hi clo,
perspective on my position.
i was in favour of the war against the Taliban but not the subsequent occupation.
i was in favour of a un approach to finding weapons of mass destruction in iraq. i thought the us invasion would create more terrorists.
here's what i wrote at the time just before the war started.
13 Feb 2003, 12:18 PM EST
"weby,
I understand the sea change. It comes with discovering you are vulnerable. And every government has a duty to protect its citizens.
These issues are not in question.
What is worth discussion is how you set about righting the situation. Whether the right questions are even being addressed. And whether the right solutions are being tried.
Just because GWB chooses to associate Iraq and al Qaeda does not mean everyone else has to. Just because GWB asserts that Iraq is a threat to the US or the Middle East region does not mean I have to agree. Just because the US states an interest in a region does not mean others cannot have an alternate interest that is equally valid.
To make these sorts of claims and have them stick, you have to provide substantial evidence to support your view. You don't speak to grown-ups and say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That's the sort of nonsense you address to people that are really very stupid. It demonstrates contempt to try such a thing on with intelligent people that are meant to be your partners, more than anything else.
Do you really think you can launch a new and very dangerous doctrine in the world such as the one the US is propounding now without a huge number of countries saying - hey, you need to be very careful if you are going to go down that road? The US has arrogated a power to itself - the one that states that even if the US thinks you might become a risk, they have a right to take action - that is truly terrifying to everyone else. France, Germany, Russia and China may not be your favorite countries. But they are doing the world a favor by clamping the breaks on this policy. It should be applied only where the case in favor is overwhelming.
But let me go back to the specifics of Iraq. There may indeed be a case to be made for attacking Iraq. Yet the very countries GWB's father corralled into agreeing with the last Iraq mission now side against the US. There is a reason for that. The US - and the UK for that matter - is butchering the case. And the browbeating of those who honestly disagree does further damage.
The sense abroad is that the US is not acting as the world's policeman. It is flailing around looking for someone convenient to blame for 9/11 after having screwed up in its efforts to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
This may be unfair, but it is the sense other people have. And then they fear that in so doing the US is actually re-creating the terrorist monster which is its real enemy. Because it seems to demonstrate - again possibly unfairly - that the US's attitude to other countries - especially Moslem ones - is indeed unsympathetic, insular and bullying.
People worldwide had real sympathy after 9/11. They have provided enormous help to the US in the fight against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And with some success I think. But they are also aware that the US is an absolute military Goliath on the world stage, exerts a profound influence in virtually every country in the world, and needs some countervailing influences when it comes simply to asserting its own interest. Saddam is a very bad man. It may indeed be worth getting rid of him. But he is not Bin Laden and confusing him with 9/11 probably misses the point the rest of the world is making.
As regards controlling the high ground: I am in favor of local sovereignty over imperialism, except where the circumstances are evidently and extremely concerning."
not talking about doma, but back then it was hard to find an american who didn't want to go into iraq.
| 
