We had and still do have, every business being in Afghanistan.
And none in Iraq.
We COULD have legitimately taken over Iraq, at the end of the FIRST Gulf war, and it would have been much easier.
But now – arrgggh! NO.
Going on the peace marchs caused me to re-evaluate earlier conflicts, such as the NATO action in Serbia, which I had supported at the time. I am convinced now that there indeed is a “military-industrial complex” which has an entirely deficient influence on world affairs.
]]>At least Johann Hari had the courage to admit his stupidity in his mea culpa;
The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster. Let’s look at the major mistakes-cum-crimes. Who would have thought they would unleash widespread torture, with over 10,000 people disappearing without trial into Iraq’s secret prisons? Anybody who followed the record of the very same people – from Rumsfeld to Negroponte – in Central America in the 1980s. Who would have thought they would use chemical weapons? Anybody who looked up Bush’s stance on chemical weapons treaties (he uses them for toilet paper) or checked Rumsfeld’s record of flogging them to tyrants. Who would have thought they would impose shock therapy mass privatisation on the Iraqi economy, sending unemployment soaring to 60 percent – a guarantee of ethnic strife? Anybody who followed the record of the US towards Russia, Argentina, and East Asia. Who could have known that they would cancel all reconstruction funds, when electricity and water supplies are still below even Saddam’s standards? Anybody who looked at their domestic policies.
]]>My own take was simply that the decision making process was so obviously flawed, and the Bush rhetoric so gung-ho, it was highly likely to provoke bloodshed. I remain surprised that so many people considered that rhetoric adequate, let alone inspiring.
]]>I am one of those who was always against this venture, and that colours my views on what to do now, although clearly Britain and the US have a degree of responsibility for the mess.
Was removing Saddam a “good thing”? If so, then why are so many unsuitable [for want of a better printable word] rulers still in power in so many countries?
I could launch into a right royal rant but won’t. I’ll try to let my views spill out as and when in response to other posts.
]]>When he was finished his briefing, Blair looked him in the eye and said “but he’s evil, isn’t he?” Professor Joffe told Oborne that he was “rather taken aback” by this response (understandably). As the Prof said “it didn’t seem to me to correspond to the kinds of issues you would expect someone in his position to raise”.
]]>Oborne: Can you tell me what advise you gave?
Dodge: Not in any way to underestimate the task that they would face. They would face a country that was deeply traumatised, probably more traumatised than any other society in a post-conflict environment. A society that had been mobilised by nationalism, by increasing Islamic radicalism…
Oborne: When you gave them this sobering advice, how did they react to that?
Dodge: Well, they took notes and left the room. I saw no evidence in the aftermath that any of that advice was fed into the policy making process.
]]>“I think there is a real risk that the [US] administration underestimates the difficulties,” David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote to the prime minister on March 14, 2002, after he returned from meetings with Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s national security adviser, and her staff. “They may agree that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it.”
]]>