“There will be a legacy of hatred for the West if the Iraqis continue to suffer from the war we started,” Cook

LONDON, March 30 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who resigned from the government in opposition to Iraq invasion, lashed out at the British government Sunday, March 30, demanding that British troops be pulled out from Iraq.

"I have already had my fill of this bloody and unnecessary war. I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed," Cook wrote in the mass-circulation newspaper the Sunday Mirror, adding that twenty-three British soldiers have died so far in the 10-day old conflict.

The former British minister mocked U.S. President W. Bush for being heedless to the grave consequences of such a war that might stir feelings of hatred in the hearts of the Arab and Muslim world towards the West.

He said that Bush only sat on his cosy armchair in his ranch flanked by a sea of body guards and did not feel for the agony and great pain suffered by the British troops in the war.

“It is OK for Bush to say the war will go on for as long as it takes. He is sitting pretty in the comfort of Camp David protected by scores of security men to keep him safe.

“It is easy to show you are resolute when you are not one of the poor guys stuck in a sandstorm peering around for snipers,” he said.

Not A Cakewalk At All

Cook said that shortly before he resigned the war camp was saying that this war would be a journey to the U.S.-led troops. But as days went by, the contrary proved right.

“This was meant to be a quick, easy war. Shortly before I resigned, a Cabinet colleague told me not to worry about the political fall-out. The war would be finished long before polling day for the May local elections,” he said.

He also mocked the fictitious promises made by the hawkish U.S. officials before war, such as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his right hand, Paul Wolfowitz and above all Vice President Dick Cheney, suggesting that they would better go themselves to the battlefield to get a hands-on experience of the suffering of those people.

“We were told the Iraqi army would be so joyful to be attacked that it would not fight. We were told Saddam's troops would surrender. A few days before the war, Vice-President Dick Cheney predicted that the Republican Guard would lay down their weapons.

“We were told that the local population would welcome their invaders as liberators. Paul Wolfowitz, No.2 at the Pentagon, promised that our tanks would be greeted ‘with an explosion of joy and relief,’” he said.

“Personally, I would like to volunteer Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz to be ‘embedded’ that would give them a chance to hear what the troops fighting for every bridge over the Euphrates think about their promises.

“The top U.S. General, William Wallace, has let the cat out of the bag. ‘The enemy we are fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against’,” he added.

Poor Baghdad

Cook, meanwhile, accused the U.S.-led invasion forces of laying a crippling siege to Baghdad - a move that he said would result in massive civilian suffering and many unnecessary deaths.

“Having marched us up this cul-de-sac, Donald Rumsfeld has now come up with a new tactic. Instead of going into Baghdad, we should sit down outside it until Saddam surrenders.

"There is no more brutal form of warfare than a siege. People go hungry. The water and power to provide the sinews of a city snap. Children die," Cook wrote.

He said the Iraqis have found nothing but to drink from the contaminated water of the river into which sewage empties, triggering a fertile ground for deadly diseases such as cholera.

“You can catch a glimpse of what would happen in Baghdad under siege by looking at Basra. Its residents have endured several days of summer heat without water. In desperation, they have been drinking water from the river into which the sewage empties. Those conditions are ripe for cholera.

“Last week President Bush promised that ‘Iraqis will see the great compassion of the U.S.’. They certainly do not see it now. They don't see it in Baghdad. What they see are women and children killed when missiles fall on market places,” Cook added.

He also warned that the coalition forces risked stoking up a "long-term legacy of hatred" for the West.

“There will be a long-term legacy of hatred for the West if the Iraqi people continue to suffer from the effects of the war we started,” he said.

Divided Coalition

Cook further said that Britain and the U.S. are divided and incoherent over war strategy in addition to real differences over how to run pos-war Iraq.

“The dispute over the management of the port of Umm Qasr is a good example. British officers sensibly took the view that the best and the most popular solution would be to find local Iraqis who knew how to do it. Instead, the U.S. have appointed an American company to take over the Iraqi asset.

“And guess what? Stevedore Services of America who got the contract have a chairman known for his donations to the Republican Party,” he said.

He also said the argument between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Bush over whether the U.N. will be in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq is a case in point.

“War is not some kind of harmless arcade game. Nobody should start a war on the assumption that the enemy's army will co-operate. But that is exactly what President Bush has done. And now his Marines have reached the outskirts of Baghdad he does not seem to know what to do next.

It was not meant to be like this. By the time we got to Baghdad Saddam was supposed to have crumpled. A few days before I resigned I was assured that Saddam would be overthrown by his associates to save their own skins. But they would only do it ‘at five minutes past midnight.’ It is now long past that time and Saddam is still there,” he concluded.

Cook resigned as Leader of the House of Commons, the lower house of parliament, on March 17, three days before Britain went to war alongside the United States.

Cook, foreign secretary between 1997 and 2001, stepped down because he could not accept responsibility for British involvement in Iraq without international backing.