Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

A Little bit of politics.

Lenny Law's picture

Former Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce today gave evidence at the Iraq inquiry. He said some very interesting things, but was, I felt, holding back a bit. So I texted a mate of mine, a senior naval officer, who worked closely with Mike Boyce at this time, to ask him his thoughts about Boyce not sticking the boot in properly. I quote his response verbatim: "He has little to gain but much to lose so will be cautious. New Labour not dead yet & they are vindictive enemies who will stop at nothing to protect themselves."

This really is going to get good, isn't it?

0

Shadowy conspiracies

they are vindictive enemies who will stop at nothing to protect themselves

Are you Andrew Collins in disguise?

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 12:34am

It frightens the

fuck out of me sometimes what these people will say and do to keep hold of their power and reputation. Is there any chance that Blair will be taken down by this?

0
Dave Amitri | 4 December 2009 - 12:41am

How can anybody be taken down

when there is always a job as a pundit of Fox News available.


0
TedLoaf | 4 December 2009 - 9:59am

A small reminder...

The Iraq sanctions were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council against the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait,[1] and continued until May 22, 2003, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein government in the US-led invasion earlier that year. Their stated purpose was at first to compel Iraq's military to withdraw from Kuwait and after that to compel Iraq to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction, and to do certain other things.
Initially the U.N. Security Council had adopted Resolution 661, a resolution that imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq.[2] After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687.[3][4] The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs.[2] They were perhaps the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in human history, and caused much controversy over the increased child-and-infant mortality, poverty, and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people, marked by two senior UN representatives in Iraq resigning in protest.

Just as a, ahem, pre-emptive strike against all the 'Bush and Blair cooked the whole thing up on the back of a fag packet' stuff that I fear will shortly follow ;-)

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 12:56am

Not sure what your point is

plus you quote a passage with footnote references that has no foot notes. The history of Iraq is long and complex surely what the public wants is some answer as to how we where decieved and more importantly why no planning was done for the post invasion the like of which is the thing that caused more blood shed than anythinge else. It's the most disgusting thing that the American and UK took years to decide what to do afterwards while all the while hundreds of Iraqi's died. There are places in Iraq still no better off than they were in 2002 this all could have been better handled and Tony Blair and George Bush amongts others are responsible.

0
Chris G | 4 December 2009 - 9:48am

My point is

that there is a very strong tendency to apportion blame for the way things have turned out solely at the door of Bush and Blair. As a counter to that, I'm reminding people of the pre-war context. If it was all about nothing as is implied constantly, and Saddam was nothing to get worked up about, then what was the point of the UN sanctions?

It wasn't just nasty old George'n'Tony who believed WMD existed. The UN did. Anyway, people have to decide what their grievance is - either it's 'there were no WMD' or it's 'we sold him the weapons'. Both arguments are used depending on the point being made at the time. I find it infantile to be honest.

Apologies for not following correct Harvard referencing procedures. The text was copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 10:17am

The UN!

Apologies for the lateness here, but, have just stumbled across this. It think it should be said that the UN was browbeaten by representatives of the Bush government regarding the existence of WMD's. Many other governments were similarly browbeaten or "convinced" by the evidence supporting said WMD's. This UN resolution was a pretty flimsy mandate for all that occured. Just saying!

0
garygrills | 10 December 2009 - 12:49am

That word 'flimsy' again...

I need only repeat what I said earlier (but, confusingly, further down the thread) 'So flimsy that the UN agreed to the toughest sanctions in its history to try to get Saddam to own up to / destroy them.'

One word I'd like to say to those who put the UN on a pedestal above the US:

FIFA

0
DougieJ | 10 December 2009 - 12:59am

If he felt

that strongly about the legitimacy of the war or the Government's ethics, he could have done the honourable thing and resigned.

1
Black Type | 4 December 2009 - 1:02am

Exactly.

Watch as a succession of figures come forward to say just how concerned they were at the direction things were going, and what grave doubts they always had.

1
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 1:07am

The families of the hundreds of thousands...

of dead civilians in Iraq will read this report with interest when it appears. I'm sure it will make them feel much better.

1
Patrick Crowther | 4 December 2009 - 10:11am

Were the deaths caused

by coalition carpet bombing, Dresden style? Or were they in very large part caused (as in Palestine) by the fact that the ideology of the 'insurgency' goes out of its way to maximise 'martyrdom'?

This is an extract from a typically polemical piece by Julie Burchill, but still on the money as far as I'm concerned.

4) "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 10:26am

you're quoting

Julie Birchill on geo-politics I think I'll bow out we seem to have left the path of wisdom ;-)

2
Chris G | 4 December 2009 - 10:51am

Must be nice

up on the moral high ground.

I quote Julie Burchill as this is a pop culture website. I and many others happen to think she is a brilliant writer. Your ad hominem reply is typical of many though - don't respond to the points raised, just denigrate the writer.

If you want more 'serious' opinion, I could quote David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen or Christopher Hitchens.

But it's clear everyone else is 'antiwar' so that's all fine.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 11:02am

"it's clear everyone else is 'antiwar'"

Not that simple is it? You have suggested that people use reductive, simplistic arguments related to this - so I'm sure you can appreciate that for many people (myself included) it isn't a case of being simply pro- or anti-.
Picking one's way through this stuff is, excuse the metaphor, a minefield.
I've posted the leftist pop-cultural view of the first Gulf War out of, largely, pop-cultural interest, but for me it contains relevant political views.
Burchill conflates different situations to suit / support her polemic.
Did Britain need to stand up to the threat of a fascist invasion in 1939? No question. Pro-war.
Was it right to go after the Taliban and kick them out of power in Afghanistan? I think so. Pro-war.
Was it right to invade Iraq on the flimsiest evidence of WMD? I think not. Anti-war. Am I happy that we were told lies to make the case for war? No.
History throws up legitimate reasons for military conflict, and sadly war is an inevitable byproduct of the makeup of our species. Should we avoid it? Yes. Should we avoid it at all costs? No.
But 'better to jaw jaw, than war war'.

1
Adman | 4 December 2009 - 11:19am

Reasons

My purpose in posting the extract earlier about the sanctions was precisely to remind people that 'they were perhaps the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in human history'. With respect, you have repeated the conventional wisdom that 'we went to war on the flimsiest evidence of WMD'.

So flimsy that the UN agreed to the toughest sanctions in its history to try to get Saddam to own up to / destroy them.

Another point I'd like to raise is that people often hint darkly at a US conspiracy around 9/11, the latest being Andrew Collins in the latest issue. We're being asked to believe that they would plan an ultra-secret operation to destroy two iconic buildings in the centre of New York and Washington, deliberately killing thousands of their own citizens in the process, but that they couldn't fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraq, which would have made things a whole lot easier for them.

I just find this 'it wasn't us - a big boy did it and ran away' post-war blame game tiresome in the extreme. It's clear that the 'antis' won't be happy until an enquiry gives them the 'right' result in their eyes.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 11:30am

I haven't heard anything

to disprove the conventional wisdom.

This is how I see it:
We were told that Saddam was capable of launching a biological or chemical attack on 'us' within 45 minutes. We were told that this needed to be prevented, We were told that the work of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq was being hampered (there is some disagreement about this, of course). The Bush administration was determined to go to war. The Blair government was determined to follow. The USA's aggressive stance was not supported by the UN at this stage. Our parliament voted for war based on the 'evidence for WMD' in Iraq (have I got that wrong?). We went to war. Subsequently that 'evidence' has been shown to be false at worst (a lie), or doctored (spun) at best. If there were WMD why weren't they used in the defence of Iraq? We know that Saddam used chemical weapons in previous wars, of course, hence the legitimate concerns of the UN - and it seems that he made a fatal mistake in not owning up to the fact that he didn't have current WMD capability - given time the UN weapons inspectors may have been able to confirm that, thus preventing a bloodbath. The Bush administration wasn't prepared to give them time, because their agenda (even before Bush took office) was the removal of Saddam.

I know these are well rehearsed and familiar arguments - but nothing to the contrary has convinced me otherwise.

0
Adman | 4 December 2009 - 11:49am

This site

is an interesting idea:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007843.html

It is a debate between someone in favour of the war and someone against, but with the twist that each argues the opposing position. The link above shows the 'anti-war' person making the case for war, very effectively I feel.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 12:06pm

A US Conspiracy around 9/11

Can we not just throw Jane Fonda, Britney Spears, The Dixie Chicks and the Dallas Cowboys into the discussion to really blur the lines between known knowns, unknown knows, unknown unknowns and known unknowns.

0
TedLoaf | 4 December 2009 - 11:54am

Whether that would be a good idea or not

is an unknown unknown ;-)

1
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 12:05pm

The Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy

Michael Franti's take on the first Persian Gulf Distraction is strangely familiar in 2009.


The Winter Of The Long Hot Summer

It all seemed so idiotic
all the accusations of unpatriotic
The fall we'll always remember,
capitulating silence election November
before the winter
of the long hot summer
Somewhere in the desert
we raised the oil pressure
and waited for the weather
to get much better
for the new wind to blow in the storm
We tried to remember the history in the region
the French foreign legion, Imperialism,
Peter O'Toole and hate the Ayatollah
were all we learned in school
Not that we gave Hussein five billion
Not of our new bed partner the Syrian
and of course no mention
of the Palestine situation
It was amazing how they steamrolled
They said eighty percent approval
but there was no one that I knew polled
No one had a reason for being in the Gulf
We waited for congress to speak up
illegal build up
But no one would wake up
Our representatives were Milli Vanilli's
for corporate Dallas Cowboy Beverly Hillbillies
With perfect timing
the politicians rhyming their sentiments
so nicely oil gold and sand
my sediments precisely....
We regretfully support the lunacy
I'm afraid there is no time for more scrutiny
National unity preserve our community
Teflon® election opportunities
were in profundant abundance
On January second the Bush administration
announced a recession had stricken the Nation
the highest quarterly earnings in ten years
were posted by Chevron®
Meanwhile a budget was placed in our hands
as the deadline in the sand came to an end
so much for the peace dividend
one billion a day is what we spent
and our grandchildren will pay for it 'til the end
When schools are unfunded
and kids don't get their diplomas
they get used for gun boat diplomacy
disproportionately black or brown we see
bullet catchers for the slave master
Then the conservatives called up reservists
to active service left families nervous
but more importantly broke nine hundred a month
but the check came late, army red tape you see,
this golden opportunity
We watched the tube and read the newspaper
The propaganda of the gas masked raper
was the proper slander to whip up the hatred
The stage was lit and the lights were all faded
The pilots in night vision goggles Kuwaited and
generals masturbated
'til the fifteenth two days later they invaded
Not a single t.v. station expressed dissension or
hardly made mention to the censorship of information
from our kinder and gentler nation
blinder and mentaler retardation
DISORIENTATION
The pilots said their bombs lit Baghdad
like a Christmas tree
It was the Christian thing to do you see
they didn't mention any casualties
no distinction between the real
and the proxy
only football analogies
We saw the bomb hole
We watched the Super Bowl
We saw the scud missile
We watched Bud® commercials
We saw the yellow ribbons
Saw pilots in prison
We never saw films of the dead...at eleven
Angela Davis addressed the spectators
and shouting above a rumbling generator said
if they insist on bringing us down
then let's shut the whole country down
Marching through the downtown
A hundred thousand became participants
and we heard the drums of millions off in the distance
rushing through the cities
some of them did things that weren't so pretty
most were there for primal scream therapy
news men concentrated
on the negative liked the jingoists more
peaceful protesters ended up on
the cutting room floor
Nintendo® casualties of the ratings war
More bombs dropped than in World War II
or in both Asian invasions,
new world order persuasion,
Business as usual for our nation
Could you imagine a hundred fifty thousand dead,
the city of Stockton coffins locked in
when we clocked in...not to mention civilians
The loss of life on both sides
pushed the limits of resilience
The scent of blood in our nostrils
fuel of the fossil land of apostle
The blackness that covered the sky
was not the only thing that
brought a tear to the eye or
the taste of anger to the tongues
of those too young to remember
Vietnam
Is heroin better in a veteran's mind
than the memory of the dying laying in a line
Is it the smell or the shadows heaving and weeping
that keeps the soldier from sleeping
as he sings the orphan's lullaby
When the soldiers put down their bayonets
the strings are chained to the marionettes
Emir of Kuwait gets back in his jet
we replace the dead with new cadets
will we hate those who did the shelling
or will we hate those who weren't willing
to do the killing
when the leaders of the bald eagles come home to roost
will we sing a song of praise and indebtedness
for our deliverance from evil
or will we sing a song of sadness
for the dreaded debt this mess
delivered us PEOPLE

Bill Hicks - still ringing down the years...

0
Adman | 4 December 2009 - 10:53am

There's never just "A Little Bit of Politics"

here, is there?

2
Lucky Tiler | 4 December 2009 - 12:49pm

Hmm..

Can.. worms.. box.. Pandora..

I think you're right, Lucky. Should've kept my trap shut.

0
Lenny Law | 4 December 2009 - 1:22pm

Don't see why.

It's a subject of great interest, clearly.

If you're referring to my replies, it irks me slightly when people post or write things that are quite controversial (not so much thinking of you here, more Andrew Collins's 9/11 references in the decade round-up) but people who respond, such as me, are viewed as having a bee in their proverbial.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 1:29pm

Not referring to you at all, Dougie!

Just reflecting that, as lennylaw pointed out above, what one might intend to be "A Little Bit Of Politics" will go a long, long way. It's beyond the control of the originator of the thread, and there are topics close to my heart that I'd respond to at least as vociferously.

You shouldn't take me seriously. I don't.

0
Lucky Tiler | 4 December 2009 - 3:45pm

I, for one,

was very gratified to see Andrew Collins mentioning the passport/9-11 anomaly. I'm not one of the Bush is a lizard brigade, but I have noticed that anyone in the media who dares to mention the number of things that simply don't add up about that day gets tarred with that brush. so well done Andrew!

0
Vorgongod | 4 December 2009 - 2:18pm

"Things that simply don't add up about that day"

the same could be said about any day in history, if viewed retrospectively and selectively, as 9/11 obviously will be.

To use a relatively trivial example - yesterday someone posted about going to the dentist and listening to the Alan Parsons Project. Within hours, the news appeared that Eric Woolfson, a member of that band, had died.

Something sinister afoot, clearly...

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 2:41pm

I'm no consiracy theorist

And I don't believe a sinister cabal of lizards were behind the attacks either. But the passport thing is incredible if it's true - only two fragments of debris were ever found from flight 11: a charred piece of landing gear, and a pristine passport belonging to one of the terrorists.

Common sense would suggest that the latter surviving the impact, when nothing else did, is incredible. Common sense would also suggest that the likelihood of an internet conversation taking place about Alan Parsons two hours before Wolfson died was not only likely, but inevitable. The web is a big place.

I'm not suggesting anything sinister, or aligning myself with any of the nutjob brigade, or even saying that what happened is impossible. I'm just saying that "anomaly" is a reasonable choice of word in this case.

0
Fraser Lewry | 4 December 2009 - 3:06pm

As is the way

of these things, it's far more exciting for some people to believe in a conspiracy than more mundane explanations. Therefore, unsurprisingly, conspiracy sites greatly outnumber debunking sites. But here's a site that gives its take on the passport issue:

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

But the key thing from this page is the first paragraph:

Our first reaction is why would they bother? What does it add to the story? There was no need to “plant passports”. We’ve never seen anyone say “they must have been on the planes because look, the NYPD found that passport”. It’s completely unnecessary, and is only ever used as evidence of an “inside job”.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 3:21pm

As I said

I don't think it's part of a plot. I don't find the idea "exciting". I don't care enough about the story to worry about whether it's mundane or not. I just think it's odd.

It would appear that the debunking sites can often as idiotic as the conspiracy ones - this one does a grand job of "debunking" the passport theory by citing examples of debris found from other flights (not the one in question) and by pointing out the existence debris in a picture as "proof" without bothering to confirm where they came from. I agree completely with the passage you quote, but much of the other "evidence" is as laughable as that provided by the theorists.

0
Fraser Lewry | 4 December 2009 - 3:47pm

Fair points.

I'm not making strong claims for that site in particular. It was just the first 'non-conspiracy' one I came across when typing '9/11 passport found' into Google.

My point I suppose is that you could take any relatively routine event such as a car crash and, after the event, find utterly bizarre and apparently inexplicable things 'not quite right' about it. Or at least, you could if it was subjected to the same relentless scrutiny and internet-enabled debate / attention as has happened with 9/11.

Given the thousands of people killed on 9/11 (including the hijackers) and their connections to so many countries worldwide, and of course the global significance / ramifications of the event itself, it would be bizarre if there were not some things that are hard to explain.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 4:03pm

What you may think - as opposed to what is right and wrong

The whole , 'Ooh, i'd like to hear more about your views......'was extraordinarily, hectoringly rude.Nor was it the sort of thing we go for on this website.......Please follow the FAQs in future.Passionate though you may feel about things - remember your manners..... You seem like a smart fella... don't ruin it.

0
Vorgongod | 4 December 2009 - 11:05pm

Come on now...

I think DougieJ's posts were playful rather than 'hectoringly rude' - and even if you believe they were, responding in kind isn't in the spirit of the FAQ either.

0
Fraser Lewry | 4 December 2009 - 11:15pm

hands up

Sorry, didn't mean any offence. Twas just the formulation of words, which reminded me of a particularly sarcastic teacher I once had, that got me hackles up. Mea culpa. You're right though, Fraser, and I apologise to you, Dougie and the massive.... He was actually a very good teacher too.....

0
Vorgongod | 5 December 2009 - 12:17am

Point taken.

I must admit I clearly got a bit carried away in responding to certain posts earlier, yours included, for which I apologise. That said, it does wind me up when demonstrably decent people like Andrew Collins, and yourself no doubt, post things which hint at or openly suggest gravely serious allegations (the notion that the US inflicted 9/11 on itself). I feel justified in questioning those viewpoints robustly when the opportunity arises.

But, like I say, I realise I can often overdo the sarky putdowns, so:

*does Ringo peace sign*

1
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 11:18pm

I arrowed you up

.. because you have argued your point very well - and I'm sorry I took offence: it's not my nature.

1
Vorgongod | 5 December 2009 - 12:21am

Virtual hug


0
DougieJ | 5 December 2009 - 12:29am

to the magic of the moment..

Ah, cheers!Ta...

0
Vorgongod | 5 December 2009 - 12:50am

WTC 7

Nothing selective about that. and please, this is not an invitation to debate. My lunchbreak is over!

0
Vorgongod | 4 December 2009 - 2:39pm

No, do go on, please

I'd like to hear more about your views on what happened to WTC 7.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 2:43pm

We don't want no trouble mister..

It just fell. These things happen. You're right. Sorry for upsetting you.

0
Vorgongod | 4 December 2009 - 2:50pm

That's right.

It just fell. Probably something to do with the rather large buildings right next to it that collapsed in quite a spectacular fashion.

This site may prove enlightening. 'Course, it was written by Mossad.

0
DougieJ | 4 December 2009 - 2:55pm

On the conspiracy theories..

Occam's Razor applies.

Let's take the conventional view on 9/11.

A bunch of guys decide to hijack some planes and fly them into the WTCs, The Pentagon and Somewhere Else.

Amongst themselves, keeping things quiet, they manage to do so, bar the last one.

They probably didn't expect both WTC's to collapse as they did but the effect of burning aviation fuel on the ferroconcrete structures wasn't really something they considered in their original mandate.

Or the conspiracists' views..

The elected rulers of the largest democracy on Earthn decide to precipitate an oil-motivated global war on Islam by framing Al' Quaida in an act of mass-murder. Hundreds are recruited and kept quiet by a rule of omerta, none have subsequently spoken up, none horrified that their actions have caused the deaths of thousands of their fellow Americans..

There will always be coincidences. The simplest answer is almost always the correct one. Has a conspiracy theory ever been shown to hold water? I refer back to my original post here. The disputes surrounding the Iraq War are not conspiracy theories.

3
Lenny Law | 4 December 2009 - 11:37pm

I'm looking

forward to reading what James Ellroy has to make of it all.

0
McLongWhiteCloud | 5 December 2009 - 8:12am

Thinking On The Birchill Post Above

... it did occur to me that we (USA and UK amongst others) were supporters of Saddam Hussein when he was pitched against Iran. Obviously the methods used by his government during this period were acceptable as we turned the other cheek.
Birchill is a New-Labour apologist and her articles always seem to smack of selective amnesia. I doubt very much that she was championing for an invasion of Iraq during the eighties as this would have smacked of a return to the colonialism and imperialism from days of yore and would have sat uneasily with the thin transparent veneer of socialism she covered herself in during those days. Also, if we take her point literally then shouldn't we be planning to invade Zimbabwe, North Korea and any of the other despotic states that blight our world. Or should we check to see if they have reserves of oil first?

1
Meurglys68 | 5 December 2009 - 9:19pm

this

Saddam seemed to be the West's chum in the region until he went and invaded Kuwait (did no one have a quiet word beforehand saying, 'Oi Saddam, noooo!'?) ... thereafter Iraq suffered punitive sanctions from 1990 thanks to the UN Security Council and by 2003 the country was a wreck (major war with Iran in the 1980s, kicked out of Kuwait in 1991, economically screwed and finally invaded by the US with British help and some token Aussies and Poles) ... no one seems to have proved a link between Saddam and 9/11, no one found any WMDs and the country was on its knees anyway thanks to 12/13 years of serious sanctions ...

so why invade? regime change!

but why Iraq specifically? why not everywhere with a nasty regime? with Iran looking to establish a nuclear capability for real, with some deeply unpleasant people running former Soviet central Asian republics, with some nutters in charge across sub-Saharan Africa, what was so special about Iraq?

0
Glenbervie | 9 December 2009 - 6:12pm

What was so special about Iraq?

Unfinished Bush family business. Allegedly.

0
Adman | 9 December 2009 - 6:26pm

I linked to

this site further up the thread, but since you raise the perfectly reasonable point 'why Iraq?', I think the below points are a good summary of the 'pro war' (or at least not outright anti war) case. To reiterate, these are an outlining of the pro war position by someone opposed to the war.

1. The attacks on September 11 proved that modern technology can act as a tremendous force multiplier, such that even a very small number of relatively unsophisticated enemies can do extraordinary damage to a modern society. By far, the most dangerous such force multipliers are Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), which can cause catastrophic destruction without relying on large organized support structures, such as nation-states and conventional armies. Once in the hands of terrorists, wmds would be almost impossible to keep out of a large, open, trade-oriented country such as the United States. Therefore, wmds must be stopped at their source: namely, nation-states which have the capacity to produce wmds, and a possible motive for selling/giving said wmds to terrorists. The nation-states at the top of such a list would be Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, with others such as Libya and Pakistan existing in the second tier. Out of that list, Iraq was the logical best choice to take on because of the following reasons:

1a. We had been in a state of hostilities with Iraq since the end of the Gulf War.
1b. We knew that Saddam continued to hold an animus against the US and its leaders (e.g. the assassination attempt on George Bush Sr.).
1c. We knew that Iraq was not above using unconventional means of attack, as evidenced by his support for various terrorist groups.
1d. Strategically, Iraq was far easier to attack than North Korea and Iran: we believed we could attack on at least two fronts, we had experience fighting the Iraqi army, and the risk of severe blowback was far less than with, say, North Korea.
1e. The plentiful oil reserves of Iraq would both help pay for the invasion, and for the reconstruction of the country.

2. It has been the goal of the United States since ww2 to spread democracy and free markets throughout the world. Our experience thus far has shown that societies which embrace these ideals tend to prosper. However, because of an unfortunate mix of historical accident, dependence on foreign oil, realpolitk and outright cultural prejudice, the US has not only failed to promote western values in the Middle East, but has frequently supported regimes that have, in turn, actively suppressed democratic reforms. From a generational standpoint, our battle with Al Qaeda will only be won when their culture of intolerance (radical Islam) has been supplanted by a culture of tolerance (Western democracy). Again, Iraq was the logical best choice to "flip" over to western values because:

2a. Iraq is centrally located in the Arab world. A democratic, vibrant Iraq would be a far more visible example to the rest of the Middle East than, say, Afghanistan, which is relatively isolated and ethnically dissimilar from much of the rest of the Middle East.
2b. Iraq, although visibly crumbling under Saddam's rule, still had a good deal of experience with modern technology and other trappings of modern culture. Again, compared to Afghanistan, Iraq would have much less of a distance to travel to be a true economic, cultural, and technological peer of the US and other developed countries.
2c. Iraq has a good deal of historical significance to the Muslim world: a Baghdad once more restored to its rightful place as a center of commerce and learning would be a huge blow to the insular ideals of radical Islam.
2d. A "flipped" Iraq would serve two strategic purposes: it would encourage our ideological allies (i.e. reformers) that positive change is possible, and it would frighten our enemies - neighboring countries would be discouraged from acting out, lest what happened to Saddam happen to them.

3. Simply put, the best defense is a good offense. Anti-US sentiment exists in the Middle East and will not simply go away: far better to focus it towards military forces capable of defending themselves, at a time and place of our choosing, rather than sitting back and waiting for the attacks to come to us.

4. The humanitarian case was extremely straightforward: Saddam was a tyrant who was harming his people, and the US-led sanctions were further penalizing the innocent victims in Iraq. Freeing Iraq in 2003 would both do a great deal of good, and make up for our failure to properly liberate the country in 1991.

5. Criticism of the war as "unjust" is misguided: Iraq was unquestionably guilty of several offences (firing on US fighter jets, attempted assassination of political leaders, a history of aggression against its neighbors, funding Palestinian terrorists), any one of which legitimately qualified as a casus belli. The presence of wmds is beside the point: Saddam was unquestionably evil, and Iraq is better off without him. To complain that the war was justified to the American people on the basis of wmds and not on other reasons is like complaining that Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion charges rather than murder, etc. Either way the formal reason is less important than the fact that the bad guy is gone.

6. Criticism of the war as poorly fought is likewise misguided. Comparing the traditional aims of virtually every war ever fought ("Kill 'em all until they can't possibly fight back, then dictate terms of surrender") vs. the goals of the US in Iraq ("Disable the command and control structure while taking great care not to harm civilians, destroy important infrastructure, or look particularly bad to the world media") indicates that by any reasonable standard, the Iraq war was a smashing success.

7. Current political, military, and logistical difficulties in Iraq are laughably light compared to what the US has had to deal with historically (say, in ww2). By far the greatest threat to the rebuilding enterprise is not internal or foreign insurgents or hostile governments (Iran and Syria), but a loss of political will here in the us. That being the case, the anti-war left and mainstream media have not been helpful in the slightest.

8. The Iraq war has freed the United States from outdated organizations that had essentially become antagonistic to US interests, such as the United Nations. By invading Iraq with the help of truly loyal allies, we have reaffirmed our national sovereignty and our right of self-defense. We have likewise reminded the world that nations are powerful because of their current vitality, and not because of the diplomatic respect historically accorded to them (i.e. France).

9. The attacks of 9/11 represented not merely a few malcontents, but were instead a harbinger of a far greater clash of civilizations that could eventually build to a conflict on the scale of ww2 or the Cold War. That being the case, if a successfully fought war in Iraq can forestall or entirely prevent such a conflagration, then the Iraq war should be embraced as the lesser of two evils by far, even taking the war's occasionally inept prosecution into account.

0
DougieJ | 10 December 2009 - 12:05am

I was going to comment and refute most of

the points in this last defence 'from someone opposed to the war', but thought better of it. Never discuss politics. Instead I'm going to start a new thread called "What's the worst religion" and see if we can make it onto the front pages of a few international newspapers. Maybe get a fatwa or two going.

0
Harold Holt | 10 December 2009 - 12:26am

Call it "A little bit of religion"

Then duck.

0
Lenny Law | 10 December 2009 - 12:39am

Why the inverted commas around 'someone opposed to the war'?

If you look at the site I lifted the text from, the whole point of it is that two people argue their opposite number's case. If you want, you can look at the pro-war person arguing the anti-war case, but seeing as the anti-war case is conventional wisdom in right-wing Tory and hard left alike...

Your reply is interesting. I'm guessing you're on the left, and anti-war. Nothing wrong with that. However, I can't help noticing a very strong trend developing on the left in recent years - that of resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than responding to substantive points. The elephant in the room where that phenomenon is concerned is of course 'anthropogenic global warming' (see what I did there with the inverted commas?) but that's a whole 'nother thread ;-)

0
DougieJ | 10 December 2009 - 12:46am
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd