Voxeurop community Europhrenia

The world last week

Published on 4 February 2010 at 18:16

I was on the France 24 World This Week debate with John Vinocur from the IHT, Judah Grunstein of World Politics Review, who wrote this blog on the discussion, and Pierre Rousselin from Le Figaro. For Part One, click here... and for Part Two, here... We discussed Tony Blair's appearance at the Chilcot inquiry on Iraq in which I made the point that Iraq was always a war looking for a cause, and so there's absolutely no point, (indeed, it's somewhat surreal) to seek to nail him on the existence or not of the WMDs he used as a pretext. Since only those born in the last shower would have ever believed they existed in the first place. In the appalling light of the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since 2003,it also strikes me in passing that the whole thrust of the Chilcot inquiry, to determine whether the Iraq war was "illegal", is somewhat obscene. It suggests that had the war been "legal" - with French involvement? a nod from the UN? - that mass murder could have gone by a different name. Such staggering logic like the above is not beyond George Monbiot, though, if his crusade to have Blair arrested, and who knows, thrown into the Tower of London, is anything to go by.

We also talked about the burqa in France, but you can read my thoughts on that here, and finally about Afghanistan. Like Iraq, I argued that there was never any clear reason for going into Afghanistan either. And for this reason permanent mission drift is completely inevitable. The war started as a response to 9/11 (i.e. attacks mainly carried out by Saudis and Egyptians) then the flushing out of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, with the emancipation of women bunged in for Western public consumption. Then it was the elimination of the drugs trade, and now there's talk of creating democratic institutions, which in reality means the propping up of the hopelesslycorrupt Karzai government that admits that it needs foreign troops on its soil at least fifteen more years. Fifteen years is the same as admitting the Afghan state will never be able to stand on its own legs, ever. As to arguments that Afghanistan would descend into civil war if Nato left, the answer is simple. Afghanistan is already in the throes a civil war, as continued Taliban attacks on Kabul make obvious. In any case, absolutely none of the so-called mission objectives have been achieved. Judah Grunstein made the valid point that the Taliban don't have much of a mission either, and that they're hardly winning hearts and minds. This is true, but in the case of a long war of attrition, the old maxim "better the devil you know" usually wins the day. In the end, countries just don't like being occupied, no matter how benevolent the intentions of the occupier might be.

Gerry Feehily

Receive the best of European journalism straight to your inbox every Thursday
Tags

Was this article useful? If so we are delighted!

It is freely available because we believe that the right to free and independent information is essential for democracy. But this right is not guaranteed forever, and independence comes at a cost. We need your support in order to continue publishing independent, multilingual news for all Europeans.

Discover our subscription offers and their exclusive benefits and become a member of our community now!

Are you a news organisation, a business, an association or a foundation? Check out our bespoke editorial and translation services.

Support independent European journalism

European democracy needs independent media. Join our community!

On the same topic