Great speech. I’m glad he had the good grace and sense to refrain from throwing the ‘appeaser’ label around the House. I’ve been a committed member of Amnesty International for several years, and know very well that if anyone’s guilty of appeasement it’s those people with real power (e.g., British Prime Ministers) who could have made a huge difference at any time but chose not to.
Again, thank you Tony for acknowledging this simple truth. It’s a lot more than I was expecting. Maybe the hawks on this board could likewise observe this elementary fact.
I’m still 100% against the war. I’m still angry that the will of the British people, rarely so starkly apparent, continues to be ignored. I’m furious beyond words when I consider that the basic principle of our priceless democracy has been discarded in favour of the interests of foreign power(s). In fact it’s as good a definition of treason as I can think of. Sam Stone that’s a good point, I noticed that too and to be fair to Robin Cook he did qualify his statement. I’m worried about that missing anthrax too, I just think it’s a lot more likely to end up in my lungs if we do go to war than if we don’t.
It was a great speech - what of it I was allowed to see. FOX was the only station I could find it on and “Fox & Friends” cut in at the middle and I didn’t get the rest.
I’m glad that he, along with Bush, have decided to go this route. They see this as necessary and aren’t governing by opinion polls (which - I believe - LBJ said was a mistake).
Clearly the risk of not doing this outweighs the risk of doing it. Naturally there is risk in doing it - no one denies that. But the scenarios that might unfold if it isn’t done are even worse.
Given that the PM is chosen based on which party elects the most MPs, and that voting for an MP is thus viewed as voting for the PM, PM/Government policies generally get an overwhelming majority. I don’t have specific statistics to hand and am not saying the Commons is purely a rubber stamp, but the whips function effectively enough and the MPs understand in most cases that they are expected to vote in a bloc for Government policy. My understanding is that the 120 MPs who voted against Blair a few weeks ago, and the 149 the other day, represent the largest backbench rebellion in modern UK history. It’s just not like the U.S., where the President and congressional majority may be from different parties, and even if not, the President’s “own” party in Congress may not always vote for his favored policies en masse.
Blair’s political danger as I understood it was not ever losing the Commons majority, but facing an intra-Labor defection of at least 35% of his MPs – if it slips a little more, he would have to be very worried about whether the next Labor Party conference will keep him in power as Party leader. In this light, the defections are far from insignificant.
An interesting side issue that may or may not trouble both lefties and righties is why “their” respective guys are so closely aligned with each other – Blair, the ex-CND crypto-socialist, and Bush, the tool of the crypto-fascist right (to resort to their respective caricatures). Tories and Laborites alike could also wonder why Blair has found by far the greatest common cause and support in the Commons from the Conservatives. ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’ isn’t working here, and I wonder how many people (of whatever stripe) find the strange bedfellows phenomenon indicative of “betrayal” by their party or some weird unspoken agenda going on here.
… or why the Labour Party is supported by the likes of The Daily Telegraph and derided by the Daily Mirror … summin surreal about the whole gig.
Anyhoo, Blair wins, not his third (that’s yours, that’s in the bag), but his fourth term as PM (Bully’s star prize !) by keeping the Thatcherite / Home Counties / Falklands glory class in their the-sun-never-sets clover.
They will love him for this.
But yeah, it’s a side issue in terms of Blair’s motivation, IMHO.
Sam, I’ll take a shot at your OP, but I would also like to generalize about some other related issues (without resorting to Bush bashing - I hope).
First, I did find Blair’s speech very compelling. I also note that Clinton wrote an OpEd in support of Blair.
However, I also found Cook’s speech very compelling.
Where I agree with Blair is that there is no turning back at this point. I note that this does not excuse how we got to this point.
I speculate that history will view this as a war of arrogance. Only Blair will be spared from such an assessment. Hussein, Bush, and Chirac can all accept the arrogance label, and all of them have contributed to get us to where we are. We have no statesmen in the mix, 'cept Blair, and that is a shame.
I am still critical of the US policy that carried us past the point of no return - but I recognize that we did cross it. Turning back is not an option.
Sorry, Sam, but I must address one of the hijacks from above. Fugazi suggests that, “France was going to attempt to block the U.S. from the get go.” McDuff appears to support the opinion. From my perspective, it was the US that had decided on military action even before 1441 was passed. France’s posture was driven by the lack of good faith diplomacy by the US from quite early on.
While it is likely true that the presence of the military build-up is the only thing that generated cooperation from Saddam, it is also likely that the UNSC felt undermined by US/UK actions starting back in late January. There is little diplomatic difference between France’s position to veto any resolution authorizing force when the US had taken the position that the regime will be changed regardless of the UNSC’s position. And before this is taken as Bush bashing, I think Bush and Chirac share blame in not resolving the issue. It takes two to tango.
Now, one last generalization. I really don’t know much about UK politics or the government structure. I suspect that most British know much more about the US system than I do of theirs. But I cannot help but be impressed by how their system works in times like this.
Yesterday, they debated for nine and half hours. I searched and searched the satellite news channels available to me, and I could not find any coverage - short of an occassional sound bite. In my channel surfing, I crossed CSPAN and CSPAN2 a couple of times. Our Congress was dealing with much more mundane domestic matters (what’s to debate, here, right?).
The talking heads of the news channels just cannot compare to the drama and entertainment yeilded from the floor of the House of Commons yesterday. I was lucky enough to find a summary of the events here. I did find Blair’s speech on CSPAN past midnight. The coverage also included Iain Duncan Smith’s speech as well, but was cut immediately after (Iraqi news came on at 1:40am after a Hans Blix press interview, but I didn’t stay up for that).
The ability of the Brits to successfully conduct such a public debate simply astonishes me. I wish our government had the capacity to have such public debates in times of crisis. What we get are one-sided diatribes, where statements go unchallenged, and the result is confusing and distorted message to the public. I’d love to see the President face the House with a structured debate on such critical issues. The Brits are able to pull it off with grace, style, humor, and respect. Something dearly missing from the political discourse in this country.
For what it’s worth, it was covered live last night. So it was available in its entirety when he spoke, but the news channels have just been running quotes for analysis and examples.
jjimm, I’m not sure that’s an accurate assessment of my interest.
Frankly, it is not that I “care about” the UK all that much. I tend to believe there is truth in Rumsfeld’s slander about the UK not mattering much, in the grand scheme.
And I can’t claim to admire the UK parliamentary system, simply because I know that I don’t know enough to make such a claim.
I admire the US system, but I can also see shortcomings in times like this.
I do “care about” the rationale of this impending war, and I am depressed that I have to go to the UK to find intelligent political discourse on the subject. I do respect the Brits for that.
I do admire their ability to conduct such debates with such poise and respect for opposing positions. Even the partisan snipes appear balanced, proportional, and somehow, polite. It makes for a much more intelligent debate, somehow avoiding much of the “spin” common in US political debates, and getting right to the heart of the issue.
In the US, the politicians are famous for avoiding the questions that are asked, and answering with whatever supports their agenda. In the House of Commons debates, such evasion isn’t (apparently) tolerated. Real questions are addressed with real answers. It’s impressive.
Looking back, the closest the US has come to such a discussion of the issues at hand was the President’s “press conference”. And there, not a single question was dealt with directly. And that’s not “Bush bashing”, it is endemic to our system.
This whole thread is a credit to Straight Dopers - I’ll even excuse the Bush-bashing almost hijack as it’s almost impossible to resist when this whole subject area comes up (I know).
My take on the original OP is, “No, I did not find it compelling.”
It contained little to nothing of substance on the central argument of the merits of going to war. Robin Cook’s resignation speech was a both better speech and a better argument IMHO. I will resist adding my views on the War apart from I have been in the “not in my name” camp from the start and remain so.
Politics though is a matter of choices - and given where we were at the start of the debate Blair was in a corner.
For US posters unfamiliar with the UK political system - the issue was never that Blair would lose the Vote - or more accurately lose the “rebel” Amendment - as voting against one’s own party here when a three line whip (a direct order which way to vote) is called is a very serious step. If you are in the goverment (executive) in any capacity you would have to resign first. UK parliamentary parties are far tighter organisations than US parties in the House or Senate.
There were several weapons Blair had to use to reduce the rebellion; (1) his good speechmaking (2) a private charm offensive “fixing” potential rebels beforehand (3) making the vote an effective vote of confidence on his leadership. If he had lost he would have had to resign and many labour MPs looked over that brink and pulled back.
Number (3) is the real heavy artillery.
Even so the number of rebels since the last debate INCREASED from around 119 to 138 (others being in other parties) and that HAS done Blair lasting damage within his party. He could regain that but only if EVERYTHING goes perfectly with the War and it’s immediately aftermath. And as we speak a serious humanitarian catastrophe is developing as the Kurds head to the hills (again - remember 1991) in fear of the last lashings out of the Big Man.
The tragic thing for Blair is that if he is expecting pay back from the US/Bush he is in for a shock m’thinks!
The real act of statemenship would have been to pull out when Donald Rumsfeld said he could do without us. Apparently the panic in Downing Strett when they heard that had to be seen and heard to be believed!
Like others, I am not one of those that the OP asked for (opposed to the war) but I must reply that I find the PM’s speech compelling. Much as I love the USA, the British often are so much better at speaking in public. Not that we don’t have some good ones, but it appears to come so easily from the likes of Mr. Blair.
Thanks and good wishes to our British and Australian brothers and sisters.
On all points, I agree with AZCowboy’s take on Blair’s speech. Blair is a gentleman, a statesman, and a great orator. Perhaps one of the greatest in recent history. Frankly, it’s a shame that the United States has no such character anywhere in the ranks of its government these days, on either side of the aisle.
And further, I do not think that it’s “Bush-bashing” to say that the Bush Administration shares some culpability in this matter. Hussein’s arrogance and duplicity got the ball rolling, the Bush Administration’s arrogance and mismanagement of the situation made it even worse, and Chirac’s arrogance in saying that France would veto any UN second resolution was the capper. They all share blame. This is not “bashing,” this is realism. AZCowboy projection that this will be seen as a “war of arrogance” seems very accurate to me, on all counts.
What I find reprehensible about it is that none of them, not one, has owned up for their own responsibility in the situation we now face. Hussein mocks the United States while evading any responsibility himself, Bush says to a national audience that the United States “did nothing to invite this threat,” and Chirac maintains his aloof attitude.
Blair, in the meantime, remains reasonable and willing to accept his part in matters. He recognizes and acknowledges the division that has brought us to this point. He maintains a clarity and willingness to be honest that so many others on the international stage have lacked.
To say it plainly, much of what Blair said yesterday is what George Bush should have said to the nation (and the world) Monday night. Bush instead chose to shunt blame, to oversimplify, and to set up false dichotomies yet again. Where Bush’s speech was typical of the type of rhetoric that has put us in the situation we’re in now, simplistic and divisive, Blair’s speech is a good example of the sort of thing that could have saved us from it. That’s an honest assessment, I wouldn’t call it “Bush-bashing” at all. Diplomacy is, at least in part, about swaying opinion with powerful yet reasonable words. Blair’s methods could go a long way to easing tensions, if their immediate effect in Parliament is any indicator.
I think any attempt to dismiss this part of the analysis as “Bush-bashing” is obfuscation at best. It’s an important element of the whole picture. In short, what Blair said was right, in that he gave an honest, intelligent assessment of the situation that exists now, and some of the reasons for it. What was lacking (mostly because it was not the subject of his speech – I didn’t expect him to cover this anyway) was discussion of how we got here. It’s important, if only that we learn the lesson not to bungle things so badly ever again.
Returning to the particulars of the speech, I agreed especially with this point:
I think it is a tragedy that a second resolution could not be passed, because of the reasons that Blair states, but also because of the fact that it would sway the opinions of many, and would gain support. UN support would essentially justify a war effort in my eyes, and in those of many currently opposed to war. And that, too, is part of the tragedy that a second resolution could not be passed.
His honesty of the conclusion was admirable:
And in this, finally, I agree. To back down now would be even more foolish, even more detrimental than the steps that were taken to get us here.
John Adams, one of the founding fathers of America and its second President, deplored the British monarchy but held a deep respect and admiration for Parliament, even to the point that he wished the government of America to emulate it to a large degree. Over 200 years later, I find myself with the same sentiment.
British citizens have reason to be proud of Blair – he represents you very well and honorably. I envy you your leader.
Sam Stone: Well, I find myself in an interesting position, in that I find myself somewhat in agreement with Blair, somewhat in agreement with Cook and somewhat in agreement with you.
I’m not sure at this point that SH has any viable biologicals nor much of a capability to lob them very far (which I think was Mr Cook’s point as well as yours). I was also most impressed by Mr Cook’s point that you can’t have it both ways (paraphrasing) – either Iraq is a menance to the world and a credible offence force -or- they are so demoralized that the war will be over in a matter of days.
Mr Blair’s speech was passionate, and I now understand why he feels the need to support the US in this war; I also felt his regret at the sudden military turn of events, at the failure of diplomacy if you will.
I find that, while I still feel this is an un-necessary war, I can support and_respect Tony Blair’s position on this. I’ve never been able to do that with Mr Bush (not Bush-bashing, merely stating that I have not found his arguments or oratory convincing on the need to start a war) or Rumsfeld or Cheney.
So I remain cynical about certain things (10 year old stocks of bologicals being still viable, for instance) but am relucantly convinced that there is indeed merit in the pro-war case.
And in any case (as I said in some previous thread), I would really like this one to be over quick and have everyone come home safe.
The trick is simple enough - not allowing the use of anyone’s name and instead insisting on the cumbersome use of “honourable member for Westmoreland & Lonsdale” and pretty strict rulings on unparliamentary language. It isn’t allowable to call someone a lair, but one can accuse someone of using a terminological inexactutide for example.
Saying “Mr Whittingdale is lying through his teeth” is so much less balanced and polite that “The honourable member for Maldon & East Chelmsford has unfortunately let slip a terminological inexactitude” but they are one and the same
Sadly it isn’t. In great set piece debates like the one on Iraq the HOC can be damn impressive, but normally ministers won’t answer questions properly and will just answer the question they’d preferred to have been asked or abuse their opposite number (using very regulated language). They are just as duplicitous and evasive as yours and Tony Blair is normally the worst - the difference is that, when it comes to certain international affairs Blair miraculously becomes a highly principled statesman…it couldn’t be more different to Blair the domestic politican.
Perhaps not surprisingly, I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
**
No argument from me that Blair is an excellent orator, and Bush is not. Bush gets the job done, and not much more.
You condemn Bush for “convincing himself of his moral superiority” to Saddam Hussein?
I’ve come to realize that there is a segment of the ideological spectrum that has great difficulty not morally equivocating in any and all instances. But come on. Unless and until Bush orders torture, rape and murder on his own citizens in his own country, he can project his moral superiority over Saddam Hussein as much as he damn well pleases.
As for Bush’s “personal friendship with God,” got cite? Bush is a man of faith. So are a few hundred million other Americans. You think that’s a bad thing? They would disagree with you.
I’ll need a cite if you are contending that Bush has somehow cited a personal friendship with God in his Iraq policy. I do recall him responding to a reporter’s questions during a press conference regarding his faith, and he said he prays for strength, guidance and wisdom. Not much different than any other Christian, or a person of any other faith, I would guess.
If you are referring to his references to Saddam Hussein being evil, to the vast majority of people, that’s self-evident. See my link above.
**
So, let me see if I’ve got this correctly. Saddam Hussein is told repeatedly to actively cooperate with dislosing his WMD and his disarmament. He refuses. And you criticize because direct evidence is lacking?
I believe the reason we are at war at this moment is precisely because direct evidence was lacking! We had, literally, tons of circumstantial evidence, and clearly incomplete and unsatisfying explanations from Iraqi officials for the unanswered questions.
That Iraq did not cooperate substantively and that its answers were incomplete and unsatisfying on WMD issues is not a Bush-Blair position. It’s an independent third party position. You get that, right?
**
Is that what you saw lo these many months? What I saw was, “Cooperate, or else. No, really, cooperate actively or else. This is your final chance. OK, now we really mean this is your final chance. OK; this time we really really mean it.”
That’s “pushing for war?” Only in the strange Alice-in-Wonderland world of those who refuse to “get” this.
That’s pushing for Saddam Hussein to do what he was ordered to do by the entire world within days of the first Gulf War ending in 1991, and ever since!
**
Bush has been quite consistent.
Iraq has never complied with its responsibilities agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War.
WMD being held by the only person to use them within the past 20 years, a person who has attacked more than one country unprovoked within that time, is intolerable to the USA.
At least some evidence exists of peaceful coexistence, if not cooperation, between Al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein. (See Colin Powell’s remarks to the U.N. Security Council.) Given their mutual hatred of the U.S. and Israel, it is not difficult to imagine future cooperative efforts, with those terrorists using Saddam’s WMD, whether or not they are cooperating at a high level at this particular time. (Which they most definitely could be.)
That’s been pretty much it, all along. Inconsistent? Why? Because there are multiple things to be concerned about when it comes to Saddam Hussein?
**
Well, if you mean he grew exasperated with Iraq being ordered to actively cooperate, disclose and disarm; Saddam Hussein openly refusing to do so; and then some countries saying weapons inspections should continue because they are working; yeah, I guess he does have a “lack of diplomatic understanding.” I do, too.
Blair in his speech quite eloquently addresses the fucking lunacy of the French position, given all the evidence and history in everybody’s face here.
Given such clear illogic, one can rightfully question the motivations of the French (and the Russians, Germans and Chinese, for that matter). I have several opinions on what their motivations might be. Some of them are rather self-evident, and involve the U.S. current position of power in the world, and other nations’ discomfort with it.
**Says who? You? Members of the U.S. and British governments, who have a whole hell of a lot more information than you do, disagree with you.
I believe this point has been deemphasized recently because it’s not actually all that relevant, in the face of Saddam Hussein blatantly defying the world’s orders to actively disclose and disarm. Any thinking human being can see the potential of an American-hating Saddam. loaded with WMD, joining forces with an American-hating terrorist organization, more than willing to do the footwork. A year from now, 5 years from now, 10, 20, whatever.
**
Last time I checked, VX, mustard gas, anthrax and botulinum toxin could kill a lot of people. Quite a bit of evidence exists that Saddam has/had them. Quite a bit of evidence exists that Saddam has refused to disclose them or disarm himself of them. Systematically. Over decades.
Where did you ever get the idea that the North Korea and Iran threats aren’t being taken seriously? They need to be dealt with, and they will be dealt with.
Yet another bit of illogic by the anti-Bush crowd. People seeking Saddam Hussein’s compliance have tried everything - bribes, threats, sanctions, diplomacy, threats of war and, now, actual war. Saddam refused to accede to any of them, over 12 YEARS.
While the atrocities of Kim Jong-Il have been known for some time, his recent, bizarre, aggressive actions began, what? Last December?
The Bush administration rightfully sees the North Korea situation as something where nations such as South Korea, Japan, China and Russia can play a more effective role in talking Kim down. All of those countries have very much to be concerned about with a nuke-armed North Korea, just as the U.S. does. NK is far more likely to listen to South Korea or China than the U.S.
Please point out to me where the illogic is in that position? The only illogic at play is the anti-Bush crowd’s idiocy regarding America not handling North Korea exactly the same way as Iraq. Well, no shit!
As for Iran, there are interesting things going on there. It’s secular government seems to be diverging from its religious hardliners. Its young people are growing increasingly exasperated with the religous hard-line, according to many reports I’ve read.
A free and democratic Iraq will go a long way toward applying further pressures on Iran.
**
Who has ever said this will “ensure the safety of Americans?” Do you buy your straw in bulk?
Again, common sense dictates that the eradication of a dictator who for 12 years has evaded coming clean on his evident WMD programs - the only leader in the world to use WMD in that time, and the only one to lob missiles at his neighbors unprovoked - is a better thing than leaving him to do his thing in secret.
This “war in Iraq will increase terrorist activity” argument doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny, either. Is it your assertion that Al Qaeda carefully watches U.S. policy actions daily, to determine whether or not to attack us?
The radical elements of Islam who hate us, hate us. The terrorists who want to do us harm, want to do us harm. I’m sure they are incessantly probing, looking and waiting for their chance to inflict the most damage and death that they can.
In the face of that, we shouldn’t put down somebody like Saddam Hussein, who has been given hundreds of chances to disarm and comply, but refused to? Give me a break.
**
Wow. Where to begin with this one?
The evidence isn’t “conjecture.” Here ya go. Pay special attention to chapters 2 and 3. Then place that data in the context of Saddam’s years of evading, lying and failing to disclose and comply.
You then continue with the out-and-out myth that the UN weapons inspectors where there to play hide-and-go-seek with Saddam Hussein, in a country the size of California. That one’s very popular with the French.
Yet again, common sense dictates that in a country that size, in the face of a demonstrable lack of cooperation from the people who have been ordered to actively cooperate, hide-and-go-seek weapons inspections are not going to be effective.
**
See my earlier point that we are at war precisely because of both what we know about what Saddam Hussein has done and is doing, and what we don’t know, because of his highly suspicous refusal to follow the entire world’s mandate. That vote that he actively comply and disarm or face serious consequences, was 15-0 on the U.N. Security Council. Never forget it.
Yet again I say, who says we aren’t dealing with North Korea? The very fact that Kim Jong-Il is not doing what Saddam Hussein has done, that he is not quietly trying to lie and get away with something at this point, indicates that he really is rattling his sabre in the hopes of getting something (probably a non-aggression pact with the U.S., and/or economic rewards for backing down).
**
What a ridiculous statement. The recent history of Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds in northern Iraq and Israel beg to differ with you.
This whole thing has gotten so bizarre, at times I think my head will explode. I fully understand Bush’s exasperation with the diplomatic attempts. Because he has to listen to idiocy such as the above statement. The guy who invaded his neighbor, attacked at least three other neighbors, used WMD on his own people, and regularly tortures, rapes and murders his opponents is not “an evil dictatorship” or “a dire threat to the region.”
Stunning.
**
I don’t recall a time when Bush ever said he was going to give up his power to act in the national defense interests of the United States. Ever.
He thought he could go to the U.N. and get unanimous approval, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence. He (or whoever advised him to take that route) failed to recognize the influence of certain nation’s monetary interests in keeping Saddam Hussein in power, as well as their dislike of the U.S. having such power an influence in the world.
As a result, you get such stunningly faulty logic as you and France are presenting.
**
I wouldn’t venture a guess as to how this will affect the ongoing Israel-Palestinian crisis. I will, however, say without hesitation that a free and democratic Iraq is better than one under the repression of a brutal tyrant. If you disagree, say so, and make your case.
**
Stunning. Don’t even know how to respond to that kind of logic. Is this, truly, your response? “Well, yeah, maybe Saddam Hussein does order the rape of women, and the torture of children in front of their parents, and the systematic murder of his opponents. But what about what this other guy does?”
Man oh man.
**
On this I will concede you have a point. If regime change was the goal, it should have been said so from the beginning. Seeking regime change in the face of Saddam Hussein’s “body of work” is nothing to be ashamed of.
I am not sure whether regime change was known to be the necessary and desired goal all along, or if it became self-evident, as Iraq’s continued refusal to comply with disarmament became the last straw. You don’t know, either.
**
One man’s opinion. Another man’s opinion is, it is impossible to look at all of the evidence here and not reach the conclusion that weapons inspections weren’t going to work, and military force is the only thing that could disarm Saddam Hussein.
Why is the failure to use logic Bush’s fault, and not France’s, Germany’s, China’s and Russia’s?
Blair said it with excellence in his speech:
That certain nations don’t get that, for their own, cynical reasons, isn’t Bush’s problem. It’s theirs.
"I’ve come to realize that there is a segment of the ideological spectrum that has great difficulty not morally equivocating in any and all instances. But come on. Unless and until Bush orders torture, rape and murder on his own citizens in his own country, he can project his moral superiority over Saddam Hussein as much as he damn well pleases.
"
Must we in the US set the bar that low? For surely no one else will. People outside of the US–and let us also hope within it–do expect a bit more from the self-proclaimed leader of the free world than a proven unreadiness to torture, rape and murder his own citizens.
I’ve come to realize that there is a segment of the ideological spectrum that only sees US conduct from the perspective of official US opinion. The people on this spectrum tend to regard any divergence from this complacent path as moral equivocation. But they are fooling themselves.
By all means, congratulate yourself that George Bush is manifestly more moral than a rapist or murderer. I certainly don’t deny it. For myself, I do expect a bit more.
I expect the ability to work within the global framework that this highly integrated world demands. I expect, at the bare minimum, a refusal to resort to demagogic rhetoric: trying to confuse Americans into believing that Iraq was connected to 9/11 and to Al Qaeda.
Preemptive war makes no sense in a world in which even the vastly powerful United States depends economically and politically upon close relations with its allies. We cannot operate as a fortress against the entire world. We cannot afford to turn Europeans into into angered skeptics, and to alienate the support we have in Asia, Africa and elsewhere. And there is no compelling reason to do so. Surely, if there had been we’d have trembling in our boots over Iraq for the last 5 years or so; and Bush would have run on a campaign for Gulf War II. As is well known he did the very opposite: pitching a “humble” foreign policy that bordered on isolationism. While 9/11 made clear that a very different foreign policy was required, the logical move was to work closer with allies and to strengthen international institutions: not to throw away, as Bush has done, the chance to build on the support we received in the wake of that terrible event.
War with Iraq, a country with no credible connection to 9/11 or Al Qaeda, on these terms, is, to put it midly, a counterproductive move in the face of a farflung transnationlist terrorist threat. Bush’s irritating moral righteousness in so doing just adds salt to the wounds.
To Sam Stone and the rest checking out this thread, you guys may be interested to read the speech British Lt. Col. Tim Collins gave to the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish here.
Gosh, what else can i say? What do you guys think of the speech?
Just brilliant, and indirectly an indictment of American education. A speech from a similar-level American would be on the lines of “We gotta get that sucker. Let’s roll.”
I noted this part especially:
The first strike has already occurred. Draw your own inference.
Why do you hate your own country so much? That speech had nothing to do with Americans. But you just couldn’t waste an opportunity to slam your own countrymen, huh?
For your information, that speech comes right out of the AMERICAN battle plan. All combatants are getting the same instructions - don’t fly flags, treat the enemy with respect, if you have to bury the enemy, bury them with their heads facing Mecca.
Everyone recognizes that, since this is a war of liberation the enemy of today will be the friends of tomorrow, and that any excess force or shabby treatment in winning the war will make it just that much harder to win the peace.
But I guess you can be glad that you got your little shot in against your fellow Americans. You must be proud of yourself.
