INDCJournal: Imagine ...

« Bush Scores a Zinger! | Main | Who Knew?! »

March 08, 2004

Imagine ...

Posted by Bill

... if Dubya could communicate as effectively as Tony Blair.

Actually, it is now apparent from the Survey Group that Iraq was indeed in breach of UN Resolution 1441. It did not disclose laboratories and facilities it should have; nor the teams of scientists kept together to retain their WMD including nuclear expertise; nor its continuing research relevant to chemical weapons and biological weapons.

As Dr Kay, the former head of the ISG who is now quoted as a critic of the war has said: "Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441". And "I actually think this [Iraq] may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."

These points are almost completely overlooked by conventional "wisdom." The debate is poisoned. More:

All of it in the end is an elaborate smokescreen to prevent us seeing the real issue: which is not a matter of trust but of judgement. The real point is that those who disagree with the war, disagree fundamentally with the judgement that led to war.

What is more, their alternative judgement is both entirely rational and arguable. Kosovo, with ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians, was not a hard decision for most people; nor was Afghanistan after the shock of September 11; nor was Sierra Leone.

Iraq in March 2003 was an immensely difficult judgement. It was divisive because it was difficult. I have never disrespected those who disagreed with the decision.

Sure, some were anti-American; some against all wars. But there was a core of sensible people who faced with this decision would have gone the other way, for sensible reasons.

Their argument is one I understand totally. It is that Iraq posed no direct, immediate threat to Britain; and that Iraq's WMD, even on our own case, was not serious enough to warrant war, certainly without a specific UN resolution mandating military action. And they argue: Saddam could, in any event, be contained.

In other words, they disagreed then and disagree now fundamentally with the characterisation of the threat.

I've debated the war with many, many people, and when you sweep away the rhetoric, the generalizations, the politically poisoned points, this is what you are left with. A gut feeling about the nature of the threats facing the civilized world. The position against war is defensible, and there are logical reasons put forth by some who advocated against it. But they just don't feel the heat; they haven't agreed with the concept that Western Civilization is in peril, and that rogue states with access to significant resources pose the greatest immediate threat. The concept that in terms of the century's prospects, we are two minutes to midnight, and the solution is to rework and invest in the sustained success of entire civilizations, while snuffing out threats like brush fires around a keg of dynamite.

Posted by Bill at March 8, 2004 09:27 AM | TrackBack (0)