I said in an earlier post that arguing about the rights and wrongs of invading Iraq amounts to little more than debating history; the important issue is what we should be doing now. We're where we are, and we can't turn the clock back.
But history is also important, not for political point scoring, but because we (hopefully) learn from it. And if mistakes were made in the way we decided to go to war we need to identify them. The current threat the (very unpleasant) government in Iran poses means there is a real risk that we will face a similar scenario; our actions at that point need to be informed by an acceptance of the tragic consequences of the Iraq war and a recognition of our moral culpability for them.
We do have a moral responsibility to do more than stand by in the face of evil; but our Iraq venture has been a disaster that we mustn't repeat.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Iraq: will we ever get out?
We might, if only because of the cowardly way our Government is keeping its head down and hoping that no-one really notices when we do. But our coalition partners have a bigger commitment, and face a bigger loss of prestige from admitting the failure of the enterprise. Then there's Afghanistan, for somewhat different reasons another disaster; we're almost certainly trapped there for the long term.
The purpose of this post is to draw attention to this article in the New York Review of Books which looks at the reasons things went so badly wrong, and the policies of the three main candidates seeking the US Presidency; it is well worth reading.
The purpose of this post is to draw attention to this article in the New York Review of Books which looks at the reasons things went so badly wrong, and the policies of the three main candidates seeking the US Presidency; it is well worth reading.
Ann Clwyd and Tony Blair
Ann Clwyd deserves respect, not least for her longstanding commitment to investigating and publicly denouncing the human rights abuses of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. She supported the invasion of Iraq because of those abuses, and there was no doubt whatever that her position was consistent throughout, and that there was immense moral strength to her argument.
If only one could have said the same of Tony Blair. In 1995 Ms Clwyd was the Opposition Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, only to find herself sacked for taking a trip to the Kurdish region of northern Iraq 'without permission'. The atrocities she had already exposed there were on an appalling scale, but the briefings from the Leader of the Opposition's office were to say that she was 'mad', and 'obsessed with Iraq'.
If Tony Blair had been a man of principle, he would have recognised that the position he took in 1995 left him looking hypocritical in his subsequent support of the US invasion, called into question his motives for doing so, and required that he resign. As a Prime Minister who was so happy to apologise for the failings of any Government bar his own, it's no surprise that he lacked even the decency to offer Ms Clwyd a public apology.
If only one could have said the same of Tony Blair. In 1995 Ms Clwyd was the Opposition Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, only to find herself sacked for taking a trip to the Kurdish region of northern Iraq 'without permission'. The atrocities she had already exposed there were on an appalling scale, but the briefings from the Leader of the Opposition's office were to say that she was 'mad', and 'obsessed with Iraq'.
If Tony Blair had been a man of principle, he would have recognised that the position he took in 1995 left him looking hypocritical in his subsequent support of the US invasion, called into question his motives for doing so, and required that he resign. As a Prime Minister who was so happy to apologise for the failings of any Government bar his own, it's no surprise that he lacked even the decency to offer Ms Clwyd a public apology.
Friday, 9 May 2008
Operation Mavhoterapapi (where did you vote)
It's depressingly predicable that Zimbabwe has just about dropped out of the news entirely; our press prefers to concentrate on one tragedy at a time.
Zanu PF are of course in their stride right now, conducting the predictable campaign of terror in order to 'encourage' the Mugabe vote. We're little more than helpless spectators here, although we should hope that the international community will do more to increase the pressure on South Africa to end their support for Mugabe's regime.
Zanu PF are of course in their stride right now, conducting the predictable campaign of terror in order to 'encourage' the Mugabe vote. We're little more than helpless spectators here, although we should hope that the international community will do more to increase the pressure on South Africa to end their support for Mugabe's regime.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
Jacqui Smith
It's been a busy couple of days for the Home Secretary. Yesterday she was lecturing the House on the evils of cannabis and announcing it's return to category B status. Ms Smith has previously admitted that she used to smoke it herself when she was younger, and I can't help feeling she could do with the occasional spliff right now to be honest. Unsurprisingly she says that she's sending out a clear message to young people but she isn't of course. The message is to the same electorate who declined to vote Labour last week, and are unlikely to do so again before Ms Smith is long since gone. Drugs strategy (is there one?) is a mess right now, and this latest move hasn't made it any tidier. Jacqui likes to think it makes her look a lot tougher though.
If that weren't bad enough, today she's declaring "I want police and local agencies to focus on (persistent offenders) by giving them a taste of their own medicine: daily visits, repeated warnings and relentless filming of offenders to create an environment where there is nowhere to hide."
I'm not sure that any comment is needed beyond the obvious conclusion that Ms Smith hasn't got what it takes to be the cabinet's tea lady, let alone Home Secretary. It's something of a surprise that she didn't just come straight out and give the police a direct instruction to duff up anyone they took a dislike to; she can't resist playing to the tabloids and causes considerable damage to whatever residual respect this government commands in doing so. But she is not alone in sucking up to the tabloids unfortunately; the Tories and Lib Dems, fearful that it might prove popular, have already leapt in, "We thought of it first!".
I see that Alistair Darling is another of the 'I used to when I was young' crew. So maybe there is a case for recategorising cannabis after all. Far more so for the police to be giving these self-confessed former users in the Cabinet 'a taste of their own medicine'. Given the mood in the country right now, that last suggestion would probably play best of all with the third estate.
If that weren't bad enough, today she's declaring "I want police and local agencies to focus on (persistent offenders) by giving them a taste of their own medicine: daily visits, repeated warnings and relentless filming of offenders to create an environment where there is nowhere to hide."
I'm not sure that any comment is needed beyond the obvious conclusion that Ms Smith hasn't got what it takes to be the cabinet's tea lady, let alone Home Secretary. It's something of a surprise that she didn't just come straight out and give the police a direct instruction to duff up anyone they took a dislike to; she can't resist playing to the tabloids and causes considerable damage to whatever residual respect this government commands in doing so. But she is not alone in sucking up to the tabloids unfortunately; the Tories and Lib Dems, fearful that it might prove popular, have already leapt in, "We thought of it first!".
I see that Alistair Darling is another of the 'I used to when I was young' crew. So maybe there is a case for recategorising cannabis after all. Far more so for the police to be giving these self-confessed former users in the Cabinet 'a taste of their own medicine'. Given the mood in the country right now, that last suggestion would probably play best of all with the third estate.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Anti-Americanism
We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.
Article 6 of the Euston Manifesto, Opposing anti-Americanism.
In one sense it's right; the US is not the source of all the worlds ills and cold-war era lefties who think it is need their heads examined. But it is not true to say that it's problems and failings are shared to some degree with all of the developed world. It's enthusiasm for capital punishment, for detention without trial, for torture, for 'rendition' and it's contempt for the Geneva Convention are pretty much conspicuous by their absence in the rest of the developed world. It's one thing to oppose anti-Americanism; it's quite another to fail to judge it's government by the same moral criteria as we judge others less democratic.
US culture? Yes it's certainly vibrant, and no doubt the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions; count me among them. But I doubt if that's of any consolation whatever to someone being tortured in Guantanamo Bay right now.
Article 6 of the Euston Manifesto, Opposing anti-Americanism.
In one sense it's right; the US is not the source of all the worlds ills and cold-war era lefties who think it is need their heads examined. But it is not true to say that it's problems and failings are shared to some degree with all of the developed world. It's enthusiasm for capital punishment, for detention without trial, for torture, for 'rendition' and it's contempt for the Geneva Convention are pretty much conspicuous by their absence in the rest of the developed world. It's one thing to oppose anti-Americanism; it's quite another to fail to judge it's government by the same moral criteria as we judge others less democratic.
US culture? Yes it's certainly vibrant, and no doubt the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions; count me among them. But I doubt if that's of any consolation whatever to someone being tortured in Guantanamo Bay right now.
Now they're all at it
Gordon's pumping our money into sustaining house prices and risky mortgages as fast as he decently dare (only pausing long enough to promise the precise opposite, affordable housing for all). Despite all that, it's definitely not been a good week for him at the polls, and that's an understatement if ever there was one.
It could be worse. We could be living in the US right now. They only have two big mortgage companies writing new business, they're all so nervous about their housing market. Their currency's getting to be like Monopoly money, no longer the mighty dollar of old and unlikely to be so again. So maybe George Bush is starting to grasp that if you cut taxes too far, and give your wealthiest supporters tax breaks with loopholes big enough to drive Fort Knox through, however rich your best mates end up, sooner or later your economy is going to suffer regardless of the mortgage industry; if you haven't got the money, you can't bail anyone out, however much you want to, or your currency just keeps falling. So what's he doing about it? You'd scarcely credit it, but he's looking for the European Central Bank to pump money into propping up the dollar. This of course is the same Europe he lambasted not that many years ago because they considered his Iraq invasion ill-judged, and told him so. Why on earth should they help him out?
Well, help him out they probably will, because several European countries, France in particular, are worrying over the rapid decline in exports to the US. So we have an absurd merry-go-round, everyone propping everyone else up, money bleeding from every orifice; will it make a difference? Of course it won't. You can't buck the market, that's what they said not that long ago, and there's a lot of truth to that. Remember Black Wednesday? Norman Lamont making the same futile attempt to save the Tories from the consequences of a series of bad economic decisions? Right now our overheated economy is going from boom to bust, something Gordon promised to put an end to eleven years ago. Exactly the same for our coalition partners; since their economy is bigger the collapse is going to be more spectacular.
Only one thing can save us now. The sooner we get our hands on all that Iraqi oil the better.
It could be worse. We could be living in the US right now. They only have two big mortgage companies writing new business, they're all so nervous about their housing market. Their currency's getting to be like Monopoly money, no longer the mighty dollar of old and unlikely to be so again. So maybe George Bush is starting to grasp that if you cut taxes too far, and give your wealthiest supporters tax breaks with loopholes big enough to drive Fort Knox through, however rich your best mates end up, sooner or later your economy is going to suffer regardless of the mortgage industry; if you haven't got the money, you can't bail anyone out, however much you want to, or your currency just keeps falling. So what's he doing about it? You'd scarcely credit it, but he's looking for the European Central Bank to pump money into propping up the dollar. This of course is the same Europe he lambasted not that many years ago because they considered his Iraq invasion ill-judged, and told him so. Why on earth should they help him out?
Well, help him out they probably will, because several European countries, France in particular, are worrying over the rapid decline in exports to the US. So we have an absurd merry-go-round, everyone propping everyone else up, money bleeding from every orifice; will it make a difference? Of course it won't. You can't buck the market, that's what they said not that long ago, and there's a lot of truth to that. Remember Black Wednesday? Norman Lamont making the same futile attempt to save the Tories from the consequences of a series of bad economic decisions? Right now our overheated economy is going from boom to bust, something Gordon promised to put an end to eleven years ago. Exactly the same for our coalition partners; since their economy is bigger the collapse is going to be more spectacular.
Only one thing can save us now. The sooner we get our hands on all that Iraqi oil the better.
Friday, 2 May 2008
Harriet's Blog returns!
Those who share my bizarre enthusiasm for the blog of the Labour Party's deputy leader will be pleased to hear that Harriet's Blog is finally back online; they're reposting all the old entries even as I speak (I wonder if my comments will still be up?). Like the result of the London mayoral election, this had been expected some time ago (Harriet promised for Monday), but I expect it's taken this long for her to settle on a new password.
I've taken a further look back now, and most of the old posts are back, with the comments intact. She's taken her tribute to Gwyneth Dunwoody down for some reason. She definitely needs to sort out her html though; I left a comment just in case she hasn't noticed yet.
From my stats it seems that Harriet has actually paid a return visit here. Great excitement! I wish she'd leave a comment; I've left enough for her over the past months.
I've taken a further look back now, and most of the old posts are back, with the comments intact. She's taken her tribute to Gwyneth Dunwoody down for some reason. She definitely needs to sort out her html though; I left a comment just in case she hasn't noticed yet.
From my stats it seems that Harriet has actually paid a return visit here. Great excitement! I wish she'd leave a comment; I've left enough for her over the past months.
Election Fever II
I am surprised at the way Hillary Clinton seems to have just about pulled herself back into contention in the race to be the Democratic nominee for US President. Last time I posted she looked dead in the water.
The election of the most immediate interest right now is of course the one for the new London Mayor. At the time of posting here there is still no declared result (We had been led to expect one several hours ago). The interesting thing though is the size of the turnout. However much voter attitudes have been manipulated by a rather unpleasant campaign in the Evening Standard, what it shows is that people will turn out to vote if they think that it's going to make a difference. People do still care about politics, hell, people well away from London are following this one. The notion that most of Boris' support stems from his recognition as a TV personality is something of a myth, I think. After all I doubt if anyone stupid enough to vote for him is bright enough to appreciate 'Have I Got News For You!'
Then there's the local council elections. Gordon Brown has very modestly described it as a 'bad night'. At least there's something he learnt from Tony; how to put positive spin on a damaging story. He'll go far.
Once again, the real election story comes from Zimbabwe where the electoral commission have just announced a run-off poll. They also concede that Mugabe came second. Sadly, we know that the whole thing is going to be a fix, because it's already a fix, that there's little we can realistically do, and that the people of Zimbabwe are condemned to four more years of rule from that stinking despot. Just as last time I posted this, it's not exactly front page news with our media here although it should be.
The election of the most immediate interest right now is of course the one for the new London Mayor. At the time of posting here there is still no declared result (We had been led to expect one several hours ago). The interesting thing though is the size of the turnout. However much voter attitudes have been manipulated by a rather unpleasant campaign in the Evening Standard, what it shows is that people will turn out to vote if they think that it's going to make a difference. People do still care about politics, hell, people well away from London are following this one. The notion that most of Boris' support stems from his recognition as a TV personality is something of a myth, I think. After all I doubt if anyone stupid enough to vote for him is bright enough to appreciate 'Have I Got News For You!'
Then there's the local council elections. Gordon Brown has very modestly described it as a 'bad night'. At least there's something he learnt from Tony; how to put positive spin on a damaging story. He'll go far.
Once again, the real election story comes from Zimbabwe where the electoral commission have just announced a run-off poll. They also concede that Mugabe came second. Sadly, we know that the whole thing is going to be a fix, because it's already a fix, that there's little we can realistically do, and that the people of Zimbabwe are condemned to four more years of rule from that stinking despot. Just as last time I posted this, it's not exactly front page news with our media here although it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

