Coalition of the Willing falling apart
With Britain now announcing its intention to withdraw its troops from Iraq over the next year, the question is how many allies in Iraq does the United States still have? This just adds to a long string of several other countries who have withdraw from Iraq. Lets remember in 2003 that most NATO and developed countries, contrary to popular opinion, did support the war (or at least their governments did). While Canada was onside with global public opinion and the majority of countries in the world, we were offside with most of the West. What is even more remarkable is unlike Germany and France who are less dependent on the US for trade, and larger countries, we had the most to lose by saying no to the United States on Iraq, yet we made the right decision and said No. Now it appears even one of its staunchest allies is questioning the value of the close alliance. With ally by ally bailing out of Iraq, it may be time for the United States to consider withdrawing. The Democrats should jump all over this and use this as a reason to oppose a troop surge and if Bush still insists, consider cutting off funds. If Britain says the region is stabilized, but the US says they need more troops, who should we believe, or could it be that the war is unwinneable and Britain wants to leave in honour rather than disgrace.
I don't know the exact reason why Britain, is making the decision it is, although I suspect it might have something to do with the fact Blair's successor probably doesn't want to deal with Iraq and Labour Party is falling in the polls, so Tony Blair probably wants to get the issue off the table before the next election, probably in 2009. Regardless of the reason, it is the right decision. Iraq will not stabilized as long as it is occupied by foreign powers. While I worry it would plunge into civil war if all foreign troops pulled out, I also think the violence will continue if they stay, so I figure it is better to pull out and let the Iraqis resolve their own problems. In addition, I do think those who were involved the invasion should pay reparations to all damage they caused to Iraq.
Some have suggested Canada follow suit on Afghanistan and I agree we should, however lets not try and mix the two missions up as they are totally different. I oppose the Afghanistan mission since I don't believe you can bring democracy at the end of a gun barrel, but the two are still totally separate.
I don't know the exact reason why Britain, is making the decision it is, although I suspect it might have something to do with the fact Blair's successor probably doesn't want to deal with Iraq and Labour Party is falling in the polls, so Tony Blair probably wants to get the issue off the table before the next election, probably in 2009. Regardless of the reason, it is the right decision. Iraq will not stabilized as long as it is occupied by foreign powers. While I worry it would plunge into civil war if all foreign troops pulled out, I also think the violence will continue if they stay, so I figure it is better to pull out and let the Iraqis resolve their own problems. In addition, I do think those who were involved the invasion should pay reparations to all damage they caused to Iraq.
Some have suggested Canada follow suit on Afghanistan and I agree we should, however lets not try and mix the two missions up as they are totally different. I oppose the Afghanistan mission since I don't believe you can bring democracy at the end of a gun barrel, but the two are still totally separate.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 2:53 PM
6 Comments:
Why do you even bother to peddle this junk, Miles? Canada did not participate because of Oil for food corruption and blatant anti americanism. We participated in the original Iraq war. Iraq laughed in the face of the truce by constatnly breaking it and the 16 UN resolutions since the war. The UN was trying a 17th resolution. How many times does a dictator have to show you his non-compliance before you call him on it? And now, Britian has said they will withdraw some troops if the Iraqi army can take over their duties. You, and CTV and CBC, are making a big deal out of nothing.
John m. Reynolds - I think those promoting the war are promoting junk if anything. Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States or the West. Yes Saddam did defy UN resolutions, but progress was being made. In addition it was suspected he had weapons of mass destruction, not known. You don't invade a country on the suspicion it may be a threat. In fact, over 80% of Canadians opposed the war in Iraq and close to 60% of Americans do.
Britain obviously will not say they are withdrawing since the war was a mistake, but make no mistake, if the Labour Party wants to win in 2009, they will need to pull out of Iraq before then.
How does defying 16 UN resolutions show progress?
The weapons inspectors were making progress. In addition I should note Israel has violated far more resolutions yet no one (and rightfully so) is demanding war against them. War is not the answer to every problem and more importantly the United States simply used this as an excuse for the invasion. They were going to invade Iraq no matter what and used whatever excuse they could find.
That is a weak link. Simply counting the number of defied UN resolutions is not appropriate. This was about 16 resolutions with respect to the gulf war truce. The UN member nations like France and Canada were not supporting more strict resolution due to corruption. The were making too much money through the UN oil-for-food scam. The weapons inspectors were constantly being kicked out or barred from entering many sites. They could not do their jobs properly. To say that they found nothing is a joke. Saddam made it impossible for them to find anything.
That is a weak link. Simply counting the number of defied UN resolutions is not appropriate. This was about 16 resolutions with respect to the gulf war truce. The UN member nations like France and Canada were not supporting more strict resolution due to corruption. The were making too much money through the UN oil-for-food scam. The weapons inspectors were constantly being kicked out or barred from entering many sites. They could not do their jobs properly. To say that they found nothing is a joke. Saddam made it impossible for them to find anything.
First of all Canada had very little if any involvement in the oil for food scandal. In fact our position was based on a longstanding foreign policy since Pearson that war be used only in the last resort. Canada has long taken a principled position against pre-emptive strikes so our position was totally in line with traditional Canadian foreign policy.
In addition even if Saddam Hussein was breaking the UN resolutions, only the UN has the authority to pass judgement, an individual country cannot decide on its own when to invade. If this were the case Iran or Syria could invade Israel since they have not complied with several resolutions.
Post a Comment
<< Home