Thursday, November 26, 2009

The Latest on Iraq

The more one hears about the build-up to the war in Iraq, the more one tends to feel disquiet about whether this was even done with the best of intentions in some quarters.
But then hindsight is not a straightforward luxury and if some felt that the UK govt were privy to intelligence reports regarding Saddam Hussein's intentions, then maybe some in the UK govt felt the same with regards to the Americans.
But is that excusable? Perhaps the best attitude to have taken was the same the British government took during the Vietnam conflict, i.e. tacit support rather than full-scale involvement. The Prime Minister at the time, Harold Wilson, was one of the more canny occupants in Downing Street's history and perhaps we needed such an individual at that time!
But this is academic, what is done is done and we must now redouble our efforts to try and redeem ourselves by helping restore Iraq to being a Democratic and peaceful nation that is a beacon to others within the Middle East.


Paul Linford said...

There is only one thing the Labour Party could have done re Iraq in 2003 and kept its dignity, and that was to have sacked Tony Blair, made Robin Cook Prime Minister, and thereby averted the entire fiasco. Okay, so the party might have lost in 2005, but in retrospect, it would have been a bloody great election to lose. Prime Minister Howard would now be sruggling to explain how it pitchforked the country into recession after eight years of economic stability under Labour, and opposition leader Gordon Brown would be on course for an election landslide. Oh I wish, I wish.

Anonymous said...

but the fact that the current government (and that of Tony Blair) couldn't and can't be trusted is being confirmed right before our very eyes!

Paul Burgin said...

I tend to agree with you Paul, I was suggesting a scenario sans hindsight, but losing an election to the Tories under Michael Howard! I can't agree with that :-(