Interesting. I was looking at this analysis: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=433252006
and if I understand you you think the first editorial is correct? I'd love for you to be right about that, but I am more inclined to believe the second, personally. For the click impaired... Iraq - three years on and was it really worth it? ALEX MASSIE AND ALEX SALMOND YES - ALEX MASSIE Rationale was sound and we are obliged to stay THERE can be few supporters of the decision to invade Iraq who, if they are honest, have not found themselves wondering from time to time if toppling Saddam was not a grievous, ghastly blunder the costs of which, in blood and money, outweigh its benefits. Equally, I hope that those who opposed the war can admit that those of us who supported its prosecution did so in good faith and that leaving Saddam in power carried risks of its own too. Containment was falling apart, ensuring that we would, once again, have been forced to confront the Iraqi dictator at some point in the future. Better to do so at a moment of our choosing rather than his. The neoconservative analysis remains sound: tyranny is the crucible for terrorism and radical Islam. Freedom remains the best long-term antidote to that poison even if, as the victory by Hamas in Palestine demonstrates, this is a long and perilous road. Though some under-estimated the scale of the difficulties the democratic project might face in Iraq, no one claimed that the cause of reform in the Middle East would be won in just a handful of years. A 'generational commitment' is just that. Yet those who smugly claim that democracy cannot be "forced" upon a reluctant populace have been proved wrong, not once or twice but thrice by the remarkable and inspiring tenacity and courage of the Iraqi people who, against enormous odds, are struggling to plant and nurture the seeds of a new Iraq. This is the work of years, not months. Yet remarkable progress has been made, despite the horrors of the insurgency. If Iraq becomes a lost cause, it will not have been lost by the much-maligned and little understood neoconservatives, but by old school Republicans such as Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, whose arrogance and hubris have done more to damage the prospects of success than the combined efforts of Musab al-Zarqawi and the Baathist irredentists still hoping to tip Iraq into outright, catastrophic civil war. Neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney has ever convincingly embraced the president's vision for the Middle East; both have done their best to ignore advice from outside their own immediate circle. They belong to the school of 'To Hell With Them' Hawks who would, if they had their way, be content to leave Iraq immediately. That would be a catastrophic error that would at a stroke destroy the long-term strategic rationale for the war. It would betray not just the fallen British and American troops but also, more importantly, the Iraqi people themselves. It's become fashionable to make the case that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. It's an argument you're more likely to hear in London or Washington than in Baghdad or Basra. Though the seriousness of the sectarian divide in Iraq should not be underestimated, one recent poll reported that 77% of Iraqis felt they were better off now Saddam is behind bars. And there's the rub. There is hope in Iraq where once there was none. And we have a military, political, strategic and moral obligation to see the mission through. NO - ALEX SALMOND Discredited leaders, bloodshed and a pointless war WE ARE now three years distant from the biggest foreign policy blunder since the Second World War and the ranks of those willing to defend the disaster are thinning by the day. The American public have long since fled the field, with the Bush presidential satisfaction rating down to an all-time low. Over here, the "Cool Britannia" dawn of the Blair years has collapsed into a sunset administration haunted by the war and now mired in sleaze. Many of the right-wing ideologues who led the President by the nose into this quagmire have now recanted - of course conveniently blaming others for their own misjudgements. However, none of this will make the slightest difference to the more than 2,000 Americans who have died, the 100-plus dead British soldiers and tens of thousands of slaughtered Iraqis. By every term of reference, the Iraqi conflict has failed. The so-called extension of the war against terrorism has created a new magnet for terrorist activity and the greatest recruiting sergeant that militant Islam could possibly have. The war to secure oil supplies has destabilised the market and doubled the price, while Iraqi supplies look further from the market than ever. The war to replace Saddam Hussein has removed the dictator but put in his place lawlessness, chaos and an incipient civil war. The war to find weapons of mass destruction has destroyed the credibility of the political leadership on both sides of the Atlantic, since neither Western intelligence (nor Almighty God) managed to tell Prime Minister Blair or President Bush that the weapons did not exist. It is difficult now even to remember the underlying strength of the American position before they embarked on this sublime folly. The atrocity of 9/11 had united almost the entire world behind America in its hour of extremity. The day after 9/11, America had never been stronger in international terms - one of the few occasions in history that the world superpower had the sympathy and support of much of the rest of humanity. As a result, the invasion of Afghanistan and the search for Bin Laden were accepted by most of the international community as a legitimate response. The Iraq adventure shattered that consensus and left America leading a rump of client states instead of a united alliance. America is now exhausted by Iraq, with its "war President" totally discredited, unable now to deal with the much more potent threat posed by an Iranian leadership who sense that weakness. Over here, the war has left public opinion in Britain dangerously out of touch with the majority of parliamentarians. It is tempting to see British participation in this catastrophe as the work of one deluded individual, determined to act as deputy to Sheriff George Bush. In fact, much of the press and virtually all of the Tory opposition went along with this madness, while the political system has totally failed, as yet, to bring those responsible for blatantly misleading Parliament and the public to proper account. In short, it has been a pointless conflict, an unnecessary war and a continuing bloody and disastrous outcome. Related topics Iraq http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=404 War in Iraq http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=518 This article: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=433252006 Last updated: 19-Mar-06 00:24 GMT >This kind of thing is a 10-20 year plan. Pointing to the results now >is a red-herring. The question is what groundwork has been lain for 15 >years out? > >On 3/17/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:200661 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
