Someone who ought to know makes a plausible case in the Financial Times today that Libya’s turning over of WMD had little to do with the war in Iraq.
09Mar04 — 4
- 04.05.23 Ten-year quest through Development Hell pays off
- 04.04.23 Testing "podcasting"
- 04.03.23 Mistakes Have Been Made
- 04.02.23 Coming soon
- 11.02.19 Live comedy review: Geoff Norcott at the Southport Comedy Festival
- 08.20.19 Republic Interiors
- 12.27.18 The Wykehamist Fallacy
- 12.08.18 The Moral Degradation of The Labour Party
- 10.14.18 FILM REVIEW: Downsizing
- 09.09.18 Film Review: Fright Night
Having listened to Libya’s take on this (through their foreign minister) I was in no doubt about the colonel’s “capitulation”. I think it shows a real desperation on the part of bliar, bush and sadly, Christopher Hitchens, to try and link this event with the war. It makes the whole post 9-11 thing seem like a coherent strategy against WMDs. The reality is that there are all sorts of underhand dealings going on. Take Pakistan, the one country that has done more to propagate WMDs over the last 30 years than any other. An arrangement has been reached whereby no action will be taken so long as Pakistan helps bush deliver OBL to the american public before the election – his ticket to a certain victory. And everyone knows that the Pakistanis will continue their involvement in the nuclear black market because that’s what their entire program is based on. The Indians of course got a helping hand from the israelis, but we’re not supposed to know or talk about that.
I can’t say I feel very safe.
Another thing, your recent post about ‘The Hell of Captivity’. I have to say some of your most pointless entries are in the best traditions of a gossip columnist. It sounds like Asadullah was one of the child captives at Guantanamo. The american military are a debased bunch at the best times, but even they couldn’t countenance holding children under those conditions – especially once the human rights organisations got wind of the fact. And even if he was treated well, are you seriously suggesting that it justified removing him form his family and his country for the best part of 2 years! If you want to defend Guantanamo Bay come out and say it, don’t snipe from behind the grauniad 🙂 Frankly, I couldn’t care if they were serving caviar at Guantanamo Bay, what interests me is the lack of what
they call legal process. In any case the real purpose of Guantanamo Bay is to send out a message to people that fit a certain profile – and even in that it’s a utter failure.
W
You are right about one thing. People should not be separated by force from their families without proper explanation and justification. This is a valid moral argument.
My problem with most opinions expressed about Guantanamo Bay is—as usual—that they are based on ignorance and, indeed, gossip. Worse, the actions people say the Americans should take on the basis of such faulty premises lack any thought for their consequences. I have ‘Blogged on this before, again citing someone with very strong antipathy to Bush. Like my quoting of Bush’s recent speech in the UK, I posted in an effort to restore some perspective to the debate.
Human beings are entitled to humane treatment, but combatants captured in war time in a zone of military operations have no established “right” to due process. And if the prisoners in GB become true “prisoners of war” it could be worse for everyone.
Referring to the American military as “a debased bunch at the best of times” is just contemptible rubbish. If you wanted to see “debased”, you could have spent some time in the captivity of the rebels in Sierra Leone or some of the delightful Serbian outfits. I know who’d I’d rather have fitting my leg-irons. There’ve been some ugly incidents in the history of US soldiery, but their recent conduct (against some of the most despicable and dirtiest enemies) has been characterized by the high discipline, and humanitarian ideals.
Yesterday evening there was a grimly hilarious interview with the wife of a former Iraqi arms minister. She and her husband had eagerly turned themselves over to the Americans because they knew they would be much safer with them than anyone else. By her own admission, they had been treated with the utmost fairness. She was completely unselfconscious when she explained in her German accent that her husband had done his best to change the Ba’ath regime’s approach, but he had only been following orders. When asked by the BBC guy to justify her belief that things in Iraq were worse under US occupation than under Saddam the best she could come up with was that the US and British troops had been “insensitive”. The bastards.
(And, even if Musharraf gives Bush Osama Bin Laden’s head on a bloody stick the day before the polls open, George Bush is going down at the next presidential election.)
Just out of curiosity, Damian, why do you think Bush is going down? I’m not so sure.
My two reasons are boring statistical ones.
No incumbent has been this far behind at this stage in the race and won.
Low turnout was one of the main reasons for the draw last time. Every Democrat I know (er, three people in the flesh, rather more on the Web) is absolutely desperate to remove Bush. He inspires plenty of admiration, but much more dislike, perhaps enough to get Democrats and waverers into the polling booths this time. The other thing that might inspire them to get off their backsides is that everybody is saying that it’s going to be close.