'Bye, Tony...
I realise I may be the last man standing in the Western Hemisphere who rather likes and admires President Bush and Tony Blair, but try as I might I genuinely don't get the elation with which their departure is heralded. This is for another time, but the Kennedys were far more crooked than the Bush clan, said much the same thing (the inaugural addresses of Kennedy and Bush's second term are remarkably similar) and yet the Kennedys are canonized while Bush is demonized.
But anyway, Tony Blair. To my mind, and I admit I've been out of the country for most of three years, the Labour Government seems to have been a fairly decent Social Democratic administration. Only the fox-hunting bill, which was a vindictive and unnecessary piece of legislation, really annoys me. Domestically, Blair's problem was largely falling between two stools; too right for the left and too left for the right. And, of course, coming into office with the most over-inflated expectations of a nation.
Conversely, his pleasing boldness in foreign policy has also been damned. Whether pro-Europe or not, one must admit that the Prime Minister has sought, in difficult conditions, to improve British relations with Europe - even though the means and ends were sometimes unappetising. His illegal - yup - intervention in Kosovo was encouraging.
And goodness knows I don't want to keep going on about Iraq, but this comment was made by a student at the school where the Prime Minister was jeered today:
"They [the protesters] are not exploiting us. We understand some stupid people in politics are trying to kill the Lebanese and Iraqis and everybody else."
Ok, I can forgive her stupidity on the grounds that she's 13, but what is the BBC thinking by posting it on its news website?
People have short memories. And they enjoy sitting back and saying smugly, 'well, I wouldn't have done it like that!' For the zillionth time:
1 - Iraq was in violation of goodness knows how many UN resolutions. If you're going to have International Law, it needs a mechanism of enforcement. I can tell my students to finish their prep till I'm blue in the face, but without the power to back it up I may as well whistle for it. This is ALWAYS forgotten by international law fetishists.
2 - Iraq was in pursuit of, and widely believed to be in possession of, WMD. Whether they hadn't got very far or the WMD are in Syria (those that haven't been found in Iraq, and there are some), they would have had them before long, joy of joys.
3 - Although a secular state, Iraq took the 'enemy's enemy' view with Islamic terrorists.
And finally, what is annoying is the desire - and even The Economist does this - to equate American failings with those of their opponents. Abu Ghraib and various war crimes were morally and legally indefensible; no argument there. Guantanamo is arguable, but to suggest that it ranks on the scale of the gulags or concentration camps is a simple offence to logic. Nor does America, unlike Saddamite Iraq, use rape as an instrument of policy.
In essence, American soldiers commit crimes that are punished. Generally speaking, they follow rules of engagement that attempt not to kill non-combatants. Terrorists, who don't hold with the combatant/non-combatant distinction, send suicide bombers to massacre pilgrims (who are often their countrymen and fellow religionists, please note) and video themselves hacking off the heads of journalists.
And America is the bad guy. But of course!
This sort of behaviour is affirmative action for terrorists.
But anyway, Tony Blair. To my mind, and I admit I've been out of the country for most of three years, the Labour Government seems to have been a fairly decent Social Democratic administration. Only the fox-hunting bill, which was a vindictive and unnecessary piece of legislation, really annoys me. Domestically, Blair's problem was largely falling between two stools; too right for the left and too left for the right. And, of course, coming into office with the most over-inflated expectations of a nation.
Conversely, his pleasing boldness in foreign policy has also been damned. Whether pro-Europe or not, one must admit that the Prime Minister has sought, in difficult conditions, to improve British relations with Europe - even though the means and ends were sometimes unappetising. His illegal - yup - intervention in Kosovo was encouraging.
And goodness knows I don't want to keep going on about Iraq, but this comment was made by a student at the school where the Prime Minister was jeered today:
"They [the protesters] are not exploiting us. We understand some stupid people in politics are trying to kill the Lebanese and Iraqis and everybody else."
Ok, I can forgive her stupidity on the grounds that she's 13, but what is the BBC thinking by posting it on its news website?
People have short memories. And they enjoy sitting back and saying smugly, 'well, I wouldn't have done it like that!' For the zillionth time:
1 - Iraq was in violation of goodness knows how many UN resolutions. If you're going to have International Law, it needs a mechanism of enforcement. I can tell my students to finish their prep till I'm blue in the face, but without the power to back it up I may as well whistle for it. This is ALWAYS forgotten by international law fetishists.
2 - Iraq was in pursuit of, and widely believed to be in possession of, WMD. Whether they hadn't got very far or the WMD are in Syria (those that haven't been found in Iraq, and there are some), they would have had them before long, joy of joys.
3 - Although a secular state, Iraq took the 'enemy's enemy' view with Islamic terrorists.
And finally, what is annoying is the desire - and even The Economist does this - to equate American failings with those of their opponents. Abu Ghraib and various war crimes were morally and legally indefensible; no argument there. Guantanamo is arguable, but to suggest that it ranks on the scale of the gulags or concentration camps is a simple offence to logic. Nor does America, unlike Saddamite Iraq, use rape as an instrument of policy.
In essence, American soldiers commit crimes that are punished. Generally speaking, they follow rules of engagement that attempt not to kill non-combatants. Terrorists, who don't hold with the combatant/non-combatant distinction, send suicide bombers to massacre pilgrims (who are often their countrymen and fellow religionists, please note) and video themselves hacking off the heads of journalists.
And America is the bad guy. But of course!
This sort of behaviour is affirmative action for terrorists.
posted by BoB at 3:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home