Paddy vs Ming?

Tabman — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:52:46 +0000

Most people seem to agree, including my colleague Peter, that yesterday was a good day for Ming. I was, therefore, rather surprised to see a piece by Paddy in today's Independent that appeared to contradict Ming's position. I'm not sure whether the Independent has been holding this article back, but publishing it under the title Paddy Ashdown: "Troops home by Christmas" is not an option was certainly mischevious and probably designed to play against the prevailing Ming headlines.

Yet, this article repays careful reading for it is a typically thoughtful and knowledgeable piece by Paddy that reflects both a sound understanding of Twentieth Century history, and also his own experiences as Royal Marine in some of Britain's military actions in Malaysia and the Gulf.

What it isn't, is a comment specifically about Iraq. It is Paddy's view of how one ought to go about state-building if one has committed to it. Paddy's four steps can be summarised as follows:

1) State-building, unlike military campaigns, takes a Long time. Decades. If you commit, you commit for the long hall (which is where the title of the article comes from).

2) Establishing the rule of law quickly is paramount. Before elections. You can't do anything in a lawless vacuum.

3) Economic reform also needs to happen quickly.

4) You need the acquiescense, at the very least, of neighbouring states.

So how does this relate to Iraq? A cursory glance at the above list shows that the US contrived to ignore every point. Unfortunately, we have to start from where we are in applying Paddy's maxims - but whether British troops should be part of implementing the solution is a moot point. Establishment of the rule of law is arguably harder given the British and US presence and the lack of neigbouring countries' involvement.

Better, perhaps, to commit fully to Afghanistan than partially to both there and Iraq - as Ming called for.

ashdown

Paddy vs Ming?