A month of real progress in Iraq

TGF UKIP

The progress may be precarious but there are two certainties attaching to it. First, it won't be reported by the BBC and second, it spells good news for Bush and McCain and bad news for the Democrats and Obama - no matter what squirming sophistry he employs.

Jules

Still does not change the fact that this war was negligently, if not fraudulently, prosecuted.

I'm sorry, but this is one of those wars that should be viewed as morally dubious, not one of those black and white, good and evil type wars, comparable to WW2, which is how Blair, Bush, Shawcross, Kagan etc regard it. The foundations for the case for war have been destroyed, America and Britain's reputation have suffered, and thousands of soldiers lives were lost due to Government arrogance and poor planning.

Balaclava

amazing how the UK press don't report this sort of thing...one would almost think they wish Iraq to fail, thank god this generation of journalists (present company excluded!)weren't around in WW2. They'll still be arguing if we pushed Hitler to invade Poland, or that some UK/US 'Industrial Military Complex' forced us to war with neo-con support from Chamberlain and Churchill....

George

Of course plenty in the British Press want Iraq to fail. It's about journalistic credibility.

Look at the gargantuan efforts before the removal of Saddam, during the initial phases of the war and during the worst of the fall-out to present everything as terrible and you see why people like Jon Snow and Rageh Omaar have now lost their tongues.

Truth and freedom come a long second to cossetted, vain journalists who don't like egg on their faces.

Channel 4 News and the BBC don't do news, they do extreme Left wing self-aggrandisement and that is all.

Why am I paying for it?

King Prawn

The one question that should be asked of the Anti-War Lobby should ask is what would Saddam have done if US/UK had not got rid of him in 2003?

Would he have suddenly, against character, become a benovalent leader of his country. Or would he have seen the weakness of the West/UN and re-armed.

The answer is pretty obvious. Backed by the French and the Russians, he would have re-armed and he would have re-taken the Kurdish enclave in a bloody battle. And then he would have turned his attention to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and eventually Israel.

With Blair and Bush gone, the will of the Western Powers to stop Saddam would have gone.

I'm embarrassed by the excuses the anti-war lobby use to justify their opposition to the War.

During WW1, it was said that the British Soldiers were "lions led by donkeys". I think history will show Blair as a "lion leading donkeys".

Neil Turner

You can also add a few more to "things that don't get reported"...

- the thousands of rockets that have rained down on Israel over the last few years

- the millions of Christians who are murdered, raped, beaten and imprisoned by Islamist and Communist regimes

Jules

Balaclava and King Prawn,

You want to know why our press is cautious when it comes to reporting on Iraq?

Because it's smart. You're still peddling the "you're with us or against us " line, "back us or you are appeasers." Well, WW2 was morally clear: Hitler had already invaded two countries and was seeking to invade many more, plus he was murdering millions of Jews. He had to be stopped - a clear case of black and white.

Now, Iraq, on the other hand:

1. Where are the WMDS that we were promised? On Fantasy island, it would appear.
2. Saddam was a dictator. So? So is Robert Mugabe and Gadaffi, but I don't hear any mass clamour from Blair and the Neo-cons for stopping them. If you're going to remove murderous dictators, be consistent; don't play pick'n'mix, just because some are favourable to you.
3. Breach of UN resolutions - Um! Um! Hardly inspiring stuff - besides, the world now laughs at the UN.

Where is the case for war in Iraq? At least, WW2' case was staring you right in the face.

Jason Plessas

Neil Turner, what about the Christians who are murdered and blown up in the hellhole the US/UK have turned Iraq into, the Islamist free-for-all we have sponsored there? That's what doesn't get reported.

TrevorH

I cannot think of a war LESS morally dubious. It brought about the end of Saddam and replaced him with a democracy. Despite all the guff about - its all about oil - there was no ulterior motive, that should be self evident by now.

Chance would be a fine thing if the same could happen in Zimbabwe

TrevorH

"During WW1, it was said that the British Soldiers were "lions led by donkeys".

I think you will find that was an expression made up by Alan Clark. I won't go here into how in fact the british army wars broadly reasonably well led and that it turned itself into probably the best army this country has ever put in to the field, but what I will say here is that there are many similarities I believe between WW1 and Iraq. Not least the learning curve picked up on the job as an Army - this time the US Army - is confronted by a new warfare.

Joshua

'Well, WW2 was morally clear: Hitler had already invaded two countries and was seeking to invade many more, plus he was murdering millions of Jews.'

Oh please, the very least thing Britain did was to go to war to save Jews. In 1939, Britain was a virulently anti-Semitic nation and the government was scared to death that the war would be seen as a Jewish conflict. Once in the war, the government did absolutely nothing to help the Jews, not even raise its voice above a whisper. It could even be argued that Britain actually collaborated in the Holocaust (I refer you here to the Evian Conference, the Bermuda Conference, the 1939 White Paper, the BBC's refusal to broadcast about the gas chambers and Eden's refusal to rescue thousands of Jews from Hungary even at a very small cost).

King Prawn

Jules,

Answer the question, what would Saddam have done if the US/UK did not get rid of him in 2003?

I think the answer was obvious. He would have re-armed aided by the Russians and the French. He was already developing a missile system (people soon forgot about those missiles didn't they?) which the UN found by mistake in early 2003.

Once re-armed, he would have retaken the Kurdish enclave in Northern Iraq. The anti-war lobby would soon trotted out the line that he was only re-taking what was already his. Damn the poor Kurds who would have been murdered in their thousands.

Do you think he would stop there? Of course not.

One way or another Saddam had to be dealt with. He could no longer be tolerated.

As for Mugabe and Gaddafi, you are right they should be dealt with. But is the political will there now to deal with these two? No, because the left-leaning establishment will not tolerate another such war.

Going back to Hitler, France and Britain had the opportunity to stop Hitler in 1936. It was a gamble that paid off for Hitler, who would have retreated if France/GB had the balls to face him. Hitler grew in confidence from this event. World War II may have been prevented IF Hitler was turned back in 1936.

King Prawn

TrevorH,

I agree that the British Army in 1918 was far and away the best Army that this country had put in then field. Rawlinson's tactics at Amiens in 1918 was the birth of modern warfare.

Pity that the Allied commanders in France in 1940 forgot this.

London Calling

Only The Washington Post could play its own tune, sorry James, I don’t want to sound negative, I suppose it boosts morale and all that, however its doesn’t alter the bigger picture or the calm before the sandstorm.

Having read the article by the guardian "Divorces inflict home front damage on US troops as Iraq war drags on" It brought it home to me what a mess it all is and I cannot imagine what kind of Men and Women are going to return home to their families after being on a tour of duty for fifteen months.

This is the Real story....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/usa.usforeignpolicy

Nicholas

Jules, it's the result of the vociferous pressure brought to bear by peaceniks like you that prevents intervention in the hell hole formerly known as Rhodesia, that and the blinkered, racist obstructionism of the other African governments (and I use the term governments loosely).

THX1138

TGF UKIP- I normally agree with you we seem to come at things from completely different sides but agree on the end result.

I do disagree with you on this however, Iraq will always hurt McCain any success in the surge just reminds the the US public that they will have to be over there forever to hold the ring & any failure well of course that's down to him it's his policy isn't it.

Lookslike the reasons for going to war took another bashing with Bush's Press Secretary Scott McLellan's new book

The Money quote on the lying about the reasons for war

"For Bush, removing the “grave and gathering danger” that Iraq supposedly posed was primarily a means for achieving the far more grandiose objective of reshaping the Middle East as a region of peaceful democracies.

This fateful misstep was based on a confluence of events (the shock of 9/11 and our deceptively quick initial military success in Afghanistan), human nature (ambition, certitude and self-deceit), and a divinely inspired passion (Bush’s deeply held belief that all people have a God-given right to live in freedom). Every president wants to achieve greatness but few do. As I have heard Bush say, only a wartime president is likely to achieve greatness, in part because the upheavals of war provide the opportunity for the transformative change that he hoped to achieve. In Iraq, Bush saw his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness.

I do not know how the war will be viewed decades from now. What I do know is that war should be waged only when necessary and the Iraq war was not necessary. Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake. But I’ve come to believe that an even more fundamental mistake was made — a decision to turn away from candour and honesty when those qualities were most needed."

This no leftie latte drinking liberal but a trusted insider the Presidents CJ Cragg

TGF UKIP

THX, yes and I too am usually in agreement with most of your posts, which is why I regret we are in disagreement here. Setting aside the MCain/Iraq issue for another day, please let me set out my reasons for so strongly supporting the war.

First, though, let me preface these with a quote from a fascinating book, published in early 2007, "Man in the Shadows" by Efraim Halevy, the recent Head of Mossad. In the Prologue talking about 9/11 he says "I remember talking to a close colleague, after a day or two, that the Middle East war had penetrated the shores of the American continent and that the US was now at war in the Middle East. It could not win that war on its own soil and, therefore sooner rather than later, the United States would have to come to the Middle East and engage that enemy to win that war."

To some extent the question then becomes who or what was that enemy and the answer must be that it was a many headed one, with the largest and most dangerous head belonging to Saddam.

Saddam was no madman but he was, as all the evidence suggests, irrational and, most dangerously, reckless. My own view was that he saw himself as the successor to Gamal Abdel Nasser with the same ambition for Arab nationalism with him as its leader. Certainly the Arab street feted and idolized him for taking on the West in the first Gulf War and the other Arab leaders hated and feared him for his influence on their street. Certainly, with Saddam constantly stirring the Arab pot, there was precious little chance of progress on either the Israeli/Palestinian problem or, indeed, any other Middle Eastern issue.

So far as any tie up with Al Queda goes, while none has ever been conclusively identified, in my view none need be. What has conveniently been forgotten is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an Arab proverb and given that the enemy of both was the West, and the US in particular, it was only a matter of time before Saddam and Al Queda became bedfellows of convenience.

Which brings us in turn to the matter of WMD and here we should remember that following 9/11 there was huge fear that the next attack might come from chemical or even nuclear weapons - a "dirty bomb." This inevitably had to turn the focus on Saddam who had expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998.

That Saddam had, or was in imminent danger of getting, WMD was entirely credible for five principal reasons:

a) Following the first Gulf War, the inspectors were surprised at how far along the road Saddam had got in nuclear weapons development.
b) Right up to the edge of war there was no real denial by Saddam of the existence of WMD. Indeed, it suited his purpose of securing the admiration of the Arab street to appear to have such weapons.
c) His expulsion of the Inspectors and his prolonged fight against their re-entry and for the limitation of their inspections militated in favour of a belief that there were WMD being hidden.
d)After N. Korea, Iraq was the most closed society in the world and one where accurate intelligence was almost impossible to gather.
e) His efforts to avoid comprehensive inspection, aided at the UN by the Russians and French, and his games when the inspectors arrived all indicated something of significance to hide.

Once again, at this point, as is so frequently pointed out, there were no dissenting voices from any of the world's intelligence agencies, including the Russian and French, to the supposition that Saddam either had or was close to getting WMD.

Which brings us to the edge of war with the French, Chinese and Russians pressing, with Iraq's agreement for delaying action for further inspections.

However, matters were too far gone so far as Bush was concerned. His agenda, and part of his 2000 election platform, was regime change. The same as the declared aim of the Clinton Administration. Unfortunately, for Saddam, Bush was no focus group obsessed President and was determined for the strategic reasons referred to above to remove Saddam.

For his part I will always believe Saddam was gobsmacked when the invasion actually went ahead and it is difficult not to have some sympathy with him.

So far as he was concerned he had paid his premiums to insure himself against just such an eventuality in the form of oil development contracts in Western Iraq to French, Chinese and Russian oil companies and additional premiums via the food for oil scam with large oil allocations to persons "close to the very top" in the Elysee and Kremlin.

I have huge admiration for Bush and his determination in this matter. To be sure there were many mistakes but it is generally forgotten that there was no template for an operation like this.

Overall, though, I am confident that the decades will be as kind to Bush as they have been to Harry Truman - a hugely unpopular President at the time who could not have run for office again in 1952 because of the Korean War and his unwillingness to take any shit from the Soviets. Truman is now lionized and I am sure Bush's (and perhaps even Blair's) turn will come.

So there we are THX, if ever you read this, my longest ever post but on what I am sure is the biggest issue of this time.

THX1138

TGF- Great post you do make some telling points & compelling arguments I will look up the book you mention

I just can't agree with you & your post deserves a proper response but I apologise that I'm too tired & too busy tomorrow to go into why the war is such a monumental blunder & I'm unlikely to come up anything new anyway & the debate will have moved inexpiably on.

You are however most definitely right that this is the biggest issue of this time.

I never thought I would say this but I will let President Bush's press secretary Scott McLellan speak for me.

"I do not know how the war will be viewed decades from now. What I do know is that war should be waged only when necessary and the Iraq war was not necessary. Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake. But I’ve come to believe that an even more fundamental mistake was made — a decision to turn away from candour and honesty when those qualities were most needed."

What a damming indictment from such an insider.