Clare Short: Blair's Lack of Courage

If Britain had held out for UN control of Iraq, we wouldn't be bogged down in a bloody occupation


It is right that we should continue to argue over the route to war in Iraq. But it is more urgent that we address the continuing chaos, suffering and loss of life. The British military was very clear that the conflict would take no more than a few weeks. In my briefings, they talked of the need to prepare for very rapid success. And - despite claims to the contrary - the UN was well prepared to return to Iraq as soon as order was restored to take charge of emergency humanitarian needs.

The advice that I, and the Department for International Development, gave to the prime minister was that we should internationalise the reconstruction effort as quickly as possible. This was based on our experience in East Timor, Kosovo and Afghanistan, and also on our understanding of international law. I was delighted when the attorney general provided clear legal advice on the limitation of the authority of occupying powers, which strongly reinforced the case we were making.

(more)

The prime minister did press President George Bush to commit to a "vital role" for the UN at the Hillsborough meeting and President Bush obligingly said the appropriate words. But it was increasingly clear that the US would not agree an appropriate UN role. The US was sneeringly hostile to the UN, arguing that it was not willing to undertake the cost of military action and then to hand over Iraq to the UN. Jack Straw talked shockingly of France and Germany having made the wrong call and not being allowed to "get their snouts in the trough".

(snip)

And now, after months of chaos and loss of life, there is increasing worry in Washington that the US is carrying too much of the financial and military burden in Iraq. There is also mounting public concern about the number of US soldiers who are being killed and injured. A recent mission of experts commissioned by the Pentagon has strongly recommended that the US should work with the G7, the World Bank and the UN. India, Pakistan, and Germany among others have been asked to send peacekeepers. The response from almost all countries is that they will do so only if the UN is given a clearer mandate to lead the reconstruction.

And thus we come full circle. The law, the UN and the international community were pushed to one side. Four months later, after much destruction, suffering and loss of life, Washington is considering a return to the security council in order to strengthen the UN role and widen international engagement. If the prime minister had only had more courage, reconstruction in Iraq would almost certainly be more advanced and the US and UK at less risk of getting bogged down in an unpopular and costly occupation.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1008494,00.html

I am so grateful for Clare Short and Robin Cook in England.

Then the chances are we would not have gone invaded Iraq with the US. One of the primary reasons why Blair joined in was to appease Bush.

That tactic has failed and in any case, it was a reason that did noit stand up to scrutiny. if we are to think along the lines of Blair's logic in supporting Bush then Chamberlain should have sent the troops into the Sudetenland in order to appease Hitler! :grr: As you can guess that sort of warped logic is not something that I can subcribe to as it is morally repugnent as well as being the height of cowardice.

We do need the UN in Iraq but I don't see Blair's current position as being able to provide that at all. Blair will just do as Bush tells him to regardless of what the people he is supposed to serve think.