Product Description

As the dreadful reality of the Coalition s defeat in Iraq begins to sink in, one question dominates Washington and London: why? In this controversial new book, award-winning journalist Jonathan Steele provides a stark and arresting answer: Bush and Blair were defeated from the day they decided to occupy the country. Iraq had had enough of foreign armies. Steele describes the memories of centuries of humiliations that have scarred the Iraqi national psyche, creating a powerful and deeply felt nationalism. Drawing his unique access to senior Western policymakers, Steele shows how the key players in the occupying coalition totally failed to inform themselves about this smouldering backhistory of resentment and suspicion. Drawing on hundreds of interviews with ordinary Iraqis, Steele shows for the first time how the staging posts of the conflict so familiar to Western newspaper readers were seen by the Iraqis themselves. Blending vivid reportage, informed analysis and sweeping historical narrative, Defeat is the definitive anatomy of an historic catastrophe.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #327399 in Books
• Published on: 2007-12-14
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 304 pages

Review
'This is a superb book -- the best account so far of what went wrong in Iraq, and why. Measured, highly intelligent, and written from personal observation by perhaps the best foreign correspondent working in British journalism, it examines why the occupation of Iraq turned into the disaster it did, and not simply how it happened. With immense care and first-hand knowledge, Jonathan Steele has written the one indispensable account of the whole disturbing, thoughtless, cynical process' --John Simpson, World Affairs Editor, BBC

'For many years, it has been a remarkable experience to watch history unfold through Jonathan Steele's discerning eyes. Often a painful experience as well. Regrettably, that is true of his wrenching analysis of the suffering of Iraq -- as always, written with penetrating intelligence and deep knowledge, drawing on his own courageous reporting from Iraq and the region and genuine comprehension of the rich and complex historical background of the awful events taking place before our eyes. No less noteworthy is his sympathetic understanding of the perceptions of the victims, and their simple appeal to their tormentors: "Do not attempt to do us any more good. Your good has done us too much harm already," an appeal dating back well over a century, resonating all too vividly today.' --Noam Chomsky

'A good analysis of what went wrong in Iraq must be based on sufficient closeness to be authentic (particularly through understanding well the Arab points of view), but also sufficiently distant to allow the author to arrive at a convincing overall diagnosis (including why Iraq is not like Germany and Japan). Jonathan Steele has remarkable qualifications to write such a book and this is indeed a splendid contribution.' --Amartya Sen

About the Author
Jonathan Steele is Senior Foreign Correspondent and in-house columnist on international affairs for The Guardian. Educated at Cambridge and Yale, he has reported for The Guardian since 1965. In his present role he travels frequently to the Middle East and has contributed to the Guardian's coverage of Iraq since the start of the war. Steele has won numerous prizes for his foreign news reporting, including the James Cameron and Martha Gelhorn awards. A frequent broadcaster on the BBC and CNN, Steele has written several books on international affairs.

Customer Reviews

Buy this book!
Clear-eyed and not unduly biased account, from a British perspective, of the venality that led to the Iraq invasion and the moral certitude, autocratic style of government, stupidity and sheer incompetence that led to the humanitarian disaster into which it turned. Particularly focuses on the inept, misguided and ultimately trivial role of the Blair regime.

Out of the plethora of books of varying quality on the Iraq debacle, one should probably be adopted deliberately by the outraged British public. This is my choice. My slightly naive hope is that pushing this book up the bestseller lists might just ensure that negative media pressure dogs Tony Blair into his retirement. It's a poor form of holding to account, but embarrassment seems to be the only recourse left to us as our ex-PM floats blithely out of the confessional and onto the lecture circuit. Please help this book make a splash.

A well-written account but a naive conclusion
I'm not exactly sure what to make of this book. Jonathan Steele is undoubtedly an authoritative commentator on the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, but his central contention - that, had the Bush administration been more aware of the historical and cultural context they would have known that any occupation of Iraq was doomed to fail seems to miss the point. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al were going into Iraq come what may, and if too much detail about the reality of the situation was going to give pause for thought, then why bother with the detail! In any case, as a Bush spokesman famously asserted - "We are creating our own reality."

The desire to invade Iraq predated 9/11 and the `war on terror', and was linked to the aim to secure America's long-term interests by the proponents of `The New American Century'. Steele trots out the belief that the neocons greatest fault was a surfeit of idealism - a plan to create a democratic Middle East. The more cynical might suggest that it was fired primarily by the imperative to secure American interests in a region with the second largest oil supply on the globe, irrespective of the nature of the subsequent regime. After, all Rumsfeld & Co. were happy to do business with Saddam in spite of the atrocities, as long as he remained on-side. Where realpolitik is concerned, idealism acts as a fig-leaf for naked self-interest.

But, to play Devil's advocate - if the West's economic and political survival depends (at least for the foreseeable future) on the flow of petroleum, in the face of accelerating competition for resources from the far and near east, maybe it's a bit hypocritical of western liberals to criticise the stark realism of the neocons? Nevertheless, and notwithstanding Noam Chomsky's testimonial on the cover, the assumption in this book is that, pace the cluster bombs, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, etc., etc., US intentions toward the Middle East are essentially honourable. One has to laugh when Steele momentarily questions whether, `Maybe our paper was not as radical as some of us liked to think'! However, he doesn't allow this brief intimation of self-reflection to distract from the narrative for too long.

As he rakes over the coals of a still combustible disaster in Iraq, Steele illustrates how little understanding those in control seemed to have (one is reminded of Blair's own apparent ignorance of Sikes-Picot, or Bush's crass declaration of a `Crusade'), and details the slide into anarchy as Bremer's breathtakingly ad hoc Coalition Provisional Authority fumbled blindly in the dark. But, ultimately, his contention that Bush et al could ever have contemplated a swift handover without conditions so that the Iraqi people could construct their own state free from interference is strangely naïve. The neocons were determined to oust Saddam come what may, and just as intent on securing American rather than Iraqi interests, whatever the aftermath. There may have been a hope that regime change could have resulted in some kind of Japanese style reconstruction secured with the acquiescence of the people, but if not then it was going to happen anyway. Steele's assertion that the US must repudiate `imperial ambitions to control the country and its oil' in favour of Iraqi self-determination and Iranian influence looks deluded.

Excellent study of a disastrous folly
Jonathan Steele, the Guardian's Senior Foreign Correspondent, has written an outstanding account of the war on Iraq. He argues that from the start the occupiers were bound to lose and that they have in fact already lost. As the Iraq Study Group said in December 2006, "The situation is deteriorating ... The ability of the United States to shape outcome is diminishing."

Why? Because nobody wants foreign troops in their country. As Steele writes, "Most occupations fail. In the Middle East, they fail absolutely." People there have a deep sense of national dignity, honour and sovereignty.

Opposing Saddam Hussein did not mean supporting the occupation, as Blair and Bush thought, in a mirror-image of their slander that opponents of the war were supporters of Saddam. After the invasion, some Iraqis thought `thank you and goodbye', but most thought just `goodbye'. The majority have consistently wanted foreign troops out immediately and approve of attacks on them. 92% of the unfortunate US troops in Iraq also want to leave within a year.

The occupiers have not achieved the politicians' claimed goals of democracy and a pro-Western regime, nor will they. More people have been killed in the occupation's five years than in Hussein's 32 years. Mass detention of innocent civilians in a brutal counter-insurgency war breeds resistance not support. In 2004, the USA estimated there were 5,000 insurgents, in 2005, 16,000, in 2006, 20,000 and in 2007, 70,000. 2007 was the deadliest year yet for the USA.

In a poll last December, 85% of the people of Basra thought that the British occupation had a negative effect; just 2% thought it positive. The British forces are serving a political, not a military, purpose. They are Downing Street's hostages.

Blair blames the continuing violence in Iraq on `blowback from global terrorism', as if it was a natural but unfortunate effect of his good war. But the war is a defensive war against foreign invasion not a clash of ideologies or of civilisations.

To the US and British ruling classes, victory is the only exit strategy, but their `victory first' means exit never. Staying is a trap, not a strategy. Exit is the only good option and the sooner the better.