Why America went to war
11:30am
Come off it, James. American did not go to war to 'set about a phenomenally ambitious project to build democracies in parts of the world where they had never succeeded before'. America went to war to extract the blood price for 9/11. Saddam was identified with the terrorists. He was said to have weapons of mass destruction and therefore to be a threat to world peace. In attacking Iraq the United States and Great Britain maintained they were acting in self-defence. It was all nonsense, and has ended in disaster.
But none of this matters in relation to what Douglas Alexander said yesterday. What matters is that the Gordon Brown is distancing himself from the George W. Bush. So are the American people. So is the Republican party. So is poor old Bush himself, to judge by that press conference yesterday. Those of us who were against the war on terror from the moment the first plane flew into the World Trade Center are beginning to feel a bit sorry for the Commander in Chief. All he did was follow the script, and now he is being deserted by the scriptwriters.
Previous
Anon
July 13th, 2007 12:06pm Report this commentToo right, Stuart. Glad to see someone slapping down the neo-cons.
Og
July 13th, 2007 12:08pm Report this commentWhich begs the question - What would YOU have done post 9/11, Mr Reid?
CPT M. Fernandez
July 13th, 2007 8:15pm Report this commentAbsolute rubbish.
NJM
July 13th, 2007 9:20pm Report this comment"America went to war to extract the blood price for 9/11." What a load of complete and utter garbage. The neocon foreign policy, as advocated by Kagan, Kristol, the PNAC group, was calling for regime change in Iraq for years. Try reading the literature for a basic understanding of the strategy Bush adopted, instead of relying on Guardian-style crude stereotypes. Bush only changed from isolationism himself, after 9/11, because the risks of Saddam's regime (not secular as fools will tell you) joining forces with Islamic jihadists (already in Baghdad;read Tenet's book). Also, added to the potential WMD/terror threat, they wanted to change the balance of power in the region - away from dictatorship and towards democracy. The Baathist regime was a terror sponsoring (and protecting) regime which was violating every known international law on WMD's, destroying human rights and had no respect for the borders of its neighbours. However, WMD's was the only LEGAL basis for which the US could seriously take their beef to the UN. Yes, it has ended in disaster thanks to sheer hubris and incompetence. As for being 'against the war on terror from the moment the first plane flew into the World Trade Center', I'd like to know what you would have done about the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. When a fascist terror organization STARTS and DECLARES war on YOU, I would hope you would have the spine to defend your country, and the free world, from a totaltarian menace. Doing nothing is not an option. Weakness in the face of totalitarianism, only invites more aggression. Sneer at Bush all you want, but I know whose side I'm on.
Andrew Paterson
July 13th, 2007 11:04pm Report this commentIn no uncertain terms, there are two results of the implementation of one's beliefs when it comes to Islamist terror: one will lead to its destruction, the other will lead to one's head being shorn from one's neck with a sharp knife, or if not then a relative at a later date. If the Islamists have their way they will have the man power, the will and the confidence to achieve their aims, as well the feable, self loathing within the once powerful West which is essential for victory. Bin Laden took great solace from the US's exit from Somalia after losing less then 20 men over three days in fierce fighting. How will he and his supporters take the US's withdrawal from Iraq after taking less fatalities in four years than in the practise sessions for the D-Day landings in three nights? What was it Bin Laden said? "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."
JB
July 16th, 2007 5:52pm Report this commentTo my understanding, this whole Iraq thing is neither about saving face for 9/11 nor some more or less racist "give the poor brown people democracy and they'll leave us alone" twaddle. It only makes sense strategically as an aggressive attempt at softening the area around Iran for future operations. We haven't liked Iran for years, and they haven't liked us much either. No secrets there. So if we can soften up both Afghanistan and Iraq as places where we can keep large numbers of US troops stationed short-term, with the local population more or less on our side (cf. Michael Yon's writings especially), we can isolate Iran, drive a wedge between Iran and Syria in the process, and be in a generally good strategic footing if/when it all "goes down", so to speak. All this whingeing and moaning about oil and democracy and revenge is probably just smoke and mirrors because, let's face it, the above rationale for two separate wars is not exactly the kind of thing that wins over the hearts and minds of the electorate. I'm sure i'm not the first person to notice this, and I sincerely doubt some Iranian intelligence minister is going to wake up one morning this week and say with surprise "Good golly, those yanks are surrounding us!". It just feels like all the arguments I hear about "the" Iraq war seem to miss (or at least avoid) this rather obvious point. I may be way off base here, but that's just my two cents worth.
Back to top