New weapon in fight for hearts and minds
WHEN the Chilcot inquiry reports after the election, most of the politicians involved in Iraq war will seek to draw a line under the whole fiasco.
The media and the public will hope for conclusions reached, questions answered, and blame apportioned.
A consensus seems to have settled over the Iraq war which spans most of the media and runs as follows:
The war was a disaster for which Tony Blair and George Bush are to blame. Blair was either a lapdog to the president, or a messianic zealot who bamboozled a reluctant Britain into a pointless, illegal and immoral conflict.
But as we continue to rake over the issues of WMD and the discussions (or lack of them) that led to the invasion, seven years on, it's worth reminding ourselves that the story of the Iraq war is far from over, and demands our continuing attention.
Last week there were distressing reports from Fallujah of a dramatic increase in the number of babies being born deformed. This might turn out to be connected to the use of certain US weapons deployed in the battle for the city.
It remains to be seen.
But there is also heartening news from Iraq. As I write, the votes in the Iraqi election are being counted. There are grounds to hope that a functioning democracy might yet emerge from the carnage.
The question of what happens next in Iraq will play a key part in determining how the West responds to the Saddam Husseins of the future.
Do we decide that intervention has been discredited, and leave millions to take their chances under savage dictatorships that flout international law?
Or do we learn from the mistakes made in Iraq, while remaining open to the possibility that intervention elsewhere might one day prove to be the least bad option?
The answer depends partly on a third question: Long-term, will the war have left Iraq – at an enormous cost – a better place than it was under Saddam?
If we can't bring ourselves to ask that question on behalf of Bush and Blair something has gone seriously wrong with our priorities if we can't ask it on behalf of the Iraqi people, and of oppressed peoples elsewhere.
l So under what circumstances is military interventionism justified?
This is the kind of question it might be interesting to pose to Samantha Cameron and Sarah Brown, given that we'll clearly have to get used to wives being deployed in the pre-election battle for hearts and minds.
While we're at it, we could also ask their views on banking regulation and the size and nature of the inevitable public spending cuts – since their husbands are being so reticent on these matters.
What a waste, then, that these two undoubtedly intelligent women are spouting such fatuous irrelevancies as the manner in which their husbands wield a saucepan or a TV remote .
We're told that channel-flicking Dave is a good cook, but leaves the kitchen in a mess, and that Gordon is messy and noisy but cares deeply about the country.
Meanwhile, the floating voter is still none the wiser as to which of these two admirable yet endearingly flawed husbands is the best person to steer the country through what promises to be a challenging future.
awolstenholme@ywng.co.uk
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Batley
Wednesday 08 February 2012
Today
Sunny spells
Temperature: -3 C to 1 C
Wind Speed: 8 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Light rain
Temperature: 1 C to 3 C
Wind Speed: 8 mph
Wind direction: South west
