The case for the war in Iraq
Oliver Kamm makes the case for the war in Iraq, and bemoans the fact that the government (presumably Tony Blair excepted) doesn't seem very keen on doing so.It's definitely worth reading and can be found here. The argument essentially is the risk of Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons was such (and the consquences so dire) that even the current price of the war was worth paying. It's broadly the same argument as he has been making for about four years now, which I say not to denigrate it but to applaud the consistency, but the tone is somewhat less confident than this defence made nearly three years ago (and I think Kenneth Pollack, who Oliver quoted then as wavering, has changed his mind), and the humanitarian angle, for obvious reasons, features less heavily than in some of Oliver's pieces.
I don't agree with it, for the reasons I've never agreed with it so I won't bore you here. But one indirect point I would make is that Oliver criticises the Bush Administration for not handling the invasion, particularly the post-war planning, with seriouness, ie he thinks they did it frivolously. This is such a devastating charge to be laid at any government (think of how that must make feel the relatives of the troops who have died, at the very least) that I find it remarkable that he can believe it and still be a supporter of that Administration and its leading figures. Additionally, was Tony Blair aware of this attitude of the Administration - if not why not? - and should Britain really be fighting wars with partners that it thinks aren't taking it seriously?
posted by Matthew @ 10/26/2006 03:24:00 PM
Comments: 0
