« On the day GuardianAmerica launches... it's British Invasion II | Main | In past years the British state rolled out the red carpet for Ceausescu and Mobutu; it's King Abdullah's turn today »



"Something has to change soon."

What do you mean Tim? Have you ever hugged a tree.


"The EU remains inward looking"

That's called navel gazing...


Some points on On Cameron's National Security First... he says:

"The rule of law and a strong civil society, with public institutions that people can trust."

"The second form of security that modern states need is cultural security."

"Without strong defences and secure borders [states] are less able to deter aggression and stop terrorists and those who inspire them."

And this: "The people who let off bombs on London's public transport system were not agents of Saddam Hussein, they were British citizens."

He had no problem implying a virtuous EU while sitting in Berlin yet appeared to infer an easy jab with regards to our efforts in Iraq as "the ability of states to create utopias" which was stated a few times, a phrase he's quite comfortable with.

And of course this: "you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000ft."

If he wants to put Iraq behind him, OK. But we have to deal with global realities of the present and future so why feel at liberty to make reference that can downplay or smear American and non-Brit Coalition efforts to continue. I find it hard to believe he doesn't understand Iraq has been the center of al-Qaeda's efforts pouring in recruits. More al-Qaeda terrorists have been killed there than any other place in the world. Bin Laden knows full well if they lose and a workable form of elected government for the people of Iraq succeeds in the center of the Fertile Crecent, it will be a crushing blow world wide.

Furthermore... if we fail, everybody in the free world loses. If concerned about security I am amazed very plausible consequences are barely even acknowledged if we were to willfully pull out too early or events unforeseen now proved catastrophic to our efforts to continue. Not only would there be a genocide, but the destructive aftermath and potential involvement of Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel could be devastating. The US and Russia could be drawn in. And the potential for terrorist bases on a scale in numbers and potency of weaponry would make the Taliban in Afghanistan look paltry. This world could be a hell.

I can overlook a lot of political posturing in public, but for Cameron to make such points in the center of Europe justifying and defining his strategy left a damned sour taste in my mouth. I will add tho he does seem to understand the need to solidify the front in Afghanistan. Pakistan could soon become engulfed in a full scale war.

Obviously Iraq has become devastating to the British psyche and I can understand to a point, so get the small contingent of troops out and hopefully put it in the past. But he cannot let the experience be a deterrent from the absolute necessity of building armed forces with the capacity to fully project power on foreign soil. Its either that or a psychopathic eternal enemy of the West will gather the numbers and means to bring it home. Does he think he has time to manipulate and encourage the UK to change the social morays of political correctness, beat the media and establish a working security infrastructure first?

Finally, he wants to reward good nations with seats on the UN Security Council. Like a lot that has done, tho I'm sure China and Russia have enjoyed it.

Henry Mayhew - Closet Racist

Oh dear, there is going to be another smack from CCHQ for this one Ed. Publicly uninspired by the Cameron vision? Tut, tut!

You really must confuse the base by pointing out that they just don't understand the brilliance of the leadership. First Class Oxford degree you know. The gentleman (and who more gentlemanly than Cam?) in Whitehall really does know best.

By the way, you are still wrong on the Middle East. Why not go and take a holiday there for a couple of weeks-and I don't mean the Zionist entity. One picks up the sense of the place remarkably quickly. Alternatively, check Arab News, the Al Khaleej Times or Gulf News for stories and comment. It is an exciting world out there. Why always have it interpreted for you by the US media and its hangers-on? Dubai might be the best choice and it's nice weather now. There'll be plenty of comment on Iran/USA in the paper, and trading dhows going to Iran leave from the Creek.

Tony Makara

The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have show the underfunded British armed forces to be stretched. The Iraq war was Blair's war. We should not have been involved. The situation in Afghanistan is more complex and one has to wonder what could have been achieved in Afghanistan without the distraction of Blair's war in Iraq.

David Cameron is right in saying that the London bombers were British subjects, nontheless they did draw their inspiration from the invasion of Iraq. They said as much in their video and blamed the electorate for returning Blair to office. The folly of Iraq has served as motivation to many who would never have been involved in terrorism. For this Tony Blair must take the blame, he took us to war based on a lie and he secured a vote in parliament based on falsehoods.

British foreign policy has to change direction. Iraq has been very damaging for our country's reputation around the world. As David Cameron correctly says British foreign policy must have a British perspective. I think it sad that people are so quick to continue an aggressive and hegemonistic agenda in places like Iraq. Of course these very same people won't be doing the fighting but make these calls from the comfort of their armchairs.

Jon Gale


What you say shows why Cameron is right to distance himself from interventionism.

"Iraq has been the center of al-Qaeda's efforts pouring in recruits. More al-Qaeda terrorists have been killed there than any other place in the world."

Of course it has - invading Iraq threw Muslim opinion behind al-Qaeda, it has been their best recruiting tool. Not to mention Iraqi nationalist/baathist terrorists, Iranian-backed Shia terrorists, etc.

And of course it also inspires "home grown" terrorists.

"if we were to willfully pull out too early or events unforeseen now proved catastrophic to our efforts to continue. Not only would there be a genocide, but the destructive aftermath and potential involvement of Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel could be devastating. The US and Russia could be drawn in. And the potential for terrorist bases on a scale in numbers and potency of weaponry would make the Taliban in Afghanistan look paltry. This world could be a hell

And none of that could happen if we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place!

There must never be another blunder like invading Iraq. Cameron seems to understand this.

Simon Newman

My impression is that the EU wants the world to be like the EU, the EU is just as liberal-Universalist as the USA, it's just that their vision of what the Universal World Order should look like is a bit different, though still based on a universalised version of Western civilisation.



Why do you call Israel a "Zionist entity"?


I was ambivalent about the war in Iraq from the start, but people seem to forget that British Muslims were just as opposed to Afghanistan as they were Iraq. Indeed they're flatly opposed to any action being taken against Muslim nations in retaliation for terrorism. I'm sure if Iraq hadn't happened Al Qaeda would just as happily be using events in Afghanistan as their "recruiting tool" with only a marginal drop off in efficacy.

Frankly a lot of the Muslim world's attitude seems to be something along the lines of "Can you Americans die a bit more quietly please?". You can't really blame Bush if the US as a whole doesn't feel like playing that role.


"The Iraq war was Blair's war. We should not have been involved. "

Tony this is what you and many Brits have come to believe and I know I can't change your mind. I'll point out just a few things tho since this is a forum. What Blair new before going in is basically what Bush and the intelligence community knew, and what they told Bush. I don't know all that Blair has said since but Bush didn't lie, that is a lie. People may not wanna believe it but there's plenty of evidence on what he knew and didn't and said and didn't. Even our Democrats who have tried to perpetrate the belief Bush lied have been exposed as liars and hypocrites and it really is kinda old here.

Now I don't know how to emphasize the need to understand the power of a largely antagonistic media, but from the get go you folks have been pounded every single day. You really don't know anything else. Your BBC and other media have been against it, just like many in our media. There is some difference tho because here while the largely liberal/left have tried to make the case against Bush and the war's efforts, non-liberal/left media have tried to hold them accountable exposing their hypocrisy and intentional efforts to manipulate facts, as well as hurting our troops efforts and our security at home. There is a definite agenda with many of the people in big media.

Anyway... my point is this negative emphasis from the very beginning has not been an honest and true representation. Yet that's really all you know and you've reached a point as a society at large where you've been saturated with a morass even affecting self-image. You simply don't care to know to put a lot of pieces together and draw, I believe a significantly different picture of not only what initially took place but what is really happening there now, not to mention what will happen in the future. You just don't care. And I can't say if I was born there I wouldn't feel the same.

Also, clerics preaching to no-lifers willing to mass murder for paradise are no fools. They're manipulators and read the pulse surrounding them. If your society is preached to by media on a daily basis how bad the war is, how bad Blair is, how bad Bush is, how bad American soldiers are, how bad the 'real victims' in the Iraqi people have it... of course those carrying out the killings are gonna be motivated justified with the easiest prevailing sentiment. And try to consider Bill's point too. Terrorism was already on the march, 9/11 was the beginning of a lot of planned devastation, even according to bin Laden. To claim Islamic haters would not be inflicting terror on the West, or even as much because of Iraq is not sound.

For what its worth I didn't want us to go into Iraq, at least when it was only a possibility. But as Saddam kept stalling to allow any inspection while we were mounting troops - as the weeks went by, 10s of thousands eventually became almost 200 thousand. He was already in the process of of doing serious things to destabilize the surrounding area and since many in the intelligence community believed he had WMD, tho very uneasy I felt it was probably best rid the world of his rule. BTW Israeli intelligence noted if there were WMD he made the time to ship them via train into Syria.

THIS IS MY MAIN POINT HERE and please take note:

Regardless... I say again, regardless of the hows and whys over the initial invasion... that's almost 5 years ago. It may have been foolish and if you folks don't want anything further to do with it, OK. I do have understanding. But bear in mind, even if you have to REALLY bear... this has been an ongoing history and its success is crucial. Since you've been inundated with the negative from the very beginning don't let your emotions paint the need for success as either hopeless or somehow wrong. It is absolutely necessary (did you digest the above reasons?). This is for all of us and our future's state of security. Hate Blair all you want just don't let it discolor sober reality and the consequences at hand.

Our efforts there now, right now are noble and honorable. We are fighting for and winning a gradual healing for a people of 24 million. Our success is imperative. Falure is the inhumanity of their horror and a destructive aftermath for the world that could be devastating. Brits have got to be strong with their feelings and not vent I-told-you-so satisfaction at the idea of failure.


"Of course it has - invading Iraq threw Muslim opinion behind al-Qaeda, it has been their best recruiting tool. Not to mention Iraqi nationalist/baathist terrorists, Iranian-backed Shia terrorists, etc."

This may really not be true now. In the past when Iraq was portrayed a victim by American aggression, yes. But since the Iraqis have come to hate al-Qaeda and understand what the Americans are about realities are changing substantially. And it seems now most in the Muslim world have also come to see al-Qaeda for what they are, deliberate murderers of fellow Muslims. If you'd like, let me know and I'll post the most recent audio from bin Laden. Its one like never before from a man in desperation. Its fascinating. Its also fascinating to here Al-Jazeera's response.

Again, if you folks want to wash your hands of Iraq, fine. But understand its crucial significance. It is a fight against raw evil and front line on the war on terror.

Tony Makara

Steevo, the claims that Iraq had WMDs primed to hit Britain were so contrived and ridiculous that I never believed them. Nontheless many people did believe the claim in good faith because it came from a government source. Tony Blair's political record up to that point in time showed him to be a man who was economical with the truth, so anything coming from the Blair government had to be treated with suspicion. What surprised me most was that so many supposedly intelligent people failed to see that an excuse was being cooked up to attack Iraq.

Whatever Tony Blair may have thought privately about the moral rationale for war he had made himself too close to president Bush to ever back down. Tony Blair enjoyed a great deal of publicity after he flew to Washington after the 9/11 attacks and from that moment on Blair was beholden to Bush come-what-may. George Bush was very skilled in the way he handled Blair and the grounds for the poodle tag did not come about without good reason.


Then hate Blair and come to your own conclusions about the reasons, even Bush's reasons. But I will tell you the evidence is quite compelling even down to intelligence telling him in private they were confident.

I can only ask... don't let it color your perceptions of current Iraq and the future, friend.

Tony Makara

Steevo, although I'm opposed to the war I am certainly not going to condemn the troops who were only doing their patriotic duty. By the same token I'm certainly not anti-American.

There are so many conspiracy theories surrounding the war that I've tried to shut them out and just remain focused on the facts and the main players involved. I think President Bush for his part thought the removal of Saddam would bring closure to the war. George Bush and his entourage badly miscalculated the danger of a power vacuum.

The war has been a contradiction from the start. Even the Saddam show-trial was a farce, particularly as George Bush had offered safe passage out of Iraq for Saddam and his two sons prior to the invasion.


That appears a contradiction. The war right now and its objectives impact everyone. Its future success is imperative.

Tony Makara

Steevo, what Iraq needs right now is a division along ethnic lines. A division would involve large scale upheaval with migration and congregation of groups. However difficult an undertaking this might be it would provide a long-term solution to Iraq's problems.


Blair didn't lie, he just exaggerated the certainty levels of some rather iffy intelligence. I'm sure he believed what he said at the time. Ridiculous thing is he didn't really need to do it, it was just vanity - the public was behind him anyway, it was just for the benefit of the doubters within his own Labour Party.

That said, I'm convinced a lot of the opposition in the UK is from being stuck with the role of "trusty sidekick". We're playing 'Robin' to America's 'Batman'. It's just humiliating - you get tied up a lot and have to be rescued and never get the girl at the end of the flick. Especially when you've been used to a rather more elevated role in the whole scheme of things, as Britain has.


No it doesn't Tony. Read those on the ground. Michael Yon is a good start. Michael Totten too. Even militarily strategists there, the Iraqi government and movement of key shieks all disagree with such a proposal. The army is increasingly integrated. Increasingly the Iraqi common man and woman simply want to live in peace. You know there are many mixed marriages and neighborhoods. There are even Christians tho a minority. Iraqi shia by and large don't want Iranian shia involvement. They are Iraqis.

You need to go to the proper and only sources: on the ground, living there for weeks and months at a time. Otherwise you will not understand.

Henry Mayhew

Hello there Atheling,

"Israel" is a Zionist entity because it exists to fulfill the Zionist fantasy of a mono-religious state in the Holy Land, established and maintained by guile and force. Also, because the ground presently under Zionist control consists of the 1948 border plus the occupied areas.

Does that help?



It certainly gives a clearer picture of what sort of person you are...


I enjoy your input Bill, especially after lunch and another coffee. I know a lot is an ego thing and you're damned honest.

This hatred by the citizenry because of Blair seems to me to be a 'look what you did to me' thing right to the gut. Its kinda hard to grasp not living there and I say that with all due respect. I agree most all the portrayal by the press was a play sucking up to Bush but boy has it been taken personal. By extension so much American became bad, I know many Brits don't wanna acknowledge that. It became a defense and trendy as even with many in Europe proper to make Blair, Bush, and America (not just Iraq policy), bad

But I think, the ill feelings... whatever, against Americans for being American is subsiding. You know, we are a lot like you if not you... just a little lower IQ :-)

Henry Mayhew

I certainly hope so Atheling.

We don't know much about you, do we? Why don't you tell us who you are? But even if you don't have the small amount of guts needed to do that, don't stop posting here. I enjoy the tragicomedy of your thought process and I suspect many other readers do too.

Keep up the good work, Atheling!


Also I would like to say I hope David Cameron is your next Prime Minister. I question some his wisdom and can take personal some comments but politics is not easy. I believe he is a good man, and this world will be a better place with him and a Tory party backed by a number of Brits who've come here.



You haven't read my comments far back enough here if you think I haven't the "guts" to do that.

Of course, when you are confronted with the ugliness of your own ideology, you have to come back with attacking the other person's intelligence... Rather desperate, are we?

Henry Mayhew

Chuckling actually Atheling.

By the way, if you want to continue calling me Mayhew, would you mind if I start to refer to you as Ling, or, the Linger?



The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker