Hurd Blasts Mistaken US Policy in Iraq

Agence France Presse, Arab News

LONDON, 11 April 2004 — Former British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd yesterday sharply criticized Washington’s policy in Iraq, saying the United States was mistaken in believing it could impose democracy on the war-shattered country through the use of force.

“You really don’t win hearts and minds by filling hospitals and mortuaries,” said Hurd, who was foreign secretary between 1989 and 1995 in the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher.

Hurd was referring to the recent fighting in Iraq between US forces and hard-line Sunni and Shiite Muslims that has left hundreds of Iraqis dead and hundreds more wounded.

Hurd told BBC radio that the recent upsurge in violence was “almost inevitable” and added that the US-led coalition should hand over power to Iraqis who have real influence in the country and not just those who have “curried favor” with the Pentagon.

rest at...

http://www.aljazeerah.info/11n/Hurd%20Blasts%20Mistaken%20US%20Policy%20in%20Iraq.htm

Not a liberal. But it could be just election year politics. Its upside down and backwards world in Britain, where the Labour Party started the war , but he only did it with Tory help and now Blair has to run against the far left and the far right in their October elections.

The tiny little middle patch that is Tony Blair's island seems to be washing away with every drop of blood in Iraq. I so hope Blair looses, it will help us here against Bush. T

If you think the Tories would be better than Blair, you're mistaken. The Tories are infinitely worse than Labour. And the LibDems don't have a chance. What's needed is a leadership challenge in Labour - with Labour continuing to run the government.

Do any Brits think there's a chance that Gordon Brown might take the top slot after the elections?

"Do any Brits think there's a chance that Gordon Brown might take the top slot after the elections?"

It depends what happens in the presidential elections I think. In a nutshell I believe that if Kerry wins the Presidency, there would be enourmous pressure on Blair to step down. That Brown would fill his shoes is more or less a certainty although stranger things have happened in politics. One newspaper columnist recently suggested Hillary Benn, son of Tony Benn, might be an alteranitive(!) although I wouldn't take that too seriously.

Incidentally, Blair has had no contact with Kerry as far as we know but Brown both knows and respects Kerry and I assume it is reciprocated. So if Kerry does win, there would be reasons apart from pure politics for Tony to depart.


on edit: Blair has some personal fantasy of being the only "Labour" PM to be elected into a third term so expect him to dig his fingernails in.

on edit: Blair has some personal fantasy of being the only "Labour" PM to be elected into a third term so expect him to dig his fingernails in.

Blair is a douche bag. He has dismantled everything that labour stands for and is basically even more conservative than Clinton. He's too smart for his own good and those Brits really, really lie well.

"Is Blair an insane Ego Maniac? He reminds me of Ralph Nader"

He's definately an ego maniac IMO. He differs from Nader only in that he's electable.


"He has dismantled everything that labour stands for and is basically even more conservative than Clinton."

There's nothing about the Labour party in the UK now that even resembles the Labour party of old. The sad thing is that we were given ample warning of his ultimate political ambition. The abolition of Clause 14 was a huge clue and was passed despite the protestations of the party faithful.

Is he more conservative than Clinton? Without question. I'm tempted to say he's more conservative than Thatcher but that's probably not true; he's certainly more authoritarian though and that's worse.


"He's too smart for his own good and those Brits really, really lie well."

Careful. I'm a Brit :-). With regards to whether Blair's smart, I don't think he is. He's an excellent orator but he's a terrible parlimentarian and his lack of intellect really shows on those occasions where he deigns Parliament with his presence. More worringly though, his politics have of late been dictated by his personal beliefs rather than by logic and reason -- and that's a very dangerous position for a politician to be in -- and is more similar to Dubya in this respect than I think even his most virile critics realise.

To summarise: I still think the Labour party is the best hope for the UK but not under Blair's leadership. He is, in your words, a douche bag.

the UK election process. Does the whole parliament run. So is there no hope to kick out Tony and keep Labour in? I know that the conservatives are worse, but I thought they were in the great minority. How can Britain be more anti-war than the US and Blair stay in power?

i. our election is likely to be Spring 05, so will not affect your election;

ii. there's no way Blair will lose next year. He's too strong domestically. There's a great depth of feeling about the War in Britain, but it's not so strong as to override all other considerations (like the economy which is very strong, education health etc).

Blair will win the next election and then hand over to a real Labour politician - Gordon Brown. Blair looks haggard and I think the strain on him over Iraq must be immense at present - serves him right for toadying up to Bush when his entire party is against the war.

Douglas Hurd is an old style Tory Patrician - not sure who he's most akin to in the US - who do you have who's a toff and who's an extreme centrist Republican ? - noblesse oblige sums up Hurd - patronising, but ultimately well-meaning.

Hurrah. Maybe we can get out of there by march 05.

...he'll join GHW Bush and John Majors on the board of directors of carlyle. Believe it. poodle has been promised his reward.

Now we'll be in for seeing "Freedom Muffins" at our grocery stores, and "Freedom Bulldogs" at the Madison Garden Dog Show. ~ sigh ~

that he doesn't realize the whole point of the operation was to hand over Iraq to compliant US toadies who would not object to selling off their country's assets to US multinationals or to allowing Iraq's territory to be used as a staging area for further projection of US military power in the Middle East?

the US-led coalition should hand over power to Iraqis who have real influence in the country and not just those who have “curried favor” with the Pentagon.

Or is he just waking up to the notion that it looks like plan "A" is down the toilet so we might as well move to plan "B" and hopefully at least get out with our asses still somewhat intact?

Douglas Hurd is a very well respected figure from the old-fashioned wing of the Tory Party - ie the one that saw Thatcherism and all it's strident rhetoric as a little distasteful. Now Lord Hurd, he always talks eminent sense when I hear him talk or read his articles, and he's been anti-war since Day 1. He was British Foreign Secretary during Gulf War I, and was a career diplomat before entering politics, so he's sure to be pretty clued up to what Bush is about.

Another ex-Tory big-wig who is excellent on the Iraq War is Kenneth Clarke, another left-wing Tory - either of them always skewer whichever lamentable Blairite minister gets wheeled out to defend British government policy in supporting Bush.

strong stuff

they only know one language.