Where is there any leadership in government on Iraq?
The extraordinary developments over the last 48 hours over Iraq beg the question "where is there any leadership in Government on Iraq?"
The views expressed by Sir Richard Dannatt, the army's chief of staff, confirmed again this morning on the BBC's Today programme, were clear calls for an exit strategy to be brought forward by the Government.
Nobody however, neither Blair nor Brown, is coming forward with anything new.
Instead we face the prospect of a lingering, directionless presence in a country which is obviously sinking into civil war with all the consequent loss of life and threat to our troops.
We need clear and firm leadership on this question now. This must involve the placing before Parliament next week of a planned exit strategy including a deadline for withdrawal, a direct approach to the United Nations for assistance and a convening of a European summit to bring our European partners back on side to assist Britain in extracting itself from this disastrous mess that is Iraq.
The views expressed by Sir Richard Dannatt, the army's chief of staff, confirmed again this morning on the BBC's Today programme, were clear calls for an exit strategy to be brought forward by the Government.
Nobody however, neither Blair nor Brown, is coming forward with anything new.
Instead we face the prospect of a lingering, directionless presence in a country which is obviously sinking into civil war with all the consequent loss of life and threat to our troops.
We need clear and firm leadership on this question now. This must involve the placing before Parliament next week of a planned exit strategy including a deadline for withdrawal, a direct approach to the United Nations for assistance and a convening of a European summit to bring our European partners back on side to assist Britain in extracting itself from this disastrous mess that is Iraq.
posted by John at 9:23 AM
13 Comments:
I am put in mind of that other pre-emptive debacle at Gallipoli, when, in order to save face, the standing government against the will of the military continued to pour men into a worsening situation, with no change of tactic and a non-existent strategy.
Lord Fisher, the First Sea Lord, who had always expressed doubts about it demanded that the operation be discontinued and resigned when overruled. Yet a withdrawal still took place with thankfully the loss of hardly any lives.
Let's remind everyone of the outcome of this; Gallipoli's very public failure contributed to Asquith's replacement as Prime Minister in December 1916.
Are we doomed to let history repeat itself? Don't shoot the messenger this time.
DOWNING STREET :
"It's important that people remember that we are in Iraq at the express wish of the democratically elected Iraqi government, to support them under the mandate of a UN resolution."
On this basis one might say that Britain supported the attack on Iraq in 2003 at the wish of our democratically elected government. But I think we'd agree that most of the British population did not support this step.
When I was on holiday in the summer I stayed up very late to watch a Vietnam documentary on BBC2 I think it was in which they interviewed two generals from both sides i.e. the Americans and the Viet Cong and they talked of the many lives that were lost in the ambush where the two sides met and the rest of the war. The Viet Cong man had lost many family and he said when he sneaked back to look at the American dead he had led the ambush on later it was a miracle they had won as the Americans were much bigger than them, they'd only done it as they had surprised them as planned and at the time they did it as they supposed they had to defend theri country though they didn't sound very passionalte about it, as if they might have thought twice if it had been in today's time. The American had lost most of his very young men, while he was being operated on etc himself he had kept asking what had happened to his regiment - the answer was total wipepout and as he went to take his look at the bodies a new troop of men arrived for him all happy and singing and he suddenly realised that they were his " fresh meat" that he was supposed to lead into the next battle like lambs to the slaughter while he grieved for the men he had lost; his wife also divorced him as she didn't agree with the war and they showed the small children that another general didn't see again. Then they described how one US family of one soldier felt when told their/son brother had been killed in Vietnam in painful detail and so on. It was the most powerful documentary I've ever seen on this subject and though I've studied Vietnam and seen the films etc. it really brought home to me the utter pointlessness of it all (so I'll continue supporting the Ministry for Peace campaign here) but brought into sharp focus by the fact that just such a war is going on as we speak in Iraq. They knew they couldn't win in Vietnam such a long time before they actually pulled out and the same is happening now with Iraq. "Never again" was said after Vietnam and many other wars; let's hope our leadershipn (or the new leadership if this one won't) can find moral courage to do what they know they should do; end the occupation of Iraq for it is an occupation and realise that it's no longer a question of superpower crushing lesser power but a completely different ball game in Iraq and the only way forward is through proper negotiation whichis not being helped by the current Islamaphobic tendencies being stirred up in our own country and debates about hijab/veil wearing/crucifix wearing and so on spurred by the remarks of one of our Cabinet. It does prove that we all live through the media as the subject has filtered down to everyone in teh country in a remarkably short space of time. In one of my Uni Politics seminars back in 1995 we sadly predicted that the next govermnement might play the race card and sadly once the genie's out of the bottle...I also have a text book which predicted the right ward swing which I'm sure has been well documented since then but there is one remaining factor we can't discount HOPE (credit Roy Macridis in his Contemporary Political Ideologies book) so let's start with some of that.HOPE£ that another world can be possible from now on.
Let battle commence!
http://reclaimlabour.blogspot.com/
On this basis one might say that Britain supported the attack on Iraq in 2003 at the wish of our democratically elected government. But I think we'd agree that most of the British population did not support this step.
One thing's for sure, the Iraqi people most definitely supported the removal of Saddam Hussein.
I know I'm shouting myself hoarse on this point, probably to no avail, but the world must never forget the evils committed by Saddam; and nor will history forgive those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with this tyrant ... yep, you guessed it, I'm talking about Galloway.
I agree with Sham, the problem was the whole thing was handled very badly and the UK need not have been involved.
Sham said : "and nor will history forgive those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with this tyrant"
Which, sadly, includes most western governments during the Iran/Iraq war?
except you're not, because galloway was the man protesting against 'the evils of saddam' while they were actually happening in the 80s, not 20 years later.
it was new labour's bezzie mates in the white house who were standing 'shoulder to shoulder' with saddam as he was attacking their enemy of the day, iran- he was a 'strongman' according to the west back then. donald rumsfeld actually met saddam in 1983 and SOLD HIM WEAPONS to use against his own people. Whether rumsy ever called him 'indefatiguable' or not at the meeting, history does not record as it is irrelvent- actions speak louder than words, or at least they did before the mandelson/campbell revolution you love so much. Galloway's actions when saddam gassed kurds? a protest outside the iraqi embassy. Blair and co's? not so much as a parliamentary question or signature on an early day motion
NB pal- shouting yourself hoarse only works if you have something other than an obvious and provable untruth to shout about. unless you're talking to sun readers, which thankfully on this website, you aint. must try harder.
Blah, blah, blah ...
Quite what you hope to achieve by damning the many millions who read The Sun I don't know, maybe this is part of the brilliant McDonnell strategy - in the unlikely event of him winning the leadership - to hand the country back to the Tories!
Once more, probably to the surprise of no-one, I'll reiterate my contempt for Galloway - the man wouldn't know right from wrong if it slapped him in the face.
As for your suggestion that the 'evils of Saddam' (your apostrophes, not mine ... interesting) occurred only in the 80s and that Iraq pre-invasion was anything other than an undemocratic, tyrannical regime which murdered its own citizens, well, I can't imagine anyone who subscribes to that.
Finally, Galloway's response to the gassing of the Kurds: Protesting outside the Iraqi embassy? How noble, how successful!
The only way Saddam would be overthrown was by force, not by peace marches or petitions or appeasement, and certainly not by sucking up to him and "saluting" his ... you know the rest.
'the only way saddam would be overthrown was by force' then why did our great leaders try sanctions that killed a million iraqis first?
neither do i see how selling someone with a history of gassing his people anthrax, as george bush snr and co did, or staying utterly silent about his atrocities, as blair and co did, is a more 'noble' and 'successful' way of undermining him than protests?
of course you are right about the lack of success part from galloway, because guess what? galloway is just a backbench mp! why are you so obsessed with how history will judge him, i suspect history will barely mention him.
what history will record is the sheer hypocrisy and lies of those with actual power in the west regarding saddam, from supporting him with money and weapons when it suited them, to telling the world we were invading because he could annhilate london within 45 minutes and was working closer with bin laden, etc.
im glad he's gone. whether the million dead through sanctions and 650,000 dead since the 2003 invasion is a price worth paying for getting rid of him, or a shameful symbol of our leaders' arrogance and incompetance- or both- history will judge.
i also accept your point that we should be bashing the tories rather than each other, so why keep banging on about galloway? anyway i think thats enough from me on this for now.
OK! Ceasefire.
Let's get back to attacking the Tories.
I agree, but it cuts both ways. The Labour Left has got to stop attacking Blair and start turning their guns on Cameron!
Please stop spreading right wing lies, Sham. Oh, that's probably what you are here for...
Please stop spreading right wing lies, Sham. Oh, that's probably what you are here for...
Wtf? The lies about Galloway saluting Saddam's ... ???
At least I've got the balls to show my face.
Post a Comment
<< Home