From Iraq to Libya and Syria: The wars that come back to haunt us
Sunday, April 19, 2015
World View: Tony Blair is still pilloried for the decisions he took over Iraq. David Cameron should not escape blame for his role in conflicts that are still raging
Few recall that David Cameron led Britain into one war in Libya that overthrew Gaddafi, but was disastrous for most Libyans. Without this conflict, the drowned bodies of would-be emigrants to Europe would not be washing up in their hundreds on Libyan beaches. To get the full flavour of what went wrong, it is worth watching a YouTube clip of Cameron grandstanding on a balcony in Benghazi on 15 September 2011, as he lauds Libyas new freedom. Then turn to almost any recent film of Benghazi or Tripoli showing militias battling in streets and buildings shattered by shellfire.
Another scene worth revisiting via YouTube is the House of Commons on 29 August 2013, when Cameron lost the vote which would have opened the door to British military intervention in Syria. Ostensibly this was in response to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government in Damascus, but would have had an effect only if it had turned into a Libyan-type air campaign to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. There is every reason to believe that al-Qaeda-type movements would have filled the vacuum and Syria would have descended even deeper into anarchy.
What is striking here is not so much that Cameron never seemed to have much idea about what was going on in Libya or Syria as the degree to which his culpability has never been an issue. Contrast this with the way in which Tony Blair is still pilloried for the decisions he took over going to war in Iraq in 2003. Focus on the decisions taken in the lead-up to the invasion has become a national obsession in which Blair is a scapegoat, as if most of the British establishment and popular opinion did not support him at the time. Admittedly this support was partly the result of concocted evidence about Saddam Husseins non-existent WMD, but there is something absurd about the fact that it is almost impossible these days to meet a diplomat or a general who does not claim to have been deeply, if silently, opposed to the whole venture at the time.
A problem about this obsession with the events of 2002 and 2003 is that they have led to amnesia about what happened subsequently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the mourning for soldiers killed in these two wars treats them as if they were victims of a natural catastrophe rather casualties in conflicts which were the result of political decision-making. This is deeply convenient for the governments responsible since they dont have to answer too many questions about their war aims and why they failed to achieve them.
in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/from-iraq-to-libya-and-syria-the-wars-that-come-back-tohaunt-us-10187065.html
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)they ALL turn out badly for the Empire and the victims. Call it blowback, or the law of unintended consequences, the world is filled with conflicts from wars started by imperialists.
The Middle East is a classic example, where Britain and France decided, via the Sykes-Picot Agreement, to divide up what they did not possess. Followed up by the Balfour Declaration of course. The peoples of the Middle East are still fighting because of the meddling of western Empires.
And we can all see the seeds of another similar conflict sprouting in the Ukraine.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)But it was great to see Britain say, see ya around on Syria.
One of the best headlines, ever: Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23892783
The United States knows we have lost our standing in the world..( GW Bush ) you can see
Obama reaching to fix some of it. Cuba, Iran...I suspect things will shift for the better
with Venezuela too. The whole Yemen enterprise is horrific on steroids...I can't stand
the Saudi leaders and I do not support our support of it.
Ukraine..I don't know, that is worrisome in a very big way.