Hague is all too vague on Iraq
Fraser Nelson 7:53pmWilliam Hague has just given a non-committal response to the “mixed results” of the American troop surge. I’d rather have liked him to say something like this (adapted from the Giuliani article I mentioned earlier) In Vietnam, just as in Iraq today, America fought a war with the wrong strategy for several years. And then, as now, they corrected course and began to show real progress. Many historians today believe that by about 1972 the South Vietnamese had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency… But America then withdrew its support, allowing the communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire, and not only in Vietnam: numerous deaths in places such as the killing fields of Cambodia, a newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America. The consequences of abandoning Iraq would be worse.
There are some great lines on Iraq that HM Opposition could take, it could be a real debate in the House of Commons. But unless the Tories pledge to fund the military better than Labour has done, there is not much they can say.
Previous
I can not think of a faster way for the Tories to lose the next election than to start carrying American water on Iraq.
Anthony C
September 10th, 2007 9:12pm Report this commentI don't get it. First of all, saying that the surge's results on Iraq have been mixed has the very real benefit of being factually true. The alternative route as proposed here seems to me both to require a not insubstantial degree of selectivity regarding metrics for success and to go down a road that is likely to be electorally unpopular on massive scale. What's to like?
Donal Blaney
September 10th, 2007 9:28pm Report this commentYou are right (as usual!), Fraser. While if I were generous I could understand the domestic political reasons for Michael Howard's stance of "if I knew then what I now know I would never have voted for the war", it is thoroughly unedifying to see a supposed Atlanticist like William Hague choosing to be mealy-mouthed and to play politics with an issue as important as this. If we cut and run, as the US Democrats want, that will not be the end of Jihadist attacks on us. It will simply embolden them.
sunny
September 11th, 2007 11:11am Report this commentUnfortunately Michael Howard never did say if he had know then what he knew now he couldn't have voted for the war. He only said he could not have voted for the motion that paved the way to war. If he had opposed the war i suspect he would have done substantially better in th election and would have been doing the RIGHT thing. That is what he should have said then and what Hague should be saying now.
William
September 11th, 2007 11:46am Report this commentIt should be obvious to even the dumbest 'Atlanticist' that supporting more British troops to come home in body bags from a land and a war that has nothing to do with them is a cast-iron certain strategy to lose the next election.
The Tories need to distance themselves as far away from the debacle as possible. Contrary to the prevailing New Labour view in the Spectator offices, there has never been widespread support for Iraq in Conservative circles.
Thomas
September 11th, 2007 2:50pm Report this commentLike Giuliani says, withdrawal from Iraq under the present conditions will be construed as a defeat of Western military power poorly armed and organized insurgents, whose only strength was their devotion to their cause, and so it would be. Everyone knows Vietnam was an embarrassing political defeat for the US. Defeat in Iraq could well mean reinforcements for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and emboldenment of Iranian, Chinese and Russian aims in the Middle East. To counter Iran, the US must then commit itself to protecting the Middle East, beginning a new Cold War, or then Middle Eastern countries would have to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Screw what will win the Conservative Party the election. Anything but victory in Iraq would be disastrous.
Back to top