Iraq
We failed to anticipate that in taking out Saddam, we would also remove government and order and authority from Iraq
We need to plan for withdrawal, and we need to understand why, why, why we were so mad as to attack Iraq without working out the consequences
I remember the quiet day we lost the war in Iraq
It was the moment I should have twigged. It was the moment I should have realised that I had voted for the biggest British military fiasco since the Second World War. I was wandering around Baghdad, about 10 days after Iraq had been “liberated”, and it seemed to me that the place was not entirely without hope.
OK, so the gunfire popped round every corner like popcorn on a stove, and civil society had broken down so badly that the looters were taking the very copper from the electricity cables in the streets. But I was able to stroll without a flak jacket and eat shoarma and chips in the restaurants.
With no protection except for Isaac, my interpreter, I went to the Iraqi foreign ministry, and found the place deserted. The windows were broken, and every piece of computer equipment had been looted. As I was staring at the fire-blackened walls a Humvee came through the gates. A pair of large GIs got out and asked me my business. I explained that I was representing the people of South Oxfordshire and Her Majesty’s Daily Telegraph.
That didn’t cut much ice. Then I noticed a figure begin to unpack his giraffe-like limbs from the shady interior of the Humvee. He was one of those quiet Americans that you sometimes meet in odd places.
He was grizzled and in his mid-50s and with a lantern jaw, and unlike every other US soldier I’d met he had neither his name nor his blood group stitched on his person. I grasped at once that this quiet American was no soldier. He had that Brahmin air, a bit Ivy League, a touch of JK Galbraith. Yes, folks, he was some kind of spook.
I remember how he walked slowly towards the shattered foreign ministry building, stroking his chin. Then he walked back towards us, and posed a remarkable question. “Have you, uh, seen anyone here?” he asked.
Nope, we said. All quiet here, we said. Quiet as the grave.
“Uhuh,” he said, and started to get back in the Humvee. And then I blurted my own question: “But who are you?” I asked. “Oh, let’s just say I work for the US government,” he sighed. “I was just wondering if anyone was going to show up for work,” he said. “That’s all.”
And that, of course, was the beginning of the disaster. Nobody came to work that day, or the next, or the one after that, because we failed to understand what our intervention would do to Iraqi society. We failed to anticipate that in taking out Saddam, we would also remove government and order and authority from Iraq.
We destroyed the Baathist state, without realising that nothing would supplant it. The result was that salaries went unpaid, electricity was not generated, sanitation was not provided, and all the disorder was gradually and expertly fomented until it was quite beyond our control.
And what we had failed to see in advance was that almost from the outset the Iraqis would blame us – and not just the insurgents – for every distress they experienced.
It is now commonplace for people like me, who supported the war, to say that we “did the right thing” but that it had mysteriously “turned out wrong”. This is intellectually vacuous. It is like saying British strategy for July 1, 1916 was perfect, but let down by faulty execution. The thing was a disaster from the moment we invaded, and it wasn’t poor old Rumsfeld’s fault for failing to send in enough troops, or failing to do more “planning” for the post-war. No quantity of troops could have prevented this catastrophe; and the dreadful thing is that I think Saddam knew it.
A couple of years ago I had a chilling conversation with a very senior British general who was then intimately involved in our efforts in Iraq.
The trouble was, he said, that Saddam had thought it all through. He knew he hadn’t a hope against the Pentagon, so he had a three-stage strategy. First he instructed his army not to put up much resistance to the Patton-like thrusts of the US army. Then, when Baghdad had fallen, he encouraged his soldiers to melt away to their homes and keep their weapons. The third stage, said this British general, was the one we had been embroiled in ever since: a guerrilla war, spiced with sectarian violence, to become gradually more intense until it became no longer possible for the allies to remain in Iraq.
And was he right in his analysis, this British general? Look at the place now. If Saddam had somehow managed to elude capture and stay in that hideyhole, people might now say he was on the verge of a sensational victory. Last time I was in Basra I was able to go for a run past the Shatt-al-Arab canal. You’d need a death-wish to do that today, and even in the massively fortified British compound the risk to life is so great that the Foreign Office has pulled most personnel back to the airport.
Of course we must resist the great national sport of wallowing in our own failures. Of course it is still true that some good will ultimately come, just as some good comes from all disasters. But we must be honest and accept that the price has been far too high, and that General Dannatt is right to say that our presence is making things worse.
As long as we are there, the terrorists know that they can maximise the damage to Bush and Blair by blowing up our troops, and so we incite the very violence we are trying to quell. We need to plan for withdrawal, and we need to understand why, why, why we were so mad as to attack Iraq without working out the consequences. That is why I want an inquiry. I want to interrogate our Government, and above all I want to hear from the Americans.
I want to find that tall, quiet American spook, and get him to explain to a parliamentary committee exactly why he thought there would be people in that Iraqi government building. And I bet most British soldiers would be interested to know the answer.
100 Comments
The Vatican abolished the position of Devil’s Advocate, and Christopher Hitchens wrote a very interesting article about that. He was interviewed by their representatives re: Mother Theresa’s sainthood.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘Saddam doesn’t deserve death … we do much worse than he ever did, and on a regular basis!’ (Jack Target)
No we don’t, when was the last time a British leader had over 100 of his own people subjected to summary execution?
You can watch his reaction on the BBC website, it’s quite funny. ‘Down with the taitors … down with your laws and articles and clauses’ he says. Down the trapdoor is the only place he’s going.
Maybe he’s regretting sending that letter to Bush after 9/11 praising the attacks now.
Rate This:
0 
0
Steven_L
Ok we have not subjected the british people to execution, but (and correct me if I am wrong here) we have indirectly caused thousands of Iraq civilians to die since we invaded.
Rate This:
0 
0
Yup k, I agree,
Blair and Bush are little, if any, better than Saddam. Bush is a mass murderer and Blair a willing accomplice.
If Saddam swings, so should they. The ends do NOT justify the means and, if they do, Saddam ought to be given the benefit of the doubt too.
The trial was a travesty of justice; as a result, even if he hangs, Saddam wins right now, same as the ‘war of Iraq’. Bit of a Phyrric victory though.
Rate This:
0 
0
The British governent is supposed to be opposed to the death penalty and refuse to extradite criminals to countries where they may face the death penalty so it is slightly ironic that we have gone to war to help bring someone to trial knowing they will probably be executed.
I hate to sound like a bleeding heart liberal, but I also hate the double standards involved whenever Britain co-operates with America.
In honesty, though, I do not agree with the death penalty, I think life in solitary confinment is a better option. Saddam Hussain may or may not deserve to die, but he certainly does not deserve to become a martyr
Rate This:
0 
0
K and Jack Target – am with you on Saddam Hussein. I think his martyrdom and our continued presence is a sad ending.
raincoaster – “The Vatican abolished the position of Devil’s Advocate, and Christopher Hitchens wrote a very interesting article about that” – got a link? Mag title? Date? It’ll be on his website but some idea of date or title would help if you know it. Thanks.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘I think his martyrdom and our continued presence is a sad ending.’ (Jaq)
I don’t think Saddam will be remembered as a Martyr by many. He was caught hiding in a small hole, now he is going to be strung up like a common criminal by his own people. He’ll be remembered as a tyrant.
Rate This:
0 
0
I don’t think Saddam can really be called a martyr, since martyrdom implies innocence and often being executed for beliefs. But he was still the lesser of two evils in this conflict. When talking about Bush’s crimes, please don’t forget Guantanamo and the other CIA prisons (which incidentally have been confirmed now by the Bush administration). The Guardian has a quick summary of the latest US terror law:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1884244,00.html
Bush’s greatest crime is NOT the killing of thousands in Iraq or the destabilisation of the Middle East (now 8 other M.Eastern countries want nuclear weapons…). His worst crime was setting a precedent in the western world, in America even, for torture of prisoners, imprisonment of people without trial for years (often on nearly no evidence and against all reason), and seizure of power by the executive.
Rate This:
0 
0
A President, like a Prime Minister, are imperfect reflections of their respective electorates. The behaviour of such persons must therefore resonate, to some extent, with the people who put them there.
From my perspective this probably means Americans and Brits should be shot on sight for safety reasons.
Somewhat like plague carrying rats.
Prof. P J Convery,
New Zealand.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘His worst crime was setting a precedent in the western world … for torture of prisoners, imprisonment of people without trial for years (often on nearly no evidence and against all reason) (Jack Target)
I’m not sure Gitmo is such a bad thing myself. It must make people think twice before deciding to go join in some foreign war on the pretence of some kind of worldwide jihad.
The people in there weren’t Afghans, they were foreign nationals, some British, picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan. What were they doing there? How did they get there? These questions need answering if we are to win the War on Terror.
You know what these Muslim radicals are like, as soon as a war involving Muslims starts they start a worldwide recruitment campaign. They did it in the Balkans, the did it against the Soviets, British nationals have travelled to Israel to blow themselves up for the jihad. Now they are fighting against our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If captured, are these ‘holy mujahadeen’ fighters ‘prisoners of war’? Some of them were from NATO countries, that makes them traitors. I have no sympathy with traitors.
They obviuously have links to the people who are organising the ‘jihad’, or they wouldn’t be there in the first place. Extracting this information from them could save British and US lives in Iraq or Afghanistan.
So I’m not sure that imprisoning an assorted bunch of traitors is entirely ‘without reason’ as you suggest. Some have been released, so the process must be getting somewhere.
Rate This:
0 
0
Steven_L:
The people in there weren’t Afghans, they were foreign nationals, some British, picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan. What were they doing there? How did they get there? These questions need answering if we are to win the War on Terror.
Well, I can tell you something about the 4 British nationals who got released from Guantanamo completely free of charge after 3 years of imprisonment, sitting in cages and being tortured on a regular basis. They were visiting Pakistan at the time, decided to visit Afghanistan shortly before the war started, and got rolled up in the whole thing shortly afterwards (by rolled up I don’t mean enrolled, they weren’t fighting, but were in a captured village – when the americans discovered they were British they assumed they must be up to no good, why else would they be in Afghanistan instead of Birmingham?). My favourite example of the absurd intelligence they were holding them on, is when the interrogators showed one of the prisoners a photograph of ‘him’ at a terrorist training camp, asking him to explain where he was that day. Unfortunately for them he had a fool-proof alibi in that he was in a British police station at the time.
Regardless of whether these people are guilty or not, they MUST br tried. They must have a chance to answer their charges. The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is NOT just a phrase from history, it has a meaning, and that meaning is not locking people up and torturing them for 3 years, because they are, by definition, innocent. They are innocent. Until they have been tried, they are, in my book, innocent.
And the president should definitely not be given the power to “interpret the meaning” of the Geneva Conventions as it suits him. Rape and mutilation are not the only forms of torture, you have to be completely mad to think so. Again I’ll repeat, mad! American policy in this “war” is insane – it lacks reason and sound judgement – it is insane.
“Some of them were from NATO countries, that makes them traitors. I have no sympathy with traitors.”
Treason is an old-fashioned crime, and while I think it could still carry a small penalty, I don’t see why it should carry a big one. I love my country, but there are other things I love more. All things being equal, I would fight for Britain, or at the very least not join her enemies. However, if, for example, Britain fought a war against a secular democracy, for no other reason than land conquest, or worse, to impose a relatively illiberal value set on their relatively liberal one (this is hypothetical) then I would fight on the other side. Or at least refuse to fight against them. I hate the ideals espoused by a number of muslim radicals, but I don’t fault them for being loyal to their beliefs rather than their home country (which is after all an accident of birth).
Rate This:
0 
0
Incidentally, even if you do decide that you prefer the doctrine of “guilty until proven innocent”, for whatever reason (in my view this is not good, but you might disagree), then SURELY they must be given the chance to prove themselves innocent?
and Colonel Commonroom:
A President, like a Prime Minister, are imperfect reflections of their respective electorates. The behaviour of such persons must therefore resonate, to some extent, with the people who put them there.
This isn’t true, because of the flawed democracies we have. At the last election, we had a choice between Michael Howard and Tony Blair, for all intents and purposes. In theory, we could have elected anybody who’s party was standing in a sufficient number of seats to win the largest share of the vote (this in itself limits our choice to 4 or 5). To say that they reflect us is to say that everyone in the UK is the same as either Michael Howard or Tony Blair. Clearly we’re not. It’s even worse in the USA.
The war in Iraq is also a perfect example, because it was OPPOSED by a vast majority of the British population. A very large majority, 70%. Regardless of your opinion about constitutional authority and nominal mandates, if anything this shows that a Prime Minister does not always reflect their electorate. Indeed, in this case he doesn’t.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘Saddam doesn’t deserve death … we do much worse than he ever did, and on a regular basis!’ (Jack Target)
No we don’t, when was the last time a British leader had over 100 of his own people subjected to summary execution? (Steven-L)
I don’t see the difference between Sadam executing his own people and Bush and Blair bombing and killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children. Either way, human beings died in the most dreadful manner imaginable and all for nothing. These two wretched specimens deserve to be put on trial too.
Rate This:
0 
0
K- we have indirectly caused thousands of Iraq civilians to die since we invaded.
As few as possible ,the West’s major mistake was underestimating the enthusiasm Iraqis have for killing each other. Our security is guaranteed above all by the alliance we have with America. I feel we sold ourselves very cheap in Iraq , but can understand the reasoning behind supporting America’s understandable imperative to snuff our any rogue states in the area, it could ,after 9.11.
I find the suggestion that there is some sort of equivalence between President Bush and Sadaam Hussein wearingly childish but moral superiority would not be a special objective of mine.
In this sense British troops are protecting British people , by bulwarking the secure world order in which we snugly sit, pretending, if you must, we cannot see the difference between an a elected President of a free country and a mass murdering gangster.
Is this supposed to be “intellectual” ? There were , and still are , many intellectuals ready to betray the West during the cold war, and many apologists for Stalin. I have never quite understood the instinctive loathing that many of a certain class feel for America comes from. It is heavily represented in the media and Academic establishment and especially ,(obviously ), the BBC. .It appears this peculiar hatred continues unabated.
Rate This:
0 
0
Steven L, Maher Arar would like a few words with you.
Rate This:
0 
0
newmania, they didn’t underestimate anything. They knew.
Rate This:
0 
0
Steven_L – yes, I meant he would be killed. I’ve argued for the death penalty on this blog but am still uncomfortable personally with actually putting someone to death. I know that sounds quite mad.
Rate This:
0 
0
JAQ .- Not at all; I can`t say I would much like slaughtering my own meat but I do not think this is a moral position. I am not in favour of the death penalty , but as a mirror image of you . I cannot justify my position at all.
(Got a bit up on abortion you might be interested in by the way)
RAINCOASTER- Crumbs !,
Noone asked but
I have just filed my press cuttings and paper media bits . These are the categories . Brown bashing, Humour /Interest , Sleaze ( Labour), PC madness, Race/Culture and Immigration ,Anti Liberal, Anti Ken Livingstone, Crime , education , Economy, Parliament, Freedom , Housing , Transport, Local news , local democracy, Constitution/Europe / Devolution , Tax, Conservative Party , Transport , Environment , Foreign bits.
This is why I am relatively quiet on Foreign stuff . Not that interested really .
(Jazz People – I have listened to the Toronto concert and .. Its not my cup of tea . Thanks for the recommendation. I see live music is being cut from radio three and Elgar taken off the £20 . The barabarians are at the gate and i may well be one of them
Rate This:
0 
0
newmania:
In this sense British troops are protecting British people , by bulwarking the secure world order in which we snugly sit, pretending, if you must, we cannot see the difference between an a elected President of a free country and a mass murdering gangster.
This is the great falacy. I disagree flat out with three of the things you have said in this one sentence, and challenge the rest.
1. “In this sense British troops are protecting British people, by bulwarking the secure world order”
This has got to be nonsense, Saddam and Iraq never posed a threat to any British people. The greatest threat he could have posed was to british people within Iraq, and to the best of my knowledge there was no threat there. Even if there was, compare it to the threat to British people now…
And what secure world order is it that we’re Bulwarking exactly? Saddam was a stabilising influence in the Middle East, he didn’t sponsor terrorism in foreign countries or his own, and had stopped developing WMDs. What he did was suppress militias in his own country (something we’re failing at) and force the factions to coexist (once again, look at our record.)
Apparently the secure world order that we’re balwarking involves creating a bloodbath from a peaceful society, providing an opportunity for terrorists and militias to form at will, allowing racist and religious warfare, and adding yet another destabilising influence to the least stable part of the world.
2. “the secure world order in which we snugly sit”
Again I say, if we’re sitting snugly in this secure world order, then why do we need to imprison people without trial, torture innocent people for information, and go to war in countries on the other side of the world? Either we’re in terrible danger and have to destroy our civil liberties to preserve our lives, or we sit snugly in a secure world order, and can live in a free country again.
3. an “elected President of a free country and a mass murdering gangster.”
As has been widely publicised, George Bush’s election was dubious. I’m of the opinion that he did, JUST, get a victory in the final count, but regardless of that fact, the election itself was corrupt and fraudulent, manipulated and controlled by the media and G.Bush’s family, who secured him a victory ahead of the final count.
And a free country? I reckon we have different definitions of the word free. A free country in my opinion does not torture people, it does not centralise decision making on the executive to such a great extent, and above all it does NOT imprison people without giving them a fair trial. It does not reinterpret the Geneva Convention because it finds it prevents it torturing people, and it does not imprison people on foreign soil so that they’re exempt from their own laws.
America may be nominally a democracy, but it is still controlled by vested interests. The elections, the media, in fact almost everything that goes on in the country in controlled by the american power structure. This may not be a dictator sitting in a chair, but it is still an oligarchy, the rich minority ruling over the poor majority.
The only point I will concede is that, as I hope we’re seeing now, when the truth is too overwhelming for the oligarchy to control, the ststem in place in the USA does allow for a redistribution of power of some sort. It doesn’t in practice allow for it to be distributed outside of the educated elite and business interests, but there can be a small change.
Rate This:
0 
0
The people in there [Gitmo] weren’t Afghans, they were foreign nationals, some British, picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan.
They were picked up all over the place, not just Afghanistan. The Americans put a bounty on their heads, and any number of innocent people were handed over to them, just to get the bounty.
Rate This:
0 
0
As for Saddam, all sorts of figures float around about how murderous he was, and it seems that they tend to include anyone who got killed in any war he fought, including putting down various insurrections in Iraq. On that basis, Winston Churchill would be counted a mass murderer as well.
Saddam was well regarded in the West until his invasion of Kuwait, at which point he was completely demonized (I watched it happen), and accused of killing babies in hospital incubators (a story that turned out to be untrue).
Personally, when I realize that someone is being demonized, I tend to discount accusations made against them. At around about the same time, ex-PM Edward Heath said, in the middle of this demonization process, that Saddam was “just another ordinary Middle Eastern dictator” – just another in a brutal bunch of people.
I don’t doubt that Saddam was a murderous thug, but I’m not at all sure that he was one of genocidal proportions. And I think his trial has been a travesty.
Rate This:
0 
0
Suppressed militias is one way of putting it . Genocide would be another . Forced factions to die of gas poisoning together maybe? I `m surprised you are actually a Saddam supporter . You do not know that he had given up developing WMD`s . I doubt it , and he went out of his way to make it appear that he hadn’t. To scare the West , one assumes retrospect . For the same reason he would have obtained them I believe . We will never know now and you are free to tell us what a good things he was relatively speaking.
No he did not pose a direct threat . Our strategic interest was to support America who believed he either did or would . It is a forward defensive shot if you like and it was hoped as a secondary aim that freedom from a murderous tyrant could also be achieved . Enoch Powell was a great fan of no foreign entanglement without physical and immediate thereat to Britain . I suppose you would have agreed .It’s a valid point of view but risky. I would have been close to the Enoch position on Iraq and felt we should be getting out a while ago.
Iraq was peaceful only in the sense that anyone who didn`t like it disappeared . Perhaps if absolutely all the leaders of the ANC had been rounded up and shot regularly you would be applauding the peacefulness of South Africa today. The things you say are highly reminiscent of the arguments for allowing South Africa to continue as it was and not destabilising it . A bad regime , not as bad as the racist slaughter of the Bathists though. South Africa genuinely posed no threat whatsoever. Perhaps sanctions should have been dropped.
We are sitting snugly in a secure world order because of the superior weaponry of the west and the will to use it . We have discussed the morality of torture or otherwise at length and the distinguishing two features of the US are its mildness and openness.
Your further comments are the position of a pacifist essentially and as such you are likely to require others to protect you.
Yes yes all of this well worn conspiracy theory will not prevent the Democratic removal of George Bush and the republicans , or not .A rather different matter to the Dictator you regard as roughly the same .The free media in the US has been the source of all your theories , not daring espionage by brave British Liberals and this media is scarcely republican in bias. As for your dastardly capitalist plot I `m only surprised you haven’t claimed the Jews are behind it all , that was the old version .America is a big place and like the starry sky you can join the points up in lots of ways . To say vested interests will be important is redundant and you describe ubiquitous dangers for any democracy . Do you think the Jews , who are important in Capitalist America act as a secret Society. I think they probably have a clearer identity of interest than some in an open and legitimate way. Is this the sort of thing you are describing ? A lot of the Left would agree with you . What is the up to date version ? NWO …ooohhoooo spooky ?
Bear in mind I `m not myself concerned to be better than anyone . I feel for our security is was a reasonable thing to do to support the US and we sold that support to cheaply. I posted my own reasons for getting out some time ago .I see you count yourself amongst those who call the US the great devil. Bizarre , but a common establishment view in this country . Always has been . That’s why our secret service was full of fifth columnist traitors .
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack Target, regarding your comment:
“This isn’t true, because of the flawed democracies we have. At the last election, we had a choice between Michael Howard and Tony Blair,”
And, as I recall, you put them man responsible for these atrocities right back in power again as did the Yanks.
So, from my flawed understanding of British democracy, that implies to me that the majority of Brits either agreed with him or were too apathetic to vote the mendacious bugger out. Either way, it’s a sad indictment of the British.
You should be damned well ashamed of yourselves.
Rate This:
0 
0
newmania:
There is a difference between South Africa and Iraq partly in location and population. Unlike South Africa, attacking Iraq carried two major risks, of encouraging the Islamic fundamentalism which you clearly dislike, and of destabilising a country within an already highly volatile region.
I’m not remotely pacifist. Those who’ve known me for a while on this blog know of my plans to join the army, and I would be highly in favour of military intervention in Sudan. Possibly in Iran if it looks like they’re on the brink of getting nuclear weapons (obviously it carries the same risks as Iraq, if not even more, but I think a nuclear armed Iran is more destabilising than an unstable one). I would be in favour of military action against the USA to close Guantanamo Bay and free our citizens there (at least if I thought we had a chance of surviving the repurcussions of such an attack). Likewise if I was convinced that there was a way to achieve our objectives (of stopping the slaughter) I would be in favour of military action in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
So probably the only intervention I am unreservedly in favour of at the moment is Sudan. And even then in order to do so we would need to re-work the army and pull troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Either way, I’m not a pacifist, just a rationalist.
And on a similar note I am definitely not of the same opinion as Enoch Powell, I hope as evidenced by what I said above.
And the lack of WMDs? It was for precisely that reason that we were opposed the the intervention. 70% were against the war, but with a UN resolution (achieved by giving the weapon inspectors long enough to report) less than 20% were opposed (in the UK anyway). Saddam was probably right to pretend to have the weapons, the US was clearly looking for a scape-goat, and it didn’t choose the tough countries because they’re tough. It was a good idea of Saddam’s to pretend to be tough to try and prevent invasion, and if you remember, when he realised that the US was intent on attacking him regardless, he opened up everything to the weapons inspectors and ceased the posturing.
On a slightly different note, my “dastardly capitalist plot” has nothing to do with Jews. I’m one of the social-justice liberation theology types who adhere to the doctrine of “Make Wealth History”. Regardless of your opinion of us, that is the reason for my anti-corporate rant… Not fear of Jews ruling the world.
Colonel Commonroom:
Unfortunately your understanding may be flawed (I don’t know how much you know about the British political system). One problem here is that the Prime Minister is tied to the House of Commons. Our choice for our local MP determines who becomes Prime Minister, and so we never got a chance to vote Tony Blair himself out. Some people do vote on the basis of their MP rather than the central government, because after all that’s who they’re electing, and local MPs have other impacts on our lives than choosing the Prime Minister who determines foreign policy.
Look, I’m a member of the Tory Party and I voted against Blair in the last election. But Michael Howard ran an awful campaign against Blair (if you saw the ads, you’d know…), and likewise the Democrats in the states chose an astonishingly bad choice. Faced with choosing between Bush and Kerry, I would be cautious… Probably vote for Kerry in the end, but still. Voting between Bush and a potato is a no-brainer – go for the potato anytime.
And incidentally no, a majority of Brits do not favour Blair and did not vote him in. He received 35.3% of the vote (which was from a 61% turnout) Now I would agree that those who don’t turn out to vote bear responsibility for the person who gets in just as much as the ones who voted for him, but it is still a fact that only 20% of the electorate voted for Tony Blair. That’s not a majority. The tories got 32.3% of the vote, so it’s hardly a clear Blair mandate population-wise.
Rate This:
0 
0
Colonel commonroom,
The problem with the antiwar movement here, weel at least in my opinion, is that many of the peopl who are strongly anti-war also tend to be anti-tory on principle.
Rate This:
0 
0
I think Jack Target reminds us of a very important point about our democracy – in that it’s been fundamentally changed by this government to scew the outcome of an election. That’s not democracy. But it’s going to be interesting if a different party gets in power next time, to see if they will recind that bias and in effect weaken their own hold on power.
As for Iraq, should we just pull the troops out now and let them get on with it?
Rate This:
0 
0
If we pull the troops out now and let them get on with it, the population of Iraq will be reduced to 1 even quicker than it is now…
Rate This:
0 
0
How do you mean Jack??
Rate This:
0 
0
Agreed on Sudan, 400,000 dead and a Lebanon every ten days is a good reason for decisive UN intervention which is disgracefully delayed. The BBC ignore it mostly.
I am not especially concerned with Islamic fundamentalism except that aspect of it that requires the believers to blow people up. Other wise , I care not.
Your grounds for invading the US would have us invading all of Africa , most of Asia and the far east , Turkey and so on.
Why not I `m sick of this place anyway.
I am not sure what you’re social justice liberation theology thingy is, and last I heard you had argued god out of existence again, the army, is that on or of ? Is there more than one of you then? I wonder, were you accused of being an “original thinker “, whilst at Uni .
Saddaam only caved in on WMD inspection when it was to late. It would never have been otherwise .How can you eat the spoon fed and sub Haw haw propaganda of a fascist state with such evident relish?
Rate This:
0 
0
I’m not sure how many British citizens there are imprisoned in Africa, I figured they would be reluctant to imprison them given the relative difference in power. I know nothing about it though, and will agree that Guantanamo is certainly not the worst prison of it’s kind in the world. The problem I have with Guantanamo is that it marks a step backwards for us in the west, heading towards fundamentalism ourselves.
About God, social justice and liberation theology, I’m Christian again (I know, I have a very changeable character… I’ve been an atheist for most of my time, muslim, buddhist and christian at various points too! Not to mention communist, capitalist and anarchist… Just think of it as trying things out). I’m Christian again, but definitely a liberal. Liberation Theology is actually a branch of theology in the Roman Catholic church originating fairly recently in South America. It has been denounced by both of the last two popes though. Essentially it says that our first duty as Christians is to ‘actively’ love our neighbour. It’s not big on evangelism or doctrine, and doesn’t place as much emphasis on worship or prayer (although they’re definitely still part of it). It usually takes a form much closer to humanism that mainstream christianity. It’s been moving outside the Roman Catholic church too.
Was I accused of being an “original thinker” while at university… well, I just started at university 1 month ago and so haven’t really had the chance to be called one yet! I have been labelled with a number of names ranging from Fascist to Communist, but usually having a meaning along the lines of “inconsistent”. I dispute these epithets consistently. Army may still be on, haven’t decided yet.
And I would apply that last comment to you too…
Rate This:
0 
0
And Jaq:
My point was fairly simple, and is based on the following logic:
1. The vast majority of the violence in Iraq is Iraqi-Iraqi.
2. Currently more or less the only safe parts of Iraq are the small areas under strict martial rule by the ‘allied’ forces.
3. It is not inconceivable that some foreign nations might want in on the bloodbath/oilfields of Iraq.
If we withdraw, the Iraqi-Iraqi violence will increase, there will be no safe-havens whatsoever in the country, and there may well be other competing foreign countries getting involved. Basically see my above quote from The Economist for some brief reasoning…
Rate This:
0 
0
Thanks Jack (sorry about being simple) but then that comes back to;
SH was a ‘strong’ leader but perhaps that erm ‘strength’ is necessary to keep peace in that country and resist foreign control.
I don’t know what do y’all think? But we’ve been bombing the middle east for over a decade and one minute shaking hands with SH then when Bush clicks his fingers, happy to see the man hanged. I’m not allocating sympathy as such – just confusion with our foreign policy!
Rate This:
0 
0
Suppressed militias is one way of putting it . Genocide would be another . Forced factions to die of gas poisoning together maybe? I `m surprised you are actually a Saddam supporter . You do not know that he had given up developing WMD`s . I doubt it , and he went out of his way to make it appear that he hadn’t. To scare the West , one assumes retrospect . For the same reason he would have obtained them I believe . We will never know now and you are free to tell us what a good things he was relatively speaking. (newmania)
I suppose this is addressed to me.
Yes, very broadly I think Iraq would be better off under Saddam than it now is under the US and UK. As best I understand, more people have been killed in Iraq in the last 3 years than in the entire era of Saddam. Schools, hospitals, power supplies, drainage, etc, are now in a worse state than in Saddam’s time. Some 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq since 2003. Saddam’s secular society, which once boasted one of the highest standards of education in the Middle East, and didn’t force women to wear headscarves, is now turning into an Islamic fundamentalist state. All in all, I don’t see that Iraq has gained anything at all. In fact, I think we have inflicted an utter disaster upon that country. And upon ourselves.
I rather agree with Jaq that maybe what Iraq needed was a ‘strong man’, or monarch. It seems to be an extremely tribal country, with tribal leaders being the principal sources of authority. Such authoritarian societies are very likely to end up with one man at the top, as a kind of boss of bosses, much like English kings in relation to powerful dukes.
And I don’t see that democracy is always and everywhere better than monarchy. I tend to think that countries become democracies as they become more prosperous an emancipated (e.g. Britain), and revert to monarchies or dictatorships when they become less prosperous (e.g. Germany in the time of Hitler). That is, the political organisation of society reflects its economic development. Democracy is preferable only in the sense that prosperity is preferable.
Rate This:
0 
0
2. Currently more or less the only safe parts of Iraq are the small areas under strict martial rule by the ‘allied’ forces. (Jack Target)
You mean the Green Zone? Very little of Iraq is under strict martial law. There simply aren’t the troops available to do that. Americans go out patrolling, and come under attack almost immediately. They control very little at all.
As Americans have gradually lost control over events in Iraq, it is now rather hard to see what the point is of them remaining in what has become a civil war.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘I rather agree with Jaq that maybe what Iraq needed was a ‘strong man’, or monarch.’ (idlex)
Perhaps they should ask Saddam and his henchmen what they would do about it.
‘Mr Hussein, we’re frightfully sorry, we simply didn’t realise what a good job you were doing. We were wondering if you’d like to earn some extra privileges by helping us out a bit. What would you do about all these Insurgents?’
‘Send in the army, shoot them all, capture the ringleaders and torture them to death.’
Rate This:
0 
0
I concur with PaulD November 2, 2006 4:34 PM writing:
Here is a politician who is prepared to admit he was mistaken, to explain in language we can all understand why he was mistaken, and to learn from it.
Compare with our present mob – never wrong, never learning from their mistakes except where it might have cost them a vote.
Boris you are a rare person in the political cesspit. But still no genius. There were so many thousands who were right in advance, indeed who foresaw that the Afghanistan invasion would be a failure too. You failed us in that. But it is just about conceivable that you will learn from more of your mistakes and am sure we’ve far from seen the last of you, even though more blunders are likely ahead in your career.
Rate This:
0 
0
You mean the Green Zone? Very little of Iraq is under strict martial law. There simply aren’t the troops available to do that. Americans go out patrolling, and come under attack almost immediately. They control very little at all. – idlex
Yup, hence my calling them “small areas”. But those areas are bigger than they would be if we left (by which I mean there would be none). I think you may be right about the strong-man, but how can we do that now? Any person we install would completely lack credibility, and there can’t be a popular leader now. Also, exactly what strength would this strong-man weild? We have destroyed the Iraqi institutions as well as the regime, and there is no strength now in Iraq except for the allied forces and the militias they oppose.
Rather ironically there is only one man who could do it, and he is about to be hanged. I assume we agree that it cannot be a non-Iraqi? And now all the Iraqis with strength have been allied to one of the three main factions. Only Saddam Hussein could unite the country again, reminding them of the unity and stability beforehand. He would need our support to replace the strength we took from him, but it might be possible. I don’t know if I’m actually suggesting that as a solution… just saying that in my opinion he’s the only viable strong-man!
Seeing as the chances of Bush and Blair reinstalling Saddam Hussein are smaller than me being consecutively struck by lightning 47 times (while sitting in a cave), I’m not that fussed with that ‘option’. The only one is for us to be the innadequate strong-man, prevent as much violence as we can and secure it’s borders as best we can, and hope for the best that a viable solution presents itself while we continue to train the Iraqi army and police force.
Rate This:
0 
0
Yup, hence my calling them “small areas”. – Jack Target
But they are small areas which are safe only for Americans and other Westerners. If these people leave, they will no longer need them.
And it seems most Iraqis want them to leave.
WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago, shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces within a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal consequence for the soldiers on the ground. The same poll shows that 92 per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the insurgency: it is widely popular.
So if we’re doing no good, and most Iraqis want us to leave, then why are we “staying the course”? Presumably for the murky ‘strategic’ reasons that newmania won’t name. i.e. oil and regional influence. Or else Bush and Blair’s vanity.
As I see it, it is more or less inevitable that it is going to be Iraqis who will sort out the mess themselves. So best leave them to get on with it.
Rate This:
0 
0
D’oh!
Peace in the Middle East 101.
1) Give Iraq to Iran;
2) Create a seperate state (bits of Iraq & Iran) for the Kurds;
3) Leave a crater where Israel used to be and give the non-radioactive bits to Syria;
4) Make opium production legal in Afghanistan;
5) Send Saddam to Libya where he can be tutored in the ways of righteousness (and peace with the West) by arch peacemaker Col. al-Gaddafi;
6) Keep the House of Saud motherless on Johnnie Walker Blue Label for the foreseeable future.
Easy.
Rate This:
0 
0
Tony Blair may not believe in the death penalty but the death penalty believes in Saddam Hussein!
Personally, I’m looking forward to the Saddam Album featuring such hits as:
‘Swing low, you maniac…’
‘And did those feet in recent times, walk almost ten feet off, the ground’
and, my all time favourite,
‘He’ll be swinging off a gibbet in a month, he’ll be swinging from the yardarm in a month.
He’ll be swinging in the rigging, swinging in the rigging he’ll be swinging in the rigging in a month’
They should send Chuck Norris over there to sort everything out. If Chuck Norris jumped off a cliff, the cliff would die!
Rate This:
0 
0
Always charming to make songs about somebody’s imminent death…
Rate This:
0 
0
‘The wages of sin is death’
‘Uneasy lies the head that bears the crown’
‘Nearer to the crown, nearer to the sword’
To name but most of them.
Come on Jack, chopping the head off one’s arch enemy is a time honoured tradition in Texas and British Parliament. This is the culture of Islam. None of this ‘first offence’ rubbish we have in the West, just ‘Off with his head!’
Anyway, Saddam was like a professional hit man. He must have spent most of the last twenty years wondering when he was going to get two in the back of the neck.
I’ll bet Saddam’s laughing his nuts off at the moment; he’s won (effectively). He might as well go out on a high point. How many people can say that? (certainly not Alex Ferguson…. probably)
So how about joining in with a chorus of ‘We’ll hang up old Saddam on the Seigfried line…’?
P.S.
Did anyone see Adam Bolton (Sky News political correspondent) winding Tone up last night at the Prime minister’s press conference? Laugh! I nearly wet myself!
Rate This:
0 
0
“Don’t hang Saddam” – interesting article (I thought) by The Hitch here
Rate This:
0 
0
“It’s a shame, Mr. Blair,” Quoth George Bush,
“We invaded Iraq in a rush!
We wanted the oil,
Not this murderous toil
We should have just financed a putsch!”
Rate This:
0 
0
The out of service dept – I like that verse
Rate This:
0 
0
The bit about Saddam’s grand plan sounds plausible until you remember that he was found, on his own, in a hole in the ground, and that doesn’t suggest to me that he had an exit strategy.
What may have looked like soldiers melting away to come back later was soldiers running away. They were at heart all cowards supporting a regime out of fear.
What you see now isn’t a resurgence of the old regime, it is Russian style gang warfare for nothing more than the pleasure of watching people die and establishing mini criminal empires. They are killing each other in far greater numbers than than their “hosts”.
The US failure to take Iraq alive, as it were, was largely a result of indulging its own liberal elite. Had the US gone in and ruled with a rod of iron, just like Saddam did, things today would have been a whole lot better for Iraqis. Had they imposed curfews, shot detractors, summarily executed random people etc, etc, the locals would have taken this as business as usual and gotten on with it. But for some reason they imagined (how they did this I don’t know) they imagined they would be welcomed as heroes and gave out sweets.
I think the war was evil, and predicated on lies, but if you want to win something like that I think you have to be very brutal.
I still to this day cannot understand the mindset of anyone who voted for this catastrophe but thanks, Boris, for trying.
Rate This:
0 
0
Thanks for the ‘Don’t hang Saddam’ article, Jaq. My thoughts entirely. If we’re brutish enough to collectively murder people, then why punish murderers – since we’re all murderers too. No, let him suffer in prison.
Rate This:
0 
0
Not in a British prison though Flo – he’d be out in a few months!
Rate This:
0 
0
Auntie Flo – BTW, if you’re interested there was an infamous debate about the Iraq war twixt The Hitch and George Galloway. You can listen to the highlights here.
Rate This:
0 
0
Sorry Flo – link hasn’t worked. Click on my name and you’ll find a link to it on my blog.
Rate This:
0 
0