Iraq - time to go?
Yes!
I was never a fan of the Iraq war from day 1 – though nothing to do with it being ‘an illegal war’ (surely all wars are illegal?! Was it ‘illegal’ for Britain to declare war on Germany in 1939?!) or on being ‘mislead/lied to’ by Blair. I don’t think he or the intelligence services really knew what was going on, thought they could wing-it, and were caught out. Unlucky. It was a bad idea because it was clear there would be chaos after the overthrow of Saddam. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia. I’m sure we could demolish regimes in Syria and Iran in a weekend if we needed to. And then spend the next 25 years bogged down in a long and messy guerilla war.
The idea of building a stable democracy in Iraq is a joke (it’s highly questionable whether there is one in the US or Italy) and the prospects of getting one in the Middle East in the near future are virtually nil.
Iraq is on the point of a civil war and it shouldn’t be the British Army being shot at or targeted in the cross fire. The army has had a pretty bad press from the media in relation to so-called ‘atrocities’ – they’re being shot at every hour of every day and if they catch and beat a few gunmen, so what? Are we supposed to give them an ice-cream and let them off with a warning?
To be fair, we’ve probably not made the situation worse than it was under Saddam, we’ve just let the lid off a pressure-cooker of inter-ethnic hatred that has been simmering for decades.
Pull out immediately and let the Iranians/Syrians get their hands dirty trying to sort it out!
posted by anton @ 12:02 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I have to say Anton that you've hit the nail on the head there. We should pull out.
The reason I agreed with the invasion was because I wanted to maintain the special relationship with America. This still needs to be maintained and so until America pulls out we should not either. the American need a get out claus. They cannot be seen to leave the country in limbo or in the hand of Iran/Syria. The solution is to leave with as little politicial damage to the republicans as possible. Hence, when will it happen not while Bush is in power, such as action would give the democrates a landslide. They will wait for the new president to make the decision (democrate) and then attack them on the effects of a withdrawal. Perfect.
Iraq will survive as the Afgans did in the 80's and then the Russian were far more violent. The fact that we are there to bring peace and governance doesn't matter. The country if you can call it that is devided and there is no way to stop it the division. So with an american administraion without the support for a long war and rising casualties the future looks like a direct decision is required but whatever form that takes i hope it will serve a vital lession and that is ******* (I will tell you down the pub as I could be arrested)
But surely our relationship with the US is always going to be 'special'?
Even if we anger the hawks in the pentagon, we're still going to have a much closer relationship with the USA than, say, France.
We're in Iraq to bring order and progress to the country. With the greatest respect Pete, isn't that what every invading power claims? The Russians went into Afghanistan to help support a friend. I'm sure Germany only wanted to help bring Poland a new and superior political system in 1939. And China wants to bring economic/social benefits and progress to Tibet...how legitimate these 'friendly' guestures are is another matter.
Oops, I meant to say that Britain will always have a closer relationship with the USA than FRance does with the USA (mainly due to language and history).
I'd agree with your statements Anton.
Not wanting to sound like a typical P Biggy bashing point, but "The reason I agreed with the invasion was because I wanted to maintain the special relationship with America." has to be the worst reason ever.
Surely any two countries that get along and respect each other like the UK and USA are meant to, should be comfortable enough to be able to disagree on things without having to throw their whole relationship away? If that was the case, then it wouldn't be a "relationship" in the first place in my mind, and the sooner it ended the better. Thankfully I don't think this is type of relationship we have with the USA and so only have ourselves (and our government) to blame for the mess we send our troops to die in.
There was a report in the Telegraph last Sat about how the Brits and the Americans did have a proper strategy for the post-Saddam period - i.e. the last thing they wanted was to try and disband the army and all govt institutions. The pentagon, apparently, disregarded all this advice and there has been a rift between Blair and Bush ever since.
In post-war Germany the allies kept a lot of former Nazis in power, to do otherwise would have resulted in chaos. After all it's a bit simplistic to consider that all Nazis were fanatical, evil psychopaths.
Post a Comment
<< Home