Tony Blair has finally stated that even if there had been no probability of weapons of mass destruction he would have gone to war with Iraq. He felt that for the stability of the region Saddam had to be removed.
I remember at the time of the first Gulf War asking some gung-ho individual what we were fighting for. 'Democracy', he replied. I said that in that case we were fighting on the wrong side because Saddam had at least been elected, whereas the al-Sabah family in Kuwait had not. Incidentally they made a lot of promises at the time and I don't remember any of them being fulfilled.
I think it is worthwhile recording that a number of the present cabinet, including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, went along with this. They felt that if the leader of a country was beyond the pale and if it were a threat to other countries, then regime change should be our policy.
Perhaps they could now tell us why we haven't invaded Zimbabwe or Burma, and what they think Iraq was guilty of that China wasn't (including obtaining weapons of mass destruction).
A moral case is a moral case, whoever is guilty. If we corrupt morality with realpolitik it ceases to be moral.
No comments:
Post a Comment