US Soldier Killed in South;
Provincial Elections Bill Passes Presidential Council
Shiite guerrillas deploying a roadside bomb killed a US soldier in Amara.
Iraq's presidency council approved the enabling legislation for provincial elections scheduled early next year. The council had shot down the first such bill, in part over the question of how the disputed oil province Kirkuk would be dealt with.
Aljazeera English interviews former British foreign secretary Lord David Owen on the Iraq War. Owen had supported the war but says he did so in part because Tony Blair lied to him about Saddam's nuclear and biological weapons programs. He admits that the war, which he had supported, has been an unimitigated disaster.
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/03/2008 11:46:00 PM
Click to join Infoco
7 Comments:
The lies about WMD have no bearing on whether or not one should have supported the invasion of Iraq. International law, and indeed common morality, are very clear about when it is and when it is not acceptable to use force. That is, when you are under attack, or clearly about to be attacked, and you have no other options available.
No serious person in 2002-03 could have believed that Iraq was about to attack the US and the UK, or even their allies in the Middle East, whether or not Saddam had a vial of something or other hidden east, west, south or north somewhat of Baghdad.
Owen talks about Saddam's internal repression, while at the same time expressing his support for the sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands and forced the population to rely on the dictator for survival, so that argument cannot be taken seriously.
No, the invasion was a straightforward war of aggression, as most people in the world appear to have realised at the time.
Suppose the US had "succeeded", i.e. swiftly and with fairly minimal resistance installed a client government backed by a vicious national security state on the Colombian model, imposed extreme-Friedmanite economic "reforms" that impoverished the majority while enriching the elite that would form the new governing class, and put in place a large military presence to dominate the country, the region and its oil reserves (there is no reason at all to have believed that "success" would have looked like anything else). Lord Owen, and indeed most of the political class on both sides of the Atlantic, would have been cheering Blair and Bush to the rafters. Talk of imperialism would have been left to the margins, i.e. the population of the world.
The fact that the invasion of Iraq has been subject to such criticism from within the establishment is notable and interesting. But the establishment critique is severely limited. I'm sure Wehrmacht generals had their criticisms of Operation Barbarossa, decrying "incompetance" and lack of proper planning.
To end on an aside: Owen was UK foreign secretary during the last days of the Callaghan government, at a time when Indonesia was invading, occupying and comitting genocide in East Timor - all with strong British support. That also makes his professed concern for the Iraqi people ring pretty hollow.
I read IC daily and am thankful for sources like your website that tell us the truth. But the interview with Lord David Owen was too much. About halfway through he began harrumphing at the suggestion that the Iraq invasion was either immoral or illegal, the typical Anglo-American apologist arrogance. I turned it off at that point. Why give him a platform with your readers?
You know, it's nice that the War Secretary wants to shift blame to Blair, I guess. Seeing as Blair apparently deserves massive amounts of blame, it's hard to argue with that part of his statement.
But I DON'T know how the War Secretary comes off not only disclaiming any personal blame, but actually continuing to villify the French and Germans after all these years. I find that shocking. I also find it shocking that he seems to want to justify the invasion on the basis of the no-fly zone. His statement that the UN didn't object is false, as he must surely know. The head of the UN called the no-fly zone illegal, later, just as Annan called the invasion illegal. And there's the problem with unilateral action.
Had the US and Britain gotten proper legal sanction from the UN for the NFZs, it could have gone to the UN with the case the War Secretary tries to make in this interview - that the NFZ was increasingly challenged by Saddam, and that more extreme action was needed. However, that case too would have had to have been based on lies, it seems, as British Defense itself acknowledged in 2005 that Saddam had not, in fact, been stepping up pressure on the NFZ, until the British and US began air operations against Iraq that amounted to the start of invasion almost a year before the actual invasion, and well before the US and Britain began to 'make (up) their case' in the UN.
Thus the War Secretary may be right about Blair, but I hardly think he's right about his own role, and I certainly wouldn't take his word for it, considering that he seems determined to perpetuate lies and villifications in this very interview, all these years later.
Lord Owen should have read the newspapers prior to the invasion. The UN weapons inspectors were methodically searching for WMD. The CIA claimed to have given the inspectors their best intelligence on where to look. Yet every place they looked they found nothing.
If Lord Owen was intent on avoiding war if at all possible, he would have insisted that the inspectors be given enough time to finish their job.
But in fact, the weapons inspectors were becoming the Bush/Blair team's biggest headache. In another few months of inspection the WMD claims would have been totally discredited. Then what?
I can see why Bush likes the Brits he rubbs elbows with. They made him feel at peace with his arrogance.
Lord David Owen is lying about the no-fly zones. The French and Germans were not depending on the US and Britain to continue them. Originally France was part of the Allied operation but quit when it was determined that the no-fly zones were in fact illegal
...Other countries, notably China and Russia, have condemned the no-fly zones as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and they insist there is no backing for the policy under international law or UN resolutions....
Mike
Pakistanis bury 'US strike' dead
Pakistani villagers have collected the corpses and body parts of at least 20 people killed by a reported US strike.
Intelligence officials and villagers said a pilotless drone fired a missile at a house in Mohammad Khel, North Waziristan, near the Afghan border.
The dead are said to include several suspected Arab militants.
A number of cross-border operations have been undertaken by US-led forces in Afghanistan since late August.
JMcC's is BHO's policy. How can anyone vote for an avowed War Criminal?
Do not do it. Baldwin/Barr/McKinney/Nader are all pledged to end The War.
And to bring home the world-wide occupation forces that are bankrupting us.
Stumbled across this insightful and intelligent blog, well done Sir you deserve a medal for your words!
Post a Comment
<< Home