I supported the invasion of Iraq, though not on the basis of Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The alleged threat from an Iraqi arsenal that seemed to grow in magnitude at every mention always smacked more of a convenient pretext for war than a good reason. Subsequent revelations about dodgy dossiers and cherry-picked intelligence reports only proved the point, writes David Adams
Besides, if the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed enough time they would eventually have been able to determine whether Saddam did indeed possess WMDs. But the problem was that more time could not be given. I believed that Bush and Blair had no alternative but to remove Saddam which they did because of the immediate threat he posed to their then much-trumpeted Roadmap for Peace in the Middle East.
His financial support for the Palestinian uprising (estimated by the Palestinians themselves to be $38 million between 2000 and 2003) including large bonus payments to the families of suicide bombers, and his opposition to any peace agreement with Israel made him a real obstacle to an initiative in the region.
In truth, though well aware that he wasn't unique in this, Saddam's history of persecuting his own citizens and attacking neighbouring states coloured my thinking as well. His removal, therefore, could only be of benefit to the Iraqi people. I was as wrong in this assessment as in nearly everything else to do with the war. Neither Bush nor Blair was remotely motivated by the plight of ordinary Iraqis and not even as an inadvertent consequence was the invasion to their benefit. With the virtual civil war that is now taking place there, who could argue that the people of Iraq are currently better off than when Saddam was in control?
Similarly, my notion that the invasion had something to do with easing the way for a US led Israeli/Palestinian peace initiative proved to be mere wishful thinking. The supposed Roadmap for Peace in the Middle East has hardly been mentioned since the first bomb fell on Baghdad.
When one strips away the lies and excuses, and considers the horrendous situation brought about by the invasion of Iraq, it is clear there is nothing that can be held to have justified it. Essentially there was nothing about Saddam and his regime in 2003 that did not equally apply to any number of other tin-pot dictators around the globe.
That is, except for one thing: the fact that he managed to remain in power after the Gulf War of 1991. Shamefully, the invasion of Iraq was about little more than George Bush trying to deal with "unfinished business" from his father's presidency.
Large dollops of Old Testament guff from Bush along with his own eagerness to build as strong a relationship with the new US president as he had enjoyed with his predecessor, was enough to have Blair tagging along.
I still find it hard to believe that I could have been so naive. With each daily report of the murder and mayhem that now engulfs Iraq, I still feel guilty that I lent support to this nightmare. I won't pretend that I was particularly saddened by Saddam's execution.
It is hard to mourn the passing of someone responsible for so much death and misery. It just seemed so pointless. What was his execution meant to achieve? Instead of being left to rot in prison for the rest of his life where he would have been unable to influence anyone, the manner of his death and the perception that he was sacrificed to appease western powers guaranteed that Saddam is now a martyr in the eyes of most of his Sunni co-religionists.
If I could not help but marvel at his composure in the moments before he was hanged, one can but imagine the effect it had on those already drawn to the notion of him as heroic victim of western imperialism.
Over the coming months and years, the myth of Saddam will grow and his destructive power will extend far beyond what it ever could while he was alive. How could anyone possibly believe that his execution would help stabilise the situation in Iraq?
The longer-term implications of the Iraqi disaster are profound, not least for those of us who believe that it is only under genuinely liberal democratic forms of governance that the basic human rights of the individual can be protected. How do you talk now about encouraging the spread of democracy without raising the spectre of Iraq and sounding like some neo-conservative apologist?
What bloody tyrant need now fear outside intervention and being held to account for his crimes after the debacle of the Iraqi invasion?
With what moral authority can any member of the "coalition of the willing" pontificate on democracy and its benefits after the bloody mess they have helped create in its name? Where does all of this leave the countless powerless individuals around the world who are still suffering under dictatorial regimes? With even less hope than they had before.