The second editorial is a very good summary of both the state of politics and public opinion in the UK at the moment.
On 3/19/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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:5:200689 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
