Monday, 11 October 2010
Doesn't it make you mad - Linda Norgrove
The first casualty of war is the truth - and it seems we are faced with yet another example of this in the Linda Norgrove affair. This story bears all the hallmarks of why so many people are so critical of American foreign policy - and why they are so critical at the fact that we in the UK continue to follow and suppport the US.
For a start, the US and UK have made themselves very unpopular in the the Muslim world, which makes their citizens a more likely target for kidnappings of this kind (which is not the same as saying this unpopularity is deserved (though it is understandable), and nor is it the same as saying that they are to blame for the kidnappings).
Secondly, with stereotypical self-confidence it seems the US forces ignored local advice in preventing influential local elders and mullahs from negotiating with the captors so that they could rush in using force.
Thirdly, having chosen aggression over negotiation, they screwed it up. In general, they may well be a very professional, effective fighting unit, but they attract too many 'friendly fire' headlines - here's just one.
And finally, having done all that, it seems they lied about what happened.
Imperialism, arrogance, aggression, incompetence, dishonesty. While I'd like to think that with Tony Blair gone, we'll hold them fully to account for this, I suspect that our 'special relationship' with the US will prevent us (or rather, David Cameron) from doing this. But wouldn't it be great if, just for once, David Cameron would say publicly to Barack Obama "You gung-ho Americans have once again gone in unthinkingly, with all guns blazing, and caused the death of yet another innocent civilian. We've had enough, the rest of the world's had enough. Grow up, and start behaving like a civilised country."
For a start, the US and UK have made themselves very unpopular in the the Muslim world, which makes their citizens a more likely target for kidnappings of this kind (which is not the same as saying this unpopularity is deserved (though it is understandable), and nor is it the same as saying that they are to blame for the kidnappings).
Secondly, with stereotypical self-confidence it seems the US forces ignored local advice in preventing influential local elders and mullahs from negotiating with the captors so that they could rush in using force.
Thirdly, having chosen aggression over negotiation, they screwed it up. In general, they may well be a very professional, effective fighting unit, but they attract too many 'friendly fire' headlines - here's just one.
And finally, having done all that, it seems they lied about what happened.
Imperialism, arrogance, aggression, incompetence, dishonesty. While I'd like to think that with Tony Blair gone, we'll hold them fully to account for this, I suspect that our 'special relationship' with the US will prevent us (or rather, David Cameron) from doing this. But wouldn't it be great if, just for once, David Cameron would say publicly to Barack Obama "You gung-ho Americans have once again gone in unthinkingly, with all guns blazing, and caused the death of yet another innocent civilian. We've had enough, the rest of the world's had enough. Grow up, and start behaving like a civilised country."
Out of date opinion (1) - Nick Clegg
I should have posted this around the time of the Lib Dem conference, but for various reasons (mainly that I couldn't be bothered) I didn't get around to it.
I'm wondering why Nick Clegg is so unpopular. After the election, he was faced with a near impossible situation. The Lib Dems' preferred partners for a coalition would be Labour, but there were two main reasons why they could not embark on this course.
Firstly, Labour had clearly lost the election and Gordon Brown had been rejected by the electorate. Propping up Labour as the government and Brown as PM would be a kick in the teeth for democracy.
Secondly, the numbers didn't add up anyway. Even the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MP's would not have constituted a majority in the House of Commons. Any coalition with Labour would also have required other parties to join, such as Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, and Northern Ireland MP's which would have created a very unwieldy and unstable coalition at the mercy of factions even smaller than the Lib Dems themselves - and still with a very small majority in the Commons.
The second course of action open to Clegg was to refuse to join a coalition at all which would mean leaving the Tories to govern with a minority government, or force a second election. If there was a second election (at great cost to the taxpayer), the result would have been a Conservative majority, so we'd have waited longer, at greater cost, for roughly the same scenario (only without the Lib Dems having any opportunity at all to influence government actions whatsoever).
The Lib Dems may not like the current electoral system, but at least they are playing by the rules. Out of the coalition's 363 MP's, they have 57 - approximately 16 percent. So 16 percent of the coalition's policies should be Lib Dem policy, which seems about right so far. Which leaves 84% as Conservative policy, the major part of which is the spending review and associated cuts. Quite why Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are being blamed for these is unclear - and unfair.
I'm wondering why Nick Clegg is so unpopular. After the election, he was faced with a near impossible situation. The Lib Dems' preferred partners for a coalition would be Labour, but there were two main reasons why they could not embark on this course.
Firstly, Labour had clearly lost the election and Gordon Brown had been rejected by the electorate. Propping up Labour as the government and Brown as PM would be a kick in the teeth for democracy.
Secondly, the numbers didn't add up anyway. Even the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MP's would not have constituted a majority in the House of Commons. Any coalition with Labour would also have required other parties to join, such as Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, and Northern Ireland MP's which would have created a very unwieldy and unstable coalition at the mercy of factions even smaller than the Lib Dems themselves - and still with a very small majority in the Commons.
The second course of action open to Clegg was to refuse to join a coalition at all which would mean leaving the Tories to govern with a minority government, or force a second election. If there was a second election (at great cost to the taxpayer), the result would have been a Conservative majority, so we'd have waited longer, at greater cost, for roughly the same scenario (only without the Lib Dems having any opportunity at all to influence government actions whatsoever).
The Lib Dems may not like the current electoral system, but at least they are playing by the rules. Out of the coalition's 363 MP's, they have 57 - approximately 16 percent. So 16 percent of the coalition's policies should be Lib Dem policy, which seems about right so far. Which leaves 84% as Conservative policy, the major part of which is the spending review and associated cuts. Quite why Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are being blamed for these is unclear - and unfair.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)