- Current Latest Page
- All Contents of Site – Index
- New blog – The Feral Press
- Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
Or – Tweet this post
23rd May 2011
As Britain finally leaves Iraq the hand-wringing leader at The Independent on Sunday begs this question-
IN THIS WORLD OF DICTATORSHIPS AND ANTI-DEMOCRACY STATES & ENTITIES,
IF BRITAIN AND THE WEST DO NOT STAND AGAINST THEM …
My own question to the Independent, notwithstanding their proclaimed longstanding support of TONY BLAIR’S liberal interventionism, reminds me of this –
THE TALE OF THE LITTLE RED HEN
Who will help me plant the grains of wheat (democracy)?
Not I, said the UN, I only do peace-keeping.
Not I, said the Russians, I only do deal-making.
Not I, said the Chinese, I don’t do human rights.
Right, said the Little Red Hen, I’ll have to do it all by myself.
[If you missed this Infant school story watch it here]
Intervention is as intervention does, dear Independent on Sunday.
For years, and even today in many quarters, the fond belief was/is that the purpose of the United Nations was to stand against such states and groups. This, despite their inaction and/or insufficient action over such as Sudan (2 million dead) still ongoing in Darfur.
It is now clear to all with eyes to see that the “peace-keeping” (what peace to keep?) UN is incapable of pro-activity. Even its reactivity to events is often too late to save hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of lives. And despite well-meaning intent it often makes no real, lasting difference for good.
It also hardly needs pointing out – but I will anyway as The Independent and others of the “none of our business” ilk clearly need reminding – that seldom do other great nations of the world step in for humanitarian reasons, or even part-humanitarian reasons – where need is great. How often do Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, India, South Africa to name but a few, send forces to defend the downtrodden of this world?
This is not a rhetorical question. Please do send me a list.
For Iraq, and for the success story that it is to many(here and here) I thank Tony Blair (45,000 soldiers) and George Bush (148,000 troops) as well as the other nations’ leaders, Australia (2000), Spain (1300) and Poland (194). When the going in was tough and other feet were cold and despite the UN’s shameful determination to ignore its own resolutions of the previous 12 years, these few nations were in the forefront. The scores of nations which came in after the initial invasion also deserve thanks but nothing like those due to the USA, United Kingdom, Australia, Spain & Poland.
Lest we forget the invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000. In the latter stages of the invasion 620 troops of the Iraqi National Congress opposition group were deployed to southern Iraq. See Coalition & Allied contingent involvement
NOTE: On Iraq Wikipedia has been compiled in the main by those with an ‘anti’ stance. It doesn’t even mention Spain. Spain was forced to withdraw when terrorists scored a hit by attacking a train killing 200 hundred people. The Spanish government then lost the election which followed as the Spanish voters capitulated to terrorism. We Britons seem to be made of sterner stuff. Tony Blair won again in 2005 – a third historic victory for Labour.
It would help if the anti-Iraq war Indie told the truth in its perpetual hand wringing as to the “number of dictators removed from control of Iraq: one.”
There were at least two more dictators-in-waiting that were removed (Saddam’s sons, pictured right & below) and others in Saddam’s administration who were later tried by the Iraqi government.
The Independent also chose its opinion polls selectively in this piece. I do recognise that most of the time, most polls here in Britain and in Iraq have not been supportive of the invasion. But they do change and move. To paraphrase Chinese words on French Revolution – “it is too early to tell”.
This opinion poll taken in Iraq in 2006 paints a very different picture
For a write-up on this and other polls in Iraq see World Public Opinion
Those who suffered most under Saddam – the Kurds and Shias – were most pleased to be rid of him. Even at that 77% of Iraqis overall felt the same relief.
Referring to a BBC opinion poll in August 2007 the Independent leader says that 63 per cent of [Iraqis] said the invasion was wrong, and 37 per cent right. The Independent also says that the British public agrees – “Before the war, in March 2003, 38 per cent approved of military action to remove Saddam.”
There is another poll – from ICM a month later – which shows that 63% of the British public approved
This will be the poll to which the Independent refers as “support briefly massaged to 63 percent”. Their message being that the British public were gulled or lulled into accepting (briefly) that the Iraq invasion was a good idea (when clearly, according to the Indie, it wasn’t.)
As if that wasn’t misleading enough the Independent then shows just how wrong-headed is its own analysis. It says, turning logic on its head –
“No democratic country can hope to sustain a successful military engagement with domestic opinion so divided, because public support is so essential to forces’ morale. “
They are forgetting that this democratic country DID sustain a successful military engagement, with or without supportive domestic opinion. It sustained it for EIGHT YEARS.
Of course The Independent tries to score some common sense points of its own, with –
“What is surprising, perhaps, is that the Iraq disaster has failed to discredit the idea of liberal interventionism, which The Independent on Sunday .”
At the same time blaming Blair, THE INTERVENTIONIST (Chicago speech) – the Indie says –
“… the experience of Iraq may have ensured that interventions will now be more cautiously based on worst-case assumptions.”
This paper’s errors of judgement are compounded by supporting/excusing the Libya intervention with this –
“In Libya, for example, the situation was very different. There, Gaddafi was threatening a bloodbath in Benghazi; limited military action was justified, and the need for it was urgent.”
In other word the thousands that Saddam had already killed and those he had imprisoned, tortured and still threatened were no concern of ours? But those that Gaddafi might kill were our concern?
How careless. How selective. How inconsistent. How utterly negligent.
The Independent then claims its own success with this –
“After many years, this newspaper’s campaign to persuade the Government to give legal force to the Military Covenant is finally bearing fruit. The covenant enshrines the terms of the deal, by which we promise to give service personnel and their families the support they deserve for risking their lives.”
And just to make sure all good Liberal Democrats (it can ONLY be Lib Dems who support this confused argument) leave their paper content on their high-horse it ends with –
“In the end, none of the statistics can adequately sum up the loss of life suffered, mostly by Iraqis, as a consequence of a bad American decision, wrongly supported by the British government. And what will never be forgotten about this chapter in British foreign policy is this statistic about the stated reason for our going to war – number of weapons of mass destruction found: zero.”
There is never any consideration given by these “where are the WMD” screamers that if WMD had been there (more than just those they had already used against the Kurds and Iranians) the Middle East and further afield could have been a tinder-box many years ago. There is also never any responsibility put upon the Iraqis (or near neighbours) who still today kill Iraqis. It is as though Tony Blair forced them to kill one another. Lulled and gulled again, eh, gullible, brainwashing Independent?
So once again, thank you Mr Blair and Mr Bush for your work for freedom in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.
Julie’s think tank has an excellent piece here – Iraq: From dictatorship to Democracy
As the government of which he is a leading member battles for regime change in Libya, while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort, Nick Clegg must surely know the futility and even fallacy of his own words “democracy cannot be created by diktat” at least in relation to Iraq (Libya is as yet an unfinished story). If only Clegg and the Independent and other such were big enough to admit it.
EARLIER POSTS HERE ON THE UN
- UNHRC – Save us from two-headed Uranuslings unbelievers! Or we’ll have to kill the deniers
- The UN’s Human Rights Council Goes Bananas
- UN ‘Battlestar Galactica’. “Caucasians” invented the word “race”!
- Children of Hamas (video). Lest we forget them – as the UN has
- Saviours of the West Unite … You Alone Know What Is Right …
- (Video) UN Freedom Killers – Atheists Unite Against Religious Intolerance
- Never in the field of Human Liberty was so much silenced by so few
- Thank You, Mr Blair, from an Iraqi citizen (YouTube video)
Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)
Tags: Doctrine of International Interventionism, Iraq, Iraqi National Congress, Middle East, opinion polls Iraq war, Osama bin Laden, prime minister, Saddam Hussein, Sudan, The Independent, The Independent leader, the little red hen, Tony Blair, United Nation, United States