[Rithlilky]

That ^ seems to be a new feature of NY Times commentaries.

It used to be that Times' links simply took you to info within the NY Times (and therefore I would de-link all the text when posting Times articles).

[SkatrySkith]

A very interesting and informative piece lofter, thanks for posting it. When will decent Americans rise up against the corrupt and self-serving cabal that has inflicted so much pain in its continual lust for power and money?

[luspikals]

Iraq: What hasn't gone wrong. That should be the question.

The fact that Iraq is a democracy rather a dictatorship; that a dictator who committed some of the worst genocides of the late twentieth century is no longer in charge; that since the US surge, Baghdad is beginning to get more stable?

The cesspool of Iraq is the one of darkest stains to mark our country.

And what about Iraq? It was hardly a paradise before the war...

And whilst I have lots of respect for America, I think the lack of action on global warming, Guantanamo, the UN sanctions on Iraq and lack of action on Bosnia were/will be considerably worse in your country's recent history!

[italertb]

Britain doesn't get off lightly in regards to Iraq, so you might want to wipe that smirk off your face

[GogaMegaPiska]

What do you mean? I support Britain and America's decision to go in, even if as the articles suggest, there were huge failings in the practicalities of the reconstruction and healing of wounds on both our countries' parts. I get an awful sense of history repeating itself with Britain retreating from Basra (for largely populist motives) and entrusting control to vicious fundamentalist militia. This may guarantee short term stability but not the democracy and freedoms I believe motivated Blair to commit British troops.

[Anneskobsen]

I mean that neither Britain nor the USA thought through what the F they were going to really do in Iraq. And together they stirred up a wasps nest of trouble. And that Britain is greatly responsible for the pseudo-country of Iraq to begin with. And thereby has blood on its hands for everything that has taken place there for the past 80+ years. And if Britain went in to liberate or free or democratize Iraq then they sure as hell left too early because no matter how many times you say it what is there now is not a democracy. And to say "Well you Americans aren't doing such a great job now, but in the beginning our intentions were good" is just a big CROCK.

I don't think that the stated reasons for the Invasion are what motiviated either Bush or Blair at all. And if both or either truly believed that their actions could or would bring Freedom and Democracy to an area which had no historic basis for such a society then they denser than one can possibly imagine.

Anything else that might not be too clear?

[emingeRek]

I wasn't ranting at you so I don't see why you need to rant at me...

If you understood my post (), you'd see I accepted there was a real lack of planning and decisions made after the war against Hussein had been won. You'd also see I said it is wrong that Britain is retreating from Iraq. It is technically a democracy but despite the relative stability in the areas Britain controlled they are effectively controlled by militias which have complete contempt for democracy. I actually said the Americans are doing a much better job than the British at the moment...

I really don't like what you're getting at in your last statement. Should we have said that to Germany or Japan after WW2 - you don't understand democracy and you've never had it, so it's too much of a risk to give it to you... Should America not have bothered with the Constitution because there was no real tradition of democracy? Eastern Europe has had little experience of democracy but the countries of the EU-27 are just as democratic as America's first modern democracy.

I don't think what you said can be reconciled with a belief in democracy. Surely support for democracy is rooted in the concept that is universal, a human right by virtue of our common humanity?

What do you believe Blair's motivations were?

[GoveMoony]

If I'm ranting then it is due to statements such as this, which to me shows a complete lack of forethought and little to no understanding of consequences, and thereby exhibits a failure of logic:

I support Britain and America's decision to go in, even if as the articles suggest, there were huge failings in the practicalities of the reconstruction and healing of wounds on both our countries' parts. Could we please move beyond the words, words words and get own to the real terrifying results of the god-awfully stupid decision to "go in"?

Leaders who think they can "shock & awe" a people into a state of democracy are deluded. And those who follow behind the leaders who make such claims are not much more clear-headed.

Regarding Blair's motivation: One would have to dig into the netherworlds of the leader's head to find out what the motivation might be. I think if one can get beyond the platitudes of Freedom and Democracy and get down to the nitty gritty in the grey matter it would become apparent that some sort of personal aggrandizement is operating ("Look what Good I did for the World"). Unfortunately ego building like that that has nothing to do with the very improtant nation building, which might actually feed the mothers of deposed bureaucrats or educate the children of dead soldiers.

Here we are in 2008. We have MBAs / CEOs running the western world. The state of the finances in the USA shows that many of those folks aren't necessarily the sharpest pencils in the box.

These fools have tried to implement a 10-year plan that just doesn't work. Never could have. Never will.

[unapelosina]

And please realize that none of this ^ is personal.

It's just that tonight I find myself in despair over the state of the world.

[Flalafuse]

I think we should be grateful to the Brits for standing with us. It's not their fault Rumsfeld screwed up so badly. Ultimately, we were the primary military partner and deserve the credit for these screw ups.

I have to say 1 thing though - the NYT has taken a blow in my opinion on credibility. Why did they publish that story saying Iraqi veterans come back as violent, even though the murder rated they cited is significantly lower than the crime rate among the general population of 18-34 year olds in the US. It just seems like they want to bad mouth our troops with a totally bogus story.

Like most people who oppose the war, I take offense at smears against our troops. Just because George Bush is a f-cking moron doesn't mean our troops are non honorable, just and moral. And the only place I've seen ethical lapses is with mercenary contractors like BlackWater that Congress still hasn't acted to rein in and make subject to the rule of law.

[fereupfer]

Of course Britain is completely blameless and only helped to invade Iraq because they have no brains of their own and only did what they were told to do.

WTF?

And of course the NY Times has slipped. I hear their are union workers on that paper.

[Prealiitellg]

Britian didn't make the decision to send in too few troops, which is why the war went badly. I think its fair to say we controlled strategy in Iraq, for the most part. I'm greatful to Britain for their friendship and steadfastness in standing with us for the common purpose of liberty - even in this case I happen to disagree that the war was a good idea.

I can see you're still smarting from my accurate assessment that unions damage America in other threads, but I didn't say anything to that effect about the Times article. They have a liberal bias, although I don't think unions have anything to do with that. (To their credit, most union people are fiercely patriotic - even the organized crime linked unions like the Teamsters are patriotic).

[tyclislavaify]

What do you mean "Britain didn't make the decision to send in too few troops"???

Who made the decsion about how many troops Britain would offer as part of the deal to invade Iraq?

[zU8KbeIU]

Britain at the end of the day is a country with about the population of the east coast. I just don't think they have enough young and able bodied people who would be in a position to send in several hundred thousand troops to make up for our failure to send in the right number of troops in the beginning. We have 5 times the population they do.

And don't forget they have troops in Afghanistan. They have more of their amred forces overseas on a percentage basis than we do. We're the ones who needed to send in the right troop number. Britain decided to act as America's steadfast ally, and I think we owe them our gratitude for that, and take responsibility for screwing up and ignoring general shinseki.

[wasssallx]

We need to give gratitude to the Brits for making the same stupid mistake that our leaders made when invading Iraq?

Interesting way of looking at the debacle.

And Afghanistan is a whole separate issue. To link Afghanistan Iraq is to buy the whole load of crap taht the neo-cons have been selling for the past years.

It was a pack of lies then and it remains a pack of lies now.

[Qdcqxffs]

I think its fair to say we controlled strategy in Iraq, for the most part.

You mean there actually was a strategy? You could have fooled me!

I'm greatful to Britain for their friendship and steadfastness in standing with us for the common purpose of liberty

I don't believe the "common purpose" was "liberty", it was more to do with oil. All Tony B Liar did, as many British Prime Ministers have done in the past, was play poodle at George W's feet, humiliating us in the process. But hey, Tony B Liars gone and now receives his pay-off, a non-show job at J P Morgan's paying him a cool £1m! Being a poodle pays even if your self-respect and service to your country doesn't.

[Jxmwzgpv]

CB, I think you are exaggerating. I think Blair played it much better than Bush, but was forced to capitulate in order to keep Bush's glaring almost xenophobic ignorant belligerent comments in check.

I do not agree with what the UK did, or its strident support for the US without questioning things that SHOULD have been questioned, but I do not put him in as a lap dog.

That association is only made by those that want to consider themselves as superior to him in some way and elevate their own social status by means of denigration of those above them.

Your points have merrit, but you managed to put the hammer through the wall in your attempts to nail them in.

[EjPWyPm4]

Either the UK has / had full responsibility or Blair was a patsy. One or the other. There is no in-between when it comes to Iraq. A country cannot "sort of" go to war.


If the following comments posted in this thread don't paint the picture of the UK as a mere "lap dog" (which is not my personal take on the situation) then I'm not sure what the Brits should be called:"Britain at the end of the day is a country with about the population of the east coast ... decided to act as America's steadfast ally""I think its fair to say we controlled strategy in Iraq"
"our fault, not Britain ... I think we should be grateful to the Brits for standing with us. It's not their fault Rumsfeld screwed up so badly. Ultimately, we were the primary military partner and deserve the credit for these screw ups."

[Overlord]

I think there is a difference between a friend and a lap dog. I think Britain agreed with us about overthrowing Sadaam and disagreed about post war planning or troop levels. But Britain has mostly refocused on Afghanistan and more stable parts of southern Iraq, so I think its clear that reflects they acted as an ally rather than a patsy. I'm not sure they screwed up the parts they were responsible for, and so I don't think we should hold them responsible (though I think Gates may be right that we need smarter thinking in Helmand about counterinsurgency fighting).


We are clearly a more powerful country than Britain. But I don't think its fair to say that means they are a lap dog, or we treat them that way.

[Tryphadz]

Well, I think there is a clear distinction between someone who leads and is responsible and someone who follows and is thereby a patsy / lap dog and can pretend that the responsibility lies elesewhere.

I turn to the great playwright Edward Albee, who in his laugh-a-minute "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" presented the distinction as that of one who is either a "stud" or a "houseboy" (but never the twain shall meet) ...

VID