Online today is neoconservative William Kristol's latest defence of the Iraq war. He quotes (approvingly) President Bush's latest warning to the 'withdraw now' crowd:
"Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy. Immediate withdrawal would say to the Zarqawis of the world, and the terrorists of the world, and the bombers who take innocent life around the world, you know, the United States is weak; and all we've got to do is intimidate and they'll leave."
But Mr Kristol is much less keen on the Bush-Cheney "as Iraqi forces stand up, American forces will stand down" policy. For him this policy is also a "terrible signal". It signals that more important than progressing the war on terror and Iraq's transition is the political need to get troops home asap. Kristol recommends a "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand with them" policy. Kristol agrees with Frederick Kagan's recent argument that current US troop levels plus 200,000 Iraqi infrantrymen "would point the way to victory." It is not only that one Iraqi troop is not as potent as one US soldier, Kristol believes that a combined and enlarged US-Iraqi force could bring many dividends:
"We could sweep areas and hold them, instead of sweeping and leaving. We could patrol areas we control - and still launch attacks in areas we don't. We could address problems on the Syrian border - and still concentrate troops in Baghdad. We could do a better job of protecting Iraq's oil infrastructure, and could provide a better security shield behind which real and lasting economic reconstruction could take place."
There have been some other thoughtful defences of the war in Iraq in the last few days. In Wednesday's Evening Standard Anne McElvoy argued (not available online) that Iraqis deserved the chance of democracy and admitted to "a queasy feeling about those who enjoy the blessings of democracy being quite so sure that Iraq should never have had a similar chance." The reality, she notes, was that Saddam would never have voluntarily surrendered power and his "two even more psychotically disposed sons" were "waiting to carry on the family business of murder and mayhem." The toppling of Saddam had unleashed demons but so had the end of the Soviet Union. She asks if Communist Russia "did everyone a favour by keeping the nationalist leanings of Chechnya and other unhappy dependencies in check"? "It did not, of course," she answers, "All it did was store up resentments to be unleashed at some future point."
Also defending the Iraq war and, like Anne McElvoy, responding to another attack on the Iraq policy from Matthew Parris, was Defence Secretary John Reid. In yesterday's Times Mr Reid insisted that progress is being made:
"Do we shrug at the presence of women in decision-making bodies across the country, often for the first time? Are we ambivalent when we hear that millions of Iraqis now enjoy power and drinkable water? Does it not matter that healthcare spending is up thirtyfold from Saddam Hussein’s days? Is the rebuilding and revamping of 3,095 schools (with another 753 under way) irrelevant?"
He argues that there is little point constantly rehearsing the arguments over whether it was right or not to topple Saddam. What is important now is for "Iraqis to triumph: to establish democracy, on their terms, as they want it; to help them to take the lead in their own counter-terrorism strategy and make themselves secure; and, to help them to rebuild their shattered infrastructure after decades of neglect." It is a battle between the Iraqi people and the terrorist insurgents. Britain "won't cut and run" from supporting the Iraqis in their challenges, Mr Reid concludes.
It appears that Mr Kristol wants to use Iraq as base to attack Syria (and probably Iran too). A combined US-Iraqi force (without other countries?) would be an even greater target for terrorism by insurgents.
The US and UK must put right the mess they made of Iraq's infrastructure. Pulling out is not an option now but we should not stay any longer than necessary.
Conservatives must be wary of the neo-con strategy for US domination of the Middle East - it can only lead to a lengthy and catastrophic war. It will only increase the terrorist threat here.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | August 21, 2005 at 12:23
The whole point of the Iraq war, let's face it, was to secure it's vast oil reserves. Facing strong approval from all parties (a few hundred people.)
And strong disapproval (the two million people who marched through the streets of London in open defiance) It had a mixed reception from the start, in other words. What about the weapons of mass destruction, that the UN inspectors didn't find when they were LET IN? The closest thing to a weapon of mass destruction that Iraq has is Mustard gas. (Please remember that the Americans sold it to them in the first place) Other than that Iraq was clean. Despite this being an illegal war from the start, (Sirrea are next) they continued anyway. Musilms all over the world turn on their TV, open the newspaper, or turn on the radio. What do they hear? The media making them out to be an ethnic minority full of evil terrorists! All of this is aside from the main point, however. Ours, and Americas troops are still dying in Iraq: America's death toll has risen over the 1000 mark; and Britain's is fast approaching. William Kristol wants us to stay!? This not only angers the Muslim community; (seeing themselves deamonized by the media) it is the thing killing our soldiers; not all the evil in the world, but Mr. Bush and his greedy hunger for oil! William Kristol? Who the hell is he anyway?
Posted by: The son of Man | August 21, 2005 at 23:10
"Son of man", your spelling and grammar ("deamonized"; "Sirrea are next"; "it's vast oil reserves"; "Americas troops") are on a par with your political analysis.
Posted by: Bruce | August 22, 2005 at 05:54
Well said Bruce!
Posted by: Editor | August 22, 2005 at 10:46
Reid's amoralist approach to the war - basically, it doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong so long as something good comes of it - is typical of an authoritarian-minded government for whom ends can be achieved by any means.
Hopefully things will work out for the Iraqis and the coalition forces will be able to leave a country that is prosperous and peaceful. There are reasons to doubt this though. One possible outcome is that the adoption of sharia law - a distinct possibility now - could result in Iraq becoming another Islamic autocracy.
Then where would we be?
GM
Posted by: Gary Monro | August 23, 2005 at 19:06
Gary, it seems to me that if "something good" comes out of a war, that's a pretty good argument in favor of the war. Such thinking by Mr. Reid is not only NOT amoralist, as you assert, but precisely the opposite.
As to the rest of your posting, you mistake what the war is all about. It is, as named, a "war on terror", not a war to make Iraq "prosperous and peaceful". The Iraq part of the war on terror is (among other goals) aimed at removing the regime (Saddam's) that aided the terrorists, and attempting to set up a new democratic regime that will be less likely to sponsor terrorism. Iraq's democracy (and prosperity) is thus a means to that end, rather than an end in itself. The new Iraq may end up an autocracy, but so long as that autocracy doesn't aid any London bombings.... On another level, I'm sure glad that terrorists who otherwise would be targeting London are instead being killed in Iraq by Coalition forces.
Posted by: Bruce | August 24, 2005 at 06:06
Bruce,as far as I was aware,Saddam Husseins regime as dreadful as it was, did not 'aid the terrorists'.
I also think you are being very premature if you think that the 'democratic' government that eventually emerges will be any more friendly to the west than was Saddams regime.Rather more likely that they will ally themselves with Iran,the nightmare scenario which so excercised the minds of our ministers in the 1980's.
Whilst I'm as pleased as you when 'terrorists' are killed in Iraq my heart goes out to the thousands of entirely innocent Iraqis who have been killed as much as it does to my fellow Londoners.
Posted by: malcolm | August 24, 2005 at 10:27
Malcolm, I can point to a hundred places where the connection between Saddam's regime and terrorism is proven. For example, the US's 9/11 Commission report notes several such connections. Are you seriously positing that Saddam's murderous regime, alone among the midEast Muslim nations, rejected anti-Western terrorists?
As to whether the emerging democratic Iraq will be "friendly" to the west, you miss the point. We'd all like Iraq to be "friendly" to the west, but what we really want is an Iraq that won't attack its neighbors and won't support terrorism.
Posted by: Bruce | August 24, 2005 at 15:13
Yes Bruce Saddam Husseins regime was not friendly with Al-queda and even the best attempts of Alistair Campbell and his 'dodgy dossiers' failed to prove otherwise.
My point is that Iraq will probably soon be ruled by equally unsavoury people who will be closely allied with Iran which is a nation with a much worse reputation for sponsoring terrorism against the west.
George Bush 1 knew this,it's a pity that his foolish son and his neo-con cronies didn't follow his advice.
Bush and Blair have in my opinion made a massive strategic mistake in the war on terror and it saddens me hugely that so many thousands of people have paid for this mistake with their lives.
Posted by: malcolm | August 24, 2005 at 18:25
Malcolm, you attempt to deny the connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorists by asserting that "Husseins [sic] regime was not friendly to Al-queda". Remember that what we are engaged in is a War on Terrorism, NOT a War confined merely to "Al-queda" or ANY specific Muslim terrorist group. In the fact that Hussein's regime had contacts with terrorist organizations, including known members of Osama Bin Laden's organization. Whether Hussein was friendly with bin Laden, whether he drank beer with him at the pub or got tattoed with him, does not even address the question of whether he aided terrorists and terrorism. Hitler and Stalin certainly weren't friends, but they just as certainly aided each other in 1939.
Posted by: Bruce | August 25, 2005 at 06:00
Bruce,I'm not sure if you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand my point.I am not an apologist for Saddam Hussein but as far as I'm aware his regime did not sponsor terrorism from Al-queda or other fanatic muslim groups in the way that Iran does (or for that matter Blairs new mate Gaddaffi) and that the mistakes and lies told by Bush and Blair will make the west less safe from terrorism now than it was before the invasion took place.
Iran is likely to be the biggest benificiary of this war,surely an outcome that will not be to your liking.
Posted by: malcolm | August 26, 2005 at 14:52
Malcolm, your "point" seems to have shifted around in the space of two replies: from no Saddam-terrorist connection at all--"Saddam's regime ... did not aid the terrorists." to some connection, but not as much as Iran--Saddam's regime "did not sponsor terrorism... in the way that Iran does".
The original contention I've already dealt with in my reference to the 9/11 Commission report. Should you (or anyone else) wish to be made aware of further Iraq-terrorist connections, I suggest you take a look at the online articles of Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, particularly the article of July 18, 2005. The link to that article is http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp.
Posted by: Bruce | August 28, 2005 at 16:38
The link doesn't work and my 'point ' has not changed at all.ie That Saddams regime was not aiding Al-queda and was much less dangerous to the west than Iran.
I'm sure Stephen F. Hayes and his articles in the Weekly Standard are very eminent and even 'though I've never heard of him I look forward to reading him one day.
Posted by: malcolm | August 28, 2005 at 17:18
Malcolm is spot on again.
Bruce, you can only have a war against a specific enemy. Then you can determine when that enemy is defeated and the war is won.
The War against Terror is a deceit that enables governments to move the goalposts. They can then use the war to trample over civil liberties and maintain monstrosities like ID cards.
The key task is to defeat Al Quaeda. They and their support networks are the real threat. However, we should ask ourselves why Britain is a target when other European countries are not - even though they have Muslim communities too.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | August 30, 2005 at 09:50