Feedback | 5 July 2003

Comment on The defence of liberty (28/06/2003)

It was disappointing to find The Spectator toeing the official pro-war line in this editorial, especially when even a periodical as supportive of the war as The Economist has issued withering criticism of the blundering incompetence of the occupation when such criticism was warranted. As someone who has opposed this war, and the general policy of pre-emption, I take no pleasure in the usually foreseeable setbacks and problems that are besetting American and British soldiers in Iraq. It is infuriating that those in government and the press who urged this course of action upon America and Britain seem to be the ones who are most surprised by the magnitude of the difficulties in Iraq, such that the American government in particular has had appallingly poor preparations in every area of endeavour. There is no delight in the knowledge that Iraq was never a real security threat to the West, but that our soldiers are nonetheless dying in that miserable country for the sake of the hubris and ulterior designs of politicians. There is some vindication in the continuing confirmations that the advocates of war were using faulty evidence and hyperbole to start an unnecessary war, but this is a bitter thing to have guessed correctly.

The Spectator’s claim that things are going “surprisingly well” reminds one of nothing so much as Mr. Rumsfeld’s incredible claim that Gen. Garner had done an outstanding job in organising the reconstruction administration or Amb. Bremer’s claim that Baghdad is enjoying 20 hours of electricity a day (when much of it, in fact, has no power at all). Such statements suggest at best an unwillingness on the part of the writer or speaker to face up to the consequences of policies that he supports, and at worst they suggest a desire to mislead.