Criminal Court, media opprobrium and dodgy chances of re-election? And who would have expected George Bush of the messianic conviction to be put on the mat regarding prior claims about Iraqi weaponry and military strategy? Weren’t these the men who could do exactly as they pleased? Okay so it looks like they can’t. Well, at least not easily. Doctoring evidence, relying on poor intelligence, miscalculating the response, preparing badly for post-war politics, not finding weapons of mass destruction, not finding Saddam Hussein — these are serious crimes, or so it would seem. The big question is: Why were they not considered so serious before the war against Iraq was declared? Why did the politicians now baying for Bush’s blood keep the lid on their criticism when the move was being contemplated? Why did the media go around embedding itself with the invaders instead of asking the tough questions it is now discovering? The BBC for one, that leveled the allegation of “sexed up” evidence against Blair was found by a study to have relied heavily on government sources during the invasion of Iraq. If the processes that take care of accountability could all be activated so easily and so effectively now then why were they so seemingly moribund or helpless a few months earlier? Was there an unspoken consensus to let the eye of the storm pass? Was it understood that Britain and the US, in the manner of some ritual-bound tribe, needed to shed blood to appease post-9/11 angst before their much vaunted democratic safety valves of dissent could be reactivated? Yes and no. Or rather, it depends on how one interprets this business of waiting for the eye of the storm to pass. On the one hand, it must require a certain amount of self control and patience for a law enforcer to watch a mob wreak havoc and do nothing on the ground that that would be a more desirable course of action in the long run. On the other hand, this could be an invitation for rank opportunism. There is more than a hint of the latter certainly in the changed post-war mood. A recent Hard Talk interview for instance had the former US assistant secretary of state, James Rubin, not only admitting that the establishment had “hyped” the “urgency” of going to war against Iraq but, when asked by interviewer Tim Sebastian about the opposition’s volte face on the necessity for war, explained cheerfully that criticism of Bush pre-war was not possible because of September 11 but that now it was a “return to normal politics”. Not a word about the many Iraqis who had to die, no remorse about destroyed property and a people that may have been needlessly humbled. Similarly on the BBC, currently Blair’s most visible opponent, a Wall Street Journal report reproduced in this paper last week talked of the venerable media house lately losing its reputation for objectivity and acquiring one for setting agendas on various issues leading one to wonder about the seriousness of its campaign against the government. Perhaps Saddam Hussein, too, was only waiting for the eye of the storm to pass before launching his guerrilla operations against an unsuspecting occupying force.
