I’ve been reading the letter sent by fifty British foreign policy experts to Tony Blair.
We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East…
Or, we’ve spent nearly 1,000 years all told letting the the Middle East get into the state it’s in. Okay, what are they concerned about?
The decision by the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a “Road Map” for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the Islamic and Arab worlds.
I thought so. It’s Israel’s fault.
Britain and the other sponsors of the Road Map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.
No, it’s the U. S.’s fault. Can’t they make up their minds?
Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood.
Ah, much better. It’s the U. S.’s and Israel’s fault. Off-hand I’d say that most of the fault lies with the Palestinian suicide-bombers and those that recruit them and send them out along with the Palestinian refusal to accept any solution which does not abolish the state of Israel but, then, I’m no Middle East expert.
Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.
Which successes were those, exactly?
This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.
It’s not really clear to me how they believe we can induce al Jazeera or al Arabiya to portray us in any other light no matter what we do.
The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement.
This is a point well taken. Of course, the same complaints were being made a year after VE day, too.
All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case.
To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful.
It’s unclear to me whether they’re denying that the resistance is led by terrorists, fanatics, and foreigners or that they wish that the resistance were not led by terrorists, fanatics, and foreigners. Regardless, unless their intelligence-gathering capabilities on the ground in Iraq today is significantly better than I’d suspect it is, how do they know who the leaders aren’t terrorists, fanatics, and foreigners? One thing is certain: there is no general uprising. If there were, we’d be getting very different reports and pictures than we are. Will this letter reduce or increase the likelihood of a general uprising?
Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region.
Or else we’ll be out of a job.
… The military actions of the Coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them.
I couldn’t agree more. Objectives should be set by the civil leaders. Strategies that accomplish the objectives should be proposed by general officers. Tactics that implement the strategies should be developed by the officers in the field. This is basic Klausewitzian war.
It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders.
Oops. Spoke too soon. Did I see any military expertise in that list of signatories to this letter?
Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition.
It’s the job of the military to determine the weaponry suitable to the field situation not the civil authority. As to language, tsk, tsk. Those rough Marines shouldn’t give offense, now, should they? I suspect if I had AK-47 rounds whizzing past my head I’d use some inflammatory language myself.
In fairness, I’m somewhat concerned by the racial slurs in common use in characterizing the locals by our troops. It’s regrettable but it happens in every war.
But as to whether the weaponry and language have built up the opposition, again, how do they know? I suspect that a half hour of al Jazeera’s coverage does more to the build up the opposition than the entire extent of the weaponry and language that the Coalition forces have used to date.
… We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the United States on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally.
We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency.
If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.
It would be genuinely interesting to know what these experts have in mind but, unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be included in the letter. I guess we’ll just have to wait until their next epistle.
There’s not much meat on these bones. Most of all I get the impression that the signatories are prime recruits for what The Dissident Frogman calls the Coalition des Pisseuses.
