Michael Boyle, Lecturer within International Relations at St. Andrews University wrote in the Guardian, on the 21 June 2008:
… “Since the beginning of the “surge” last year, the rates of violence have dropped significantly, yet the growing stability is occasionally punctured by horrific acts of violence. The Iraqi government has gained some capacity to police its own territory, but political progress still lags behind expectations. The Maliki government has made headway against al-Qaida in Iraq and the Mehdi Army, but Iraq is still far from being the stable and democratic country that President Bush promised to create when he launched the invasion five years ago”.
Articles by Michael Boyle can be found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/michaelboyle
- ‘The Iraq Legacy: International Relations’ …
A response to Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian Journalist, dated 19 March 2008 – following an article published on the website of the Guardian Newspaper.
‘The Iraq Legacy, International Relations’
Richard Norton-Taylor writes:
… “The invasion of Iraq has made long-standing democracies more reluctant to intervene in international crises” …
… Editor of MarKat (Scotland) responds as “BritishAirman”
AFTER the United States had decided in its wisdom to overrule the international will of the United Nations, with little regard given to the prestige position held by other Security Council members of the UN and their voting rights, it should come as no surprise to both the US and British Governments who insist that the “war on terrorism” is a collective world responsibility and, because of such a belief, other countries around the world should be providing troops, reinforcements and resources in fighting a protracted war that is of the US’s own making. That is the lucid position as others look-on in ghastly horror to what is happening throughout the Middle East, generally.
A spiral of violence that could now be described as ‘circular’ – re-emergence of the Taliban in the south and west of Afghanistan, for instance – suggests that regrouping and re-gathering of the insurgents is a war with no-end, despite the insatiable attempts by the US to do all in its power in crushing the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and resistance to western occupation throughout the fraught Middle East. A region that has been conflated with US and western foreign policy, hegemony written all over what the Americans intend to do and why they are doing it. Other countries around the world – including our NATO partners – look on with quiet disgust, refuting any call and claim in providing resources to a war that has very little, or nothing to do with them. For those countries that have been involved, the threat of reprisal and terrorist attacks against their homeland is just too much of a political risk to take. With Britain heavily stagnating, both in military and economic terms and, given that Britain and the US are continually reviewing anti-terrorist legislation in the face of this threat with individual liberties eroding by the week, it should come as no surprise that others around the world want very little to do with a war firmly put to the door of the US’s own volition.
The declaration of the “axis of evil” was proclaimed by George W. Bush, without international support and agreement. Trying to hoist its failed war onto other countries in the name of ‘freedom’ is an admission of culpability on its own part. The United States has previously disallowed any definitive meaning be made on the term “terrorism” within the UN Charter, which suggests he cannot abrogate some of the crimes his nation has been party too. Indeed, the invasion of Iraq alone in some people’s eyes remains illegal, an act of terrorism in its own right because of the endless lists of civilian and innocent deaths associated with an attack against a former sovereign state. The US refuses to acknowledge the authenticity and rule of the International Criminal Court in prosecuting its soldiers for acts against the spirit of international protocols, such as the codes implied by the Geneva Convention.
The issue of ‘double standards’ is also saliently, relevant. With other countries having committed violations against the spirit of international laws – such as China and North Korea – in proliferating weapons of mass destruction, and the acquisition of nuclear stockpiles clearly against UN rules, no political or economic sanctions have or are intended to be applied to those in deliberate violation of international law.
Bush and Brown are attempting to use political spin in an effort that some other countries might just came to their aid and relieve some of the interminable pressures that they are faced with. But, it comes back to one simple fundamental point of issue … why the United Nations did not have the authority in stopping the US, 5-years ago, with its insidious and disproportionate use of force against a helpless country.
…
- Iraq Troop Withdrawals …
A response to the Guardian Newspaper’s Leader, dated 20 March 2008. The article concerns troop withdrawals from Iraq.
I don’t think the answer lies in merely setting a ‘fixed date’ for withdrawal. The meaning of “withdrawal” and “exit” has changed over time with the politics of this war. For example, during 2005 the politics of the Iraq war in America began to shift reaching a turning point in November of that year when John Murtha (Democratic Congressman) ended his support for White House policy. Such a view has steadily rippled throughout Congress and the White House in terms of future commitments, strategy and eventual withdrawal.
Since November 2005, most political leaders have had to address the question of how, and when, troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. The recent ‘military surge’ by the United States committing hundreds of thousands of extra troops hardly alleviates the enormity over the problems associated with mass troop withdrawal. Also, it has become clear that contingency plans made in recent times for ‘existing’ troops from Iraq does not actually mean that all troops will leave in the foreseeable future. Some of those plans refer to “redeploying” troops. Other contingencies – in particular Congressional resolutions and amendments – allow for ‘residual troops’ to stay in Iraq for certain specified missions, but doesn’t state specifically how many.
However, US Presidential Candidate Hilary Clinton’s recent remarks outlining an Iraq withdrawal is worth considering, and could gain additional weight if she eventually assumes the Presidential mantle. According to Mrs. Clinton she would exercise the leadership needed to end the conflict in Iraq. Her plans include withdrawing troops within 60-days of taking office and in utilising the services of the United Nations to broker political agreements amongst the many divisive groups. Her plans also mention the issue of resettling refugees.
Mrs. Clinton has addressed issues within her plans in executing a troop withdrawal where no other Congressman or western politician has dared, yet, to go. For instance, she suggested that armed private military contractors be removed from the province and the ending of black-market sales of oil that is continuing to feed the insurgency.
Hilary Clinton’s plans should meet with western approval, generally, because whilst plans have credibility in reducing the vast resources that would reduce the ‘overstretch’ the plans, similarly, do not mean that the west would retreat from fighting terrorism in Iraq all-together. It is known that small and elite strike forces, with surgical strike capability for instance, would require continuing to engage in targeted operations against Al-Qaeda.
The ballooning war costs and US foreign policy on Iraq is certain, at some future time, to stagnate the trailing US economy even more, than at the present. The likely domino effect on other financial markets around the world – when fully realised – including London, is a very serious issue that could bring yet more financial volatility and turbulence. Such costs being accrued to finance this war will, I believe, continue to strain the country’s economic and military strength.
Appendage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/20/iraq1
…
- Response to William Hague MP …
Following an article published on the Guardian Newspaper website from William Hague MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary, dated 25 March 2008, concerning the issue of a further public inquiry into the lesson learnt from the Iraq war.
… Respondant as BritishAirman
Dear Mr. Hague,
I think you know, as well as I do, that any future public inquiry must be an inquiry whose terms of reference and remit be set either by an independent ombudsman or a High Court judge – certainly, a figure who can oversee the judicial independence and impartiality of an inquiry rather than, what we have had up until now, inquiry after inquiry whose terms have been laid down specifically and explicitly by the government. Both Hutton and Butler were inquiries that cost the British taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds without really addressing the nub of the matter: why did Mr. Blair, the former British Prime Minister, lead British troops into a war with Iraq given the unreliable and dodgy intelligence that has since surfaced? A war, Mr. Hague, that was waged on a false prospectus, that has cost not only British servicemen and servicewoman’s lives but tens of thousands of innocent civilians caught up in the struggle to either flee the country by attempting to cross into neighbouring Syria or, by holding fast to their convictions that Iraq, a sovereign country prior to invasion, was always deemed as their home. A country that was brutally and disproportionately attacked, with the lasting damage and legacy it has created. Western foreign policy has been a dangerous instrument against the stability of the wider world.
Perhaps Mr. Hague doesn’t need reminding but, nevertheless, important for public consumption, is the closest definition yet of what “terrorism” implies. As a raw ideal terrorism means, simply, that political ends are trying to be gained that, in that process, causes either mass displacement or death and injury to innocents. It comes as no surprise then, of the unwillingness of the United States in having “terrorism” formally defined by the United Nations. Its own state sponsored acts – of which Britain remains equally culpable – requires brought under close microscopic examination. Bilateral action was taken on the basis of seriously flawed intelligence, against the will of the United Nations and other Security Council members and, on the advice of the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, who, at the eleventh hour, changed his advice by making a legitimate case for British involvement; answers that require to be borne out in a full independent and impartial inquiry.
Furthermore, the British Government has refused on all counts that the political machinations used in reaching certain decisions be discounted from public scrutiny. If a future inquiry is to get to the ‘nub’ of why Britain engaged, as it did, these mechanisms require examined and expanded upon, even if that means in closed court. Judicial independence means evaluating all of the facts and not just the details that the government would like to present. Until an inquiry is allowed in scrutinizing such political processes, suspicions and obfuscation will remain. It is the duty of this serving government to dispel ambiguities and dichotomies that continually surface when tracking the events over British involvement with the Iraq conflict.
Additions:
1). The Iraq war, and the manner in which the UK waged an unjustifiable campaign, leaves a very dangerous international legal precedent. Would Mr. Hague, or any of his fellow Members of Parliament, like to comment on that?
With the emergence of both China and India as potential superpowers, does the Iraq war provide a legal basis by which other powerful countries may wish to topple weaker nations in the future, because of the political and economic interests those countries may have? Refuting it would either be an admission of guilt or the hypocrisy of applying double-standards.
Whatever the case, the world is now far more dangerous because of the events 5-years ago.
2). Six conditions must be satisfied for a war to be considered just:
1. The war must be for a just cause.
2. The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.
3. The intention behind the war must be good.
4. All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.
5. There must be a reasonable chance of success.
6. The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.
- A war that starts as a Just War may stop being a Just War if the means used to wage it are inappropriate.
a. Innocent people and non-combatants should not be harmed.
b. Only appropriate force should be used.
This applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used.
c. Internationally agreed conventions regulating war must be obeyed.
How many of these rules, Mr. Hague, did either Britain or the US observe?
Copyright © MarKat (Scotland) 2007-2008: all rights protected
Appendage:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/william_hague/2008/03/we_need_an_inquiry.html
- The poppy field density in Afghanistan
