08 September 2004 Blog Home : September 2004 : Permalink
It starts out clearly enough doesn't it? No dancing around the issue here. Quite why the USA - a notorious sponsor of terrorists no doubt - is to blame is unclear but obviously it will be explained later
Already we have one lie and one misdirection.
The lie: In Iraq there has been one Sarin shell used as an IED and a number of other shells discovered by the coalition, not to mention numerous cannisters of pesticide (a chemical munition precurson) in ammo dumps so failure to find any weapons of mass destruction is a flat out lie. True Bush, Blair etc expected to find more but since some have been found and in fact reported in the Grauniad this flat out lie seems to indicate the quality of journalism we can expect.
The misdirection: The last line has this gem "western governments were supplying his regime with WMD precursors right up to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990" which seems to be suggesting that:
no one was supplying Hussein before 2003 (whereas the Washinton Times has a recent article showing that France was cheerfully supplying weapons in 2002)
it was all the US's fault in the first place when a more accurate description would be that French and German companies where doing the supplying (see above Washington Times article).
So far Blair and Bush seem to be at 100%. Democracy is taking root in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and yes neither place is perfect but they are getting there), nasty weapons do not seem to have got into the hands of Al-Qaida sympathisers and a vicious dictator has indeed been toppled. Where's the beef?
Oh boy another paragaph ladened with half-truths. Lets start with We have just witnessed the latest manifestation of the so-called war on terror in the Caucasus. As noted at Harry's Place, a fast reader might think the article had suffered from one of the Grauniad's famous typos - surely its the "war OF terror in the Caucasus". But leaving that aside what precisely has the USA got to do with Chechnya, Ossetia and Dagestan? The only thing the US has done with regard to the Chechen situation is chase hard core terrorists out of Afghanistan who seem to have subsequently made their way to Chechnya. There is a logical disconnect here; either we are in a Global War against Islamic Fascism, in which case the USA has not provided enough support to Russia in its fight, or we are not in which case the USA has correctly done nothing to help. However from the context neither of these options appears to be what is meant.
We get to see what is probably meant in the discussion on Afghanistan, but before we get there lets point out that "turning a blind eye" to Uzbekistan's human rights abuses includes the announcement in July this year that the USA "will withhold millions of dollars in security and economic assistance to Uzbekistan, citing "disappointment" over Tashkent’s human rights practices."
As for Afghanistan, when its government begged NATO to send more troops which country was it that said "non"? The Americans have committed billions of dollars and twenty thousand troops while Europe has managed to produce a measly 6000ish and next to bugger all in aid. It is unclear how the US has contributed to the lack of support when in fact it has been the sole country to actually meet its promises in the 2001/2 aid meetings.
Can we please be reasonable here? In Iraq the Ba'ath regime ruled for decades and exiled or killed its political opponants so, given that the Ba'ath party is not acceptable in government from whence, other than the exile community, is the political leadership to come? And how, given the lack of contacts possible under Hussein, should a trustworthy prime minister be picked, if you are going to ignore those with linls to intelligence? Finally one notices a complete lack of mention of the UN in the process of picking the government. My recollection is that a certain Lakhmar Ibrahimi was quite involved.
That "home grown phenomenon" is another sweeping statement that fails the smell test. There have been numerous indications that foreigners have been involved in the Sunni triangle fighting and likewise that Iran has been providing cash and armed assistance to Moqtada al Sadr. On the other hand the statement that troops will be needed for years to come is not one that should surprise anyone. Afterall the UN peacekeeping force in East Timor, not to mention the forces in parts of former Yugoslavia have been there for years and show little sign of withdrawal (contrary it might be added to the statements of Clinton in the 1990s). In fact I can hardly think of a single intervention since WW2 that has not resulted in the intervening troops remaining for years.
When you don't have anything positive to suggest just make blanket statements that occupation won't help the fight against terrorism. The idea that occupation may in fact help human rights and democracy the Middle East by providing a role model state seems to have escaped the author, who seems to think that somehow Iraq will blossom into a peaceful democracy as soon as the occupiers leave. Quite why this is more likely than a Somali or Afghani style descent into anarchistic chaos is utterly beyond me and the journalist fails to explain.
OK and this is the fault of the evil coalition because...? One can't help but note that this illiteracy, ignorance and repression seems to be being driven by all the non-democratic regimes in the region. Precisely how maintaining the status quo from before the Iraqi invasion would help to foster change is a little unclear to me.
Oh really? If this Saudi at an English University is so intimately aware of the life of the young, one wonders why the entire gulf region is failing to be engulfed (sorry) in revolution? Part of the problem it seems to me is that the young in these countries are being encouraged to believe that in fact internal change is impossible. If Iraq succeeds then we can expect bloody revolution in the rest of the Middle East.
Why is it hard not to conclude this? I'm sorry did some piece of logical argument pass me by here? You haven't made a case for anything of the sort. If anything you have made the case that armed intervention is required and made clear that no one other than the US can actually do this. And as for the dismissal of Blair's/British interests. Right? like the way they failed to go to the UN and try and get a resolution in early 2003? Like the way they have told their traditional British allies, the Conservative Party, to get lost. And so on.
Did I miss the news that the UN had launched a fierce anti-corruption campaign? did I see a mea culpa about UNSCAM last week? in fact did I see anything at all that indicated that the UN was willing to take a tough stand on terrorism, genocide and the like? umm NO. Is it a surprise that people boo the UN? Blair has consistently said that he would prefer to work within a multilateral (UN) framework, likewise, although the Bush-haters seem incapable of hearing it, Bush and his team have said the same thing. Both leaders have also stated that when the UN drops the ball they need to do something more constructive than talking and hand-waving. Although Grauniad "journalists" seme incapable of actually listening to what Bush says, he has in fact at numerous times and in numerous places and perhaps best stated at the Air Force Academy graduation in June this year:
I wonder whether, if someone gave Richard wossname part of the text of this speech with a few alterations to remove the giveaway bits, he would be nodding in agreement or not. Do Richard Wossname and his fellows actually want action or would they prefer to stand around moaning about how bad everything is? I suspect the latter and that ultimately explains why they hate Bush and Blair. For people who prefer profound words and sonorous treaties to verifiable actions, the idea that a despot or a terrorist leader should be held accountable for his actions and deposed or killed is repellant because is shows up their shallowness.
I must give credit to Harry's Place for bringing the original bilge to my attention.
UPDATE: Captain's Quarters is nicely scathing on this article too