The gist of this article seems to be that Tony Blair views the idea as dented, but not actually wrong. Taking out Saddam Hussein was, on paper, a step to the good; one less sadistic dictator in the world and all.
Mr Blair... insisted his decision was right. If Saddam Hussein was still running Iraq, the world would face a different set of problems, he said.
A different set of problems indeed. Such as perhaps there would still exist a repressive but stable and contained Iraq as a counter-balance to the ambitions of Iran?
The Prime Minister admitted there were "varying degrees of enthusiasm" for intervention among other countries and said other nations needed to "step up to the mark" to help coalition forces in Afghanistan.
But he denied that the case for intervention had waned, saying he wanted to see that happen in Darfur. "I believe we will be pushed in this direction as a world," he said. "We cannot be in a situation where the harder they [terrorists] fight, the less is our will to succeed. If we are not careful we will be in that situation ... Are we prepared for the long haul? That is the real issue."
Ah yes, Darfur. There are many things to be said for laying the smackdown on the Sudanese government and splitting Sudan into at least 3 separate states. But here's the kicker; everyone wrings their hands a lot, but nobody who's in a position to send enough force to do the job (e.g. the Americans) is interested enough to do it.
So, we will certainly be pushed in that and several other directions, but there is a lot of inertia to overcome, even discounting current commitments.
Speaking of other commitments, Canada's mission in Afghanistan is looking (fearless prediction alert) like it won't be extended past 2009. Although the actual events with the troops went smoothly in Quebec City last night, the usual yahoos were there to protest, and of course they get more coverage than the reason for the march. Quel surprise. Well, at least we faked them out by reversing the parade route...
Interventions, liberal or otherwise have been a fact since people first became organized enough to have a coherent will that they wanted to impose on someone else. As I have argued repeatedly here, the interventions will have to happen, but Mr Blair's comments underline the fact that there is only so much that the "world's policemen" can realistically expect to accomplish.
One can note that no-one could be bothered to intervene in Gaza, although admittedly it's hard to choose between terrorist factions there. Back to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra, backing Fatah over Hamas seems to look like a better bet for the US and Israel, but I only see that as a question of relative odiousness and potential threat.
Intervention or Containment? Like most non-physical laws, there are no hard and fast rules; "the terrain will dictate". Decisions to get stuck into somewhere should not be based on ideology, but on a cold, hard assessment of interests and whether it'll work. Radical, I know.
(PS: to avoid confusion, I started this 21 June, but it wasn't actually posted until 23 June. Can't edit that part, I guess.)
No comments:
Post a Comment