We must not abandon the Iraqis

Bishop Patrick O’Donoghue of Lancaster did not mince his words in his Easter message on Iraq. He accused the British and American governments of going to war on the basis of false promises and deliberate untruths. He argued that the conflict has been an unmitigated catastrophe for the people of Iraq.
The bishop’s views on the war do not surprise us. He has, after all, consistently denounced the war in Iraq in the strongest possible terms. But what gives us pause is the bishop’s call for the Coalition to withdraw as quickly as possible from the battle zone. With respect, we wonder whether the bishop has considered fully the implications of a rapid disengagement from Iraq.
Firstly, can he be sure that if Britain and American left Iraq tomorrow there would be a significant reduction in acts of terror? There are many factions vying for control of the country, and if the Coalition was not there, they would almost certainly be fighting one another. If the Coalition pulled out immediately it would leave a gaping power vacuum that would be filled not by the just and peaceful but by the strong and unscrupulous.
Secondly, can the bishop be sure that those who are fighting the Coalition will welcome a United Nations administration? The bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad suggested that they will not. The Iraqi rebels are opposed to any kind of intervention by foreign, non-Islamic powers. They do not distinguish between the UN and the US.
Thirdly, can the bishop be sure that the Christian population of Iraq will benefit from the swift exit of British and American troops? Chaldean Catholics, especially, fear that Iraq will become an Islamic state where they will be treated as second-class citizens. The best guarantee of their wellbeing would be a secular and democratic state in which Christians could be fairly represented. The proposed transfer of power in June is their best hope.
Bishop O’Donoghue has displayed an admirable consistency on the question of Iraq. But at the same time, he has shown a marked tendency to oversimplify matters and to exaggerate the negative consequences of the Coalition occupation. In February last year, he said he was “troubled by the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die as a result of the war”. But such an estimate was not a fact then, and it is not a fact now. The bishop had based his statement on a World Health Organisation prediction that the Coalition invasion could result in some 100,000 casualties — and not deaths.
Such overstatements are to be found throughout the bishop’s Easter message. “It is time,” he writes, “for Britain and the United States to disengage from [Iraq] and attacks on its people.” This sentence gives the impression that Britain and the United States are deliberately targeting the ordinary people of Iraq. They are not. What they are in fact doing is combating kidnappers, vigilantes, suicide bombers and others who have no interest in a peaceful and democratic Iraq. It is these people, and not the Coalition forces, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of ordinary Iraqis to achieve their aims. Yes, innocent Iraqis have died under Coalition fire, but the Coalition strategy is to save lives wherever possible. It is misleading to imply that British and American troops are indiscriminately attacking the “people” of Iraq.
No one can doubt that Bishop O’Donoghue has spoken out on this issue in good faith, and we have the highest regard for him and for his work on behalf of the poor and the marginalised. But we can not applaud his Easter message. We hope that the bishops of England and Wales will use their meeting next week to formulate a more dispassionate analysis of the Iraq crisis. To disengage from Iraq now would not be a prophetic act; it would be an act of betrayal.