Text Only
Diary

« Tory agony

Main

Orwell, where are you »



 
October 29, 2003
Appeasement corner

Writing smugly about the need not to appear smug, Jonathan Freedland claims in the Guardian that everything that has happened in Iraq has proved the anti-war lobby right. Let's leave aside for the moment his bald assertion that there weren't any WMD in Iraq (if you say something that's idiotic often enough, it remains idiotic). If the anti-war mob were right, then what Freedland is effectively saying is that it would have been better for Saddam still to be running Iraq.

The fact is that Saddam was not only a monster to his own people but also a direct threat to the west, as was recognised by the UN and every western country. The anti-war defeatism also ignores the wider perspective, that most Iraqis are profoundly relieved that Saddam has gone and are optimistic about the future -- not surprising, since their living conditions and prospects are steadily improving.

Of course the current situation in Iraq is deeply difficult. Of course each terrorist outrage is a serious setback. And the American incompetence in securing the peace has been appalling. But this doesn't alter the fact that we had no sensible option but to run the Ba'athists out of Iraq. The reality of our new world order of terror is that the choices we now have to make are all very hard. There is a serious downside and terrible risks attached to all of them. But we are now in the politics of no alternative. Or to put it another way, the war against terror is the least worst option.

Posted by melanie at October 29, 2003

Comments

Seeing J F "balanced and fair" from the Guardian creeps in again, I thought that this link would not be too off topic would prove interesting :

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10535
as Ms Doucete of the BBC is quoted.
For me, mind boggling to think that the people have believed all the Spin, deception, lies and now "Translation!" of facts from those paragons of honesty and morality. Onward Proletariat Soldiers!

Quote:
Readers are first told by Weiner that, "being balanced, according to their mandate, can be frustrating" and urges the audience/reader "to present your stories on a human level and not rely on the facts." Present tear-jerkers in which Israelis "have to justify their existence, which makes it easier to get through to us."

Ms. Doucete, who refers to homicide bombers as "honor" killers, believes "her job is to translate" rather than simply report the news, because "Israel is led by a Prime Minister who believes that it is not Israel's policy that is wrong, just that they have to explain it better."

This spoiled my breakfast.

Posted by: barry at October 29, 2003 02:37 PM

Mr Freedland states -
"We have to think about who is administering the punch. Sometimes it will be young patriots, new to combat, who have signed up for armed resistance against a foreign occupier. This kind of indigenous insurgency is said to be growing, gaining grass roots support and, with it, the legitimacy of a popular movement.

But not all of Iraq's resistance will fit this romantic, maquis image. Some will be Ba'athist holdouts, Saddamites who once served as henchmen to a murderous dictator. No progressive should want to see these villains land a blow on British or American forces."

So he chooses not to go as far as Galloway. He disapproves of our troops being killed by Ba'athists, but its OK if by true resistance fighters.

Posted by: tad at October 29, 2003 04:57 PM

Does "running the Ba'athists out of Iraq" include those who have now been nominated by the US to posts in the Governing Council? The same council that is making such a hash of running the country now?

Oh, no: I forgot. The US runs the country at the moment.

Posted by: James at October 29, 2003 11:02 PM

So far most of the "insurgents" caught have been from Syria and Saudi Arabia - foreign mercenaries and jihadis, not part of any "grass roots" movement.

Posted by: kid charlemagne at October 30, 2003 10:08 PM