Matthew Parris in The Saturday Times attacks the Neo Cons. He argues that the excuse that the strategy was awful won't wash. The vision was fatally flawed from the beginning.
'It is no small thing to find oneself on the wrong side of an argument when the debate is about the biggest disaster in British foreign policy since Suez; no small thing to have handed Iran a final, undreamt-of victory in an Iran-Iraq war that we thought had ended in the 1980s; no small thing to have lost Britain her credit in half the world; no small thing — in the name of Atlanticism — to have shackled our own good name to a doomed US presidency and crazed foreign-policy adventure that the next political generation in America will remember only with an embarrassed shudder.
[...]
Our British neocons have invested heavily in this ill-fated craft, and the wreck is total. How shall they be saved? Never fear. They’ve been working on the elements of a rescue plan. By Christmas all will be singing from the same sheet. All together, now, warrior-columnists and soon-to-be-former Cabinet ministers: one, two three . . .
“The principle was good but the Americans screwed up the execution.”
[...]
Funny, because I don’t quite recall most of you saying it at the time — some of you wrote columns and some of you delivered speeches declaring that Iraq was making giant strides; most of you blamed the difficulties on “Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters”, and some of you actually visited and returned rejoicing at the progress — but let’s overlook that. Let’s for the sake of argument grant that you worried from the start that the US just didn’t have the hang of this nation-building business. Now, you declare, we know that’s the reason the whole strategy hit the rocks.
Crap. The strategy failed because of one big, bad idea at its very root. Your idea that we kick the door in. Everything has flowed from that.
We were not invited. We had no mandate. There were no “good” Iraqis to hand over to. We had nothing to latch on to, no legitimacy. It wasn’t a question of being tactful, respectful, munificent, or handing sweets to children. We were impostors, and that is all.'
Well, I don't consider myself a Neo-Con but I must admit I did think some good might have come out of the invasion. Now, well I'm not so sure. I also believe the strategy was flawed and far too naive about the challenge of establishing a functioning democracy. I still think that. Parris dismisses the suggestion that there weren't enough troops saying that more than 100,000 troops is hardly derisory as a military presence but historically it really isn't many soldiers. As Naill Ferguson writes in the Telegraph 'The number of troops currently in Iraq is less than 140,000. That's roughly as many soldiers as Britain sent to the same country to defeat an insurgency in 1920 — at a time when the population of Iraq was a tenth of what it is today.'
Parris is right about one thing though, things don't look good for Neo-Cons. Both the UK and the US have made signals that they will be looking to start handing over sooner rather than later. The US Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican grandee James Baker, is recommending the US military withdraws to bases outside Iraq and seeks Iranian and Syrian help. And if the Democrats win both House and Senate (which is a possibility, partly due to the growing unpopularity of the war) the US will attempt to get out of Iraq even quicker.
No comments:
Post a Comment