iraq

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.

It was Ming’s moment all day long

Peter Welch — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:39:23 +0000

The press operation really seemed to work this time.

Successively we were covered for Ming's letter to Blair, asking him to take part in the Iraq debate, for the breakfast presentation of a withdrawal timetable, for PMQs, and for the Iraq debate. And Ming deserves a lot of the credit. On the Today programme he was precise. Had he waffled, the show might have come to grief, but he presented crisply the steps that needed to be taken - where and when.

At PMQs his comeback to Blair was picked up for the news bulletins. The Times puts it like this

Ming kept on punching. Why wasn’t Mr Blair attending the Iraq debate after PMQs? “What can possibly be more important?” cried Ming...“Isn’t that the kind of leadership we are entitled to?” There was something quite mad about Ming lecturing the Prime Minister about leadership but, still, it stung. “I AM actually debating the issue with him NOW,” snapped the PM. But, not, of course, for longer than the 30 seconds it took to answer. As PMQs ended, Tony Blair slipped out of the Chamber, as silently as a shadow. The Tories made exaggerated clapping motions.

Finally, in the Iraq debate, Ming was forceful, taking on Labour and the Tories.

Elsewhere, Nick Clegg has been prominent in the press on the prisons story, making it one of lib dems' best days for coverage for a very long time. It is just a pity that we can't get similar coverage on other stories - so far, at least.

Blair, Brown, Cameron and Iraq

Peter Welch — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:54:26 +0000

One of my favourite sites is Martin Wolf's Economists' Forum.

The last but one article posted there was Larry Summer's piece on the US after the elections. Only Martin Wolf has replied - but he gets so close to my own feelings on Iraq on the "war on terror" that I will quote him.

There is no “war on terror”. Military cannot deliver durable security against an idea. Even in the case of the cold war the victory was ultimately won because communism was seen as unsuccessful in delivering the good life. What we are engaged in is, in essence, a complex global policing operation, combined with a war of ideas

We should have the confidence to believe that, given time, our ideas will triumph, provided we do not betray them ourselves and do enough to give them the time they need. By rejecting core features of the rule of war, employing torture, vilifying those who disagree with them, demolishing old alliances, indulging in overweening confidence in military power and, not least, promising to remake societies at the point of a gun, the Bush administration did betray core western values. It also showed grotesque incompetence in execution. How can we win a war of ideas like that? The US and, I hope, the wider world - western and non western - must start all over again.

…This administration’s politics have…been those of fear. It is this that I find unforgivable: fear makes us small, fear makes us weak and fear makes us detestable. We cannot win this war of ideas if all we have to offer is our fear.

Why am I sharing this with you?

First because the Queen's Speech seemed to me to be a sad example of the politics of fear.

Second because watching the "boxing" debate between Blair. Brown, and Cameron, I was reminded that they were all supporters of this foolish exercise. They have all promoted the fearful approach.

This sort of critique of Iraq seems more powerful than any procedural critique of the way the UK handled the Security Council. Liberal Democrats opposed the battle of arms. We should sign up for the battle of ideas.

Sir Menzies targets Iraq strategy

Peter Welch — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:39:43 +0100