We were right to invade Iraq, says......The Guardian.


Blackleaf
#1
The Guardian, a left-wing, usually anti-Iraq War newspaper, has surprisingly published an article in today's edition SUPPORTING the invasion of Iraq -


We were right to invade Iraq

The failures of occupation may be legion, but at least we confronted Saddam at a time of our choosing

Oliver Kamm
Tuesday March 14, 2006
The Guardian


With the advantage of three years of hindsight, politicians' failed predictions about Iraq make dispiriting reading. "Any war will cause a refugee crisis of huge proportions," insisted Charles Kennedy. Iraqis proved him wrong by distinguishing perfectly well between a war on tyranny and a war on them, and stayed put. "The same doctrines [of pre-emptive war] could equally be applied by India vis-a-vis Pakistan, or in any dispute where a state feels threatened," warned Shirley Williams, shortly before India and Pakistan initiated talks to resolve the Kashmir dispute. In his tirade before the US Senate, George Galloway eulogised his own wartime perspicacity, which presumably included his assessment of Saddam Hussein: "I think he will be the last man standing in the bunker."

It is not a vulgar tu quoque to point out that those who supported regime change in Iraq are far from exceptional in having some explaining to do. Mistaken ideas have consequences, even when the inference drawn from them is a counsel of inaction. Had we not overthrown Saddam, Iraq today would be far from tranquil. Many argue that the absence of WMD shows that western policy had been working. It was in reality unravelling fast, and few opponents of war treated the problem seriously.

Saddam allowed intrusive inspections only because of the threat of force. Containment of his regime would have meant continuous military deployment in neighbouring states and the no-fly zones; intensified economic sanctions; inspections coercive enough to withstand Saddam's intimidation and fraud; and the support of France and Russia. Even with personalities of greater competence than Hans Blix and higher morals than Jacques Chirac, that commitment would have been inconceivable. Of the permanent members of the security council, only the US and UK could have been relied on.

Recall also the alacrity with which some commentators attributed the 7/7 bombings to the provocation of the Iraq war. Disgracefully, the New Statesman carried a cover picture of a rucksack with the caption "Blair's bombs". But containment would have meant persisting with what most outraged Osama bin Laden: western troops in Saudi Arabia - and Bin Laden urges "Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God".

Mainstream opponents of the war accepted a delusory picture of containment's accomplishments, and understated the costs. Even the Islamists and Leninists of the Stop the War Coalition were less evasive; they can be faulted for lack of candour only in describing themselves as anti-war, rather than anti-American and anti-British. "While war lasts by far the lesser evil would be reverses, or defeat, for the US and British forces," declared Socialist Worker when war broke out.

The failures of the occupation are legion: delayed elections, inadequate security, eroding infrastructure, complacency over the tortures at Abu Ghraib, and a heavy death toll among Iraqi civilians and our troops. But had we allowed Saddam's regime to persist, in defiance of its obligations under 17 UN security council resolutions, the consequences would have been an unalloyed catastrophe. The Uday-Qusay dynasty would have ensured further extreme oppression, unless and until the regime collapsed in chaos. It is a fine judgment whether a rogue state or a failed state, prey to the barbarities that jihadists are trying to inflict on Iraq now but without hindrance, would have been the worse prospect. The notion that terrorism has been brought to Iraq uniquely by the west's overthrow of Saddam, who bankrolled it and was the most likely conduit for Islamist groups to obtain WMD, is astonishingly ahistorical.

Against those disastrous scenarios, there are clear advances. We no longer have to bear one major risk: a psychopathic despot overcoming a porous sanctions regime, and using oil sales to pay for resumed WMD production. The absence of WMD was a huge intelligence failure; so it is fortunate that we are no longer reliant on Saddam's word. As Professor Graham Pearson, of the Bradford University school of peace studies, has written, focusing on stockpiles is misconceived: "In an aggressor state, there is no requirement to have such stockpiles as the national strategy is not one of having an ability to retaliate in kind but rather ... to use chemical and biological weapons at a time of its choosing." Saddam did possess dual-use facilities that, according to Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group, could quickly have produced chemical and biological weapons.

We have no assurance that the struggle to establish a constitutional society in Iraq will succeed. But we can be certain that the security of the region and of ourselves, as well as the welfare of those to whom we have obligations, will be damaged if we fail to support Iraqis against theocratic and Ba'athist totalitarianism. We at least have the advantage in that struggle of having confronted Saddam at a time of our choosing.

guardian.co.uk . . .
 
tracy
#2
If they say so... I'm still hoping things will turn out well in Iraq, but I'm getting less optimistic all the time.
 
jimmoyer
#3
The Guardian is quite liberal leftist and quite
anti-Bush, but nevertheless, part of this article
bears repeating:


"Had we not overthrown Saddam, Iraq today would be far from tranquil. Many argue that the absence of WMD shows that western policy had been working. It was in reality unravelling fast, and few opponents of war treated the problem seriously.

Saddam allowed intrusive inspections only because of the threat of force. Containment of his regime would have meant continuous military deployment in neighbouring states and the no-fly zones; intensified economic sanctions; inspections coercive enough to withstand Saddam's intimidation and fraud; and the support of France and Russia. Even with personalities of greater competence than Hans Blix and higher morals than Jacques Chirac, that commitment would have been inconceivable. Of the permanent members of the security council, only the US and UK could have been relied on.

Recall also the alacrity with which some commentators attributed the 7/7 bombings to the provocation of the Iraq war. Disgracefully, the New Statesman carried a cover picture of a rucksack with the caption "Blair's bombs". But containment would have meant persisting with what most outraged Osama bin Laden: western troops in Saudi Arabia - and Bin Laden urges "Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God".

Mainstream opponents of the war accepted a delusory picture of containment's accomplishments, and understated the costs."

end of quote
 
cortez
#4
read chomsky
not that that right wing BS gaurdian that claims to be liberal left
heck after reading chomsky and thinking for yourself know waht happens--
even chomsky seems RIGHT wing
 
jimmoyer
#5
Despite the brilliance of Chomsky, he too, is quite
invested in the audience he has developed.

I think I still have his book, The American Mandarins
from the 60s.

Before he became publicly political, he gained
respect for being a linguist professor, exploring all
the facets of language.

Anybody who considers him or Rush Limbaugh or
any other outspoken individual to be the Final Authority
has my undying mirth.

I won't cancel either of them, as I like to listen and watch
them like a voyeur with binoculars just on the off-chance
I might see them undress the truth.
 
cortez
#6
i quite agree
no one is the final authority
except the conclusions you must yourself decide
thats almost an act of faith

thats sort of what i meant by the quip that chomsky can appear to be right wing was meant to say

when i first read chomsky -- i was blown away-- but as i become older and senile i agree -- he is but one perspective
though the admiration i have for his political treatises- that linguist stuff is way too technical ---remains because of the way he BACKS up his points with 100s and 100s of referances- eyewitness accounts-- americas watch -- whatever watch --100s of journals- MAINstream papers- etc

i really dont think its fair to compare that Limbough idiot with the likes of chomsky--
but your point about the dangers of idolatry in these matters is very well taken

as cortez ages he grows weary of the follies of mankind-- i think -- sometimes our dark fate in pursuit of nuclear death will come to be-- like we can do something about- hell i cant even get my taxes done on time...
 
jimmoyer
#7
Man Cortez, I don't know if you followed the
Presidential campaign of Bob Dole (Republican)
in 1996, but both righties and lefties appear to
be capable of referring to themselves in the third
person.

Referring to yourself in the 3rd person is

1. adorable'
2. pretty stupid
3. still adorable
4. really dumb
5. makes everyone really smile
6. okay still adorable
7. kind of a jerk thing but still kinda of amusing
8. okay....it's still funny
9. but really stupid
 
cortez
#8
let not the little things cortez does trouble you
in real life i refer to myself in the fourth person
in virtual life cortez does as cortez does- to me the label stupid is pleasing and tastes like a fresh breathy minty toke

all this freedom and democrasy and all i see ia a whole lotta conformity-- MAN

ps- cortez is not a real person
 
jimmoyer
#9
Uh oh.
 
I think not
#10
The Guardian isn't liberal left?

How far to the left do you have to be to make a statement like that?
 
cortez
#11
the gaurdian is a right wing rag
cleverly disguised as a liberal left dish towel
i waver in leftyness but as i type this i am farther left that wonderfull red flag of yours
hell sometimmes i even think lenin was a right winger
 
jimmoyer
#12
Cortez is not real.
 
cortez
#13
jimmoyer is responding to unreal entities
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#14
The left, the right, the center, bah, we are all the more content to be correct.
 
jimmoyer
#15
LOL !!!

This is a problem for me.
 
cortez
#16
yes but the difference is
I REALLY AM CORRECT
and im not even real
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#17
We all respond to disembodied scribblings. Internet leemings . cough/squeek/cough/squeek/squeek/fart/cough.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#18
Real is overrated, outdated, to often immatated.
 
jimmoyer
#19
Yeah we're all just a bunch of white womens
spray painting graffiti in cyberspace sitting on
some domain's striped disk drive, echoes of lost
data resurrected when we least wish....talking
to poseurs, real beings holding a picture in front
of themselves, sometimes dropping it by accident...
or by malice of no forethought...

Hoooah. Forums !!

What are they good for ?

(hear the chorus respond?)

Say it again.

I say FORUMS ...

hoohah !!


Were we right to invade reality ?

What was this thread about?

Oh why don't we do it in the road...

Number 9

Number 9


Number 9

Number 9


Number 9
 
cortez
#20
thats very good---
thanks
 

Similar Threads

2
5
Guardian Angels Watching Edmonton
by Johnny Utah | May 9th, 2006
24
God told Bush to invade Iraq
by GL Schmitt | Oct 7th, 2005