Article on the Iraq War from 11th May 2004


Iraq: I Wish I Had Been Wrong
by Sean Gabb

My normal reaction when I turn out to be right is a combination of surprise and patronising self-righteousness. Where this Iraqi business is concerned, I really wish I had been wrong. Since the American war aims were never fully explained, there is no official criterion for judging the outcome of the war. On any reasonable view, however, the war has been a disaster.

The Americans invaded Iraq on a false prospectus. There were no weapons of mass-destruction. There was no link to al Qa’eda, nor any reason to think an invasion would reduce the will and ability of other terrorist groups. They destroyed the country’s administration and much of its infrastructure, and have done little to replace this. They rule the county by armed force. They are censoring the media. They have imprisoned thousands without charge or trial. They have tortured many prisoners. Their military is degenerating by the day into an armed rabble, killing civilians apparently at random. Before invading, they spoke of injecting liberal and democratic values into the heart of the Middle East. Instead, they have simply made themselves hated without being feared.

Of course, the resistance is blamed for this failure. Without that, the country could have been returned to some kind of native rule, under some kind of representative constitution. And money could have been poured into reconstruction projects. But on this reasoning, we could call the German invasion of Russia in 1941 a success but for the weather. The resistance was foreseeable. Certainly, I and many others predicted it. If the Americans and their allies failed to predict it, and are now responding to rather than shaping events, it is not because they have been unlucky, but because they are stupid. We can still debate whether the invasion was a crime. There is no doubt now it was a mistake.

Because the war aims were never fully explained, it is still possible to rescue some formality of success. If anyone in Washington has been shocked into a semblance of strategic sense, the Americans will now be making every effort to get out of the region. They need to find a strong man to put in charge—someone who will be less openly beastly than Saddam Hussein, but no less able to keep the country together. They need to give him as much money and as many weapons as he demands. They also need to bribe the Turks, the Iranians and the Syrians not to invade and divide the country among themselves. They need then to keep their heads down for the next few years and hope for the best.

That is if they have any sense. I suspect they have none—or that no one in charge of policy has any. Instead, it is likely that they will stay in the country until American public opinion grows comprehensively sick of seeing the United States behave like the French in Algeria and forces a sudden and unprepared evacuation. Until then, we shall have the continued treat of watching men in their sixties punching the air and dancing about like the heroes in those ridiculous comic books, while the morons who still bother to vote over there grunt in approval.

It is, I admit, inappropriate to ascribe one state of mind to a nation of more than 250 million people. But Americans remind me increasingly of someone from the lower classes who has come into money, and now is sat in the Ritz Hotel, terrified the other diners are laughing at him every time he looks down at his knives and forks. I suppose it is because so many of them are drawn from second and even third rate nationalities. The Americans of English and Scotch extraction took their values and their laws across the Atlantic and spread out over half an immense continent, creating as they went a great nation. They were then joined by millions of paupers from elsewhere who learnt a version of the English language and a few facts about their new country, but who never withheld from their offspring any sense of their own inferiority. The result is a combination of overwhelming power and the moral insight of a tree frog.

It would be easy to gloat over the hole the Americans have thereby dug for themselves. But we are all of us in it with them. There are British forces serving in Iraq, and smaller contingents from many other western countries. If the Americans are now defeated, we share in the defeat. Moreover, the defeat applies to every member nation of the West, regardless of whether it joined in this ghastly war.

The more I think about it, the more firmly I reject the idea that a conflict is inevitable between Islam and the West. There is a problem in many western countries with large numbers of unassimilated Islamic immigrants. But I have more contacts with these people than most of my readers, and I just do not believe this is a critical problem. Burning hatred of our civilisation is not an issue in Oldham and Bradford. Nor was it in the slums of Baghdad before we began strip searching women there and dragging men off the streets into torture chambers. Islam is not some theological equivalent of Marxist-Leninism. It is an immensely diverse and sophisticated religion. As a classicist, I regret that perhaps two thirds of what used to be the Roman Empire are now within the Islamic world. This being said, Islamic rule for many centuries offered more tolerant and less rapacious government than the Byzantine and mediaeval Catholic states. Islam is Osama bin Laden. It is also Hassan al-Turabi, and Avicenna, and the Shiite clerics who sat in the first Iranian Parliament in 1906. It is not our enemy unless we try harder than we so far have to make it that.

The real enemy is our own ruling class. It is not Moslems in this country who are telling us to be ashamed of our past, and are gutting the museums, and using the schools and media to turn out generations of illiterate sheep. Moslems are not abolishing our ancient freedoms in the name of administrative convenience. It is not Moslems who have bled the old middle classes white with taxes that have then been used to pauperise much of the working class and to raise up a totalitarian clerisy. It is not Moslems who go about insisting that arithmetic is a discourse and the law of contract a set of self-referential artifacts. If our civilisation collapses, it will not be Moslems who have hollowed it out from within. The real enemy is not dressed in a jalabiya or a turban: he wears an Armani business suit, and is fluent in postmodernese.

This being said, it is advisable that, while they should not neglect their own particular interests, the western powers should be ready to come together for the defence of common interests. Whether or not it is to be desired, it cannot be denied that the United States at the moment is the leading western power. It is a defeat for us all if the Americans will turn out to have spent $250 billion dollars on fighting this war—and still have lost to a handful of ranting clerics and suicidal children. It lowers the prestige of the West as a whole, and it reduces our future willingness to act in concert should the proper need arise.

As said, the Americans need to find some exit strategy that does not leave them utterly disgraced. For us, the matter is less complex. We are at best a junior partner in the war and occupation. The last time I wrote about Iraq, I suggested that we had no choice but to continue with our share of the occupation. The escalation of violence there and the revelations of torture have now changed matters. The Americans have promised to hand over power to an Iraqi government on the 30th June. Whether this can be done, and in what sense, are not matters for us of any importance. What is important is that we should get our own people out on that date, and keep them out.

It goes without saying that we should also distance ourselves in future from the Americans. Until they can be brought to understand the nature of what they have done, they are best not encouraged to further lunacy by the fact of our friendship. This need not, but possibly does, mean closer friendship with the European Union. For myself, the events of this past year have made me reconsider my objections to membership of the European Union. This is a danger to us, I still believe, and it would be in our interests to withdraw from it. But that danger is not catastrophic. If forced to choose between the European Constitution and watching our armed forces sent off to fight like Sepoys in some other ill-considered American war, I am not presently sure which ought most to be avoided.

Finally—and this is a point I may already have made elsewhere – we need to free our country from the psychopathic fool who got us into this mess. If it had not required the suffering of so many innocents, it would be enjoyable to watch the moral and political disintegration of Tony Blair. But, as I write, I feel no enjoyment, nor the slightest complacency. I wish this nightmare had never been allowed to start. Short of that, I wish all my hawkish friends had been right. As it happens, I was right from the beginning. But this does not set off the fact that I and mine are less secure than at any time since the early 1940s.

About these ads

12 responses to “Article on the Iraq War from 11th May 2004

  1. Dear Sean,
    I believe the invading countries are promoting noble democracy to a people savaged by a tyrannical dictator and we should thank George Bush and Tony Blair for delvering the Iraqi people from evil by bombing their prospeorus people exempt from IMF back to the stone age.These people were collateral damage as we grabbed the oil and minerals and pillaged afew artfacts as the to the conqueror the spoils of war including the ancient earth technologies.George announced he was fighting a crusade although George recently stated he had voted democrat by mistake in the new elacrtronic presidential voting scandal,Interestingly enough Tony Blair and Baroness Mc Donough arrived on an Iraqi airfield with wads of new cash to rig the elections.Similarly are the elections rigged here by the escalibur computer?
    All these tin pot dictators surprisingly seemed to be at ease with all the Suunis,Shias Wahabis,and alwalites and christians and correct me if I am wrong there was religous tolerance in the Middle East.
    The British,French,Dutch empires blazed a path of glorious Christianity in Africa to feeret away all the rich gold,diamonds,Rio Tin Tin,de Beers,Imperial Ductch Shell,BP Rhodes Foundation and the banks plus a source of cheap labour with slavery.
    Christianity is heving a bit of hard time rebranding itself at the moment with the Mi6 CIA muslim brotherhood but wait .Give them democracy a 3 party system with the same agenda enshrined for 50-100 years in advance by the bilderbergers ruling elite sponsored by the lobbyists who are ravaging the sovereign nations the MP’s,Lords,Congress,Senate the elected are supposed to represent.
    The conquering nations are supposed to enhance the development of the conquered nation or there is no reason to invade it in the first place although Sean implies the situation is so bad that a tactical retreat with our tails between legs is the only outcome.Wher does the Wr Chest come from?Is it an invisible pot of gold replaced by tunsten bars under the inspection of Lizzie and Merv the Swerve a few weeeks ago.
    If our Euro partner in crime Nicholas Sarkozy was reported as being sponsored to the tune of 80 million pounds for his election campaign by Colonel Gadaffi why did Nicholas Sarkozy,David Cameron and Hilary Clinton murder him ifhe was supporting the french election campaign.
    Did Colonel Gadaffi suppoert our own election campaign with Tony Blair.Suely not with the smirking deal in the desert,cash for honours etc and repeal of the Treason Act.
    Surely under international law the invasion of a sovereign counrty on the basis of lies is an act of treason and both George Bush and Tony Blair have been found guilty of War Crimes by an intrenational court in Kuala Lumpar so I guess that is off the holiday vacation list for some time.It is rumoured George and Dick don’t travel too much.Daddy Bush was reported dead and is now in good health,Stormin Norman is no longer stormin,and Hellfire Hilary looks strange since her plane crashed in Iran.Since Dave sold our Harrier Jump jets to the USA at cut price it is a good job we have dug up a few spitfires for our new carriers in Burma.
    As for the man who got us into this mess,Tony Blair was rumoured to have made a mint in the Caymon Islands for signing the EU Treaty to the tune of 75 million.Why would he worry about us or the Chilcott Enquiry for that matter.

  2. I still believe the Iraq was a mistake. I do not believe in the neocon project of spreading democracy in the Islamic world by war (indeed I do not believe in the project at all).

    Not that I liked Saddam Hussain – a life long socialist and Arab nationalist (whose weaponary, contrary to the “Americans armed Iraq” sillyness, actually came from the East Block – AK47s, T72 tanks, Mig aircraft…..). But I believed that democracy in Iraq would lead to domination by the Shia religious parites (after all democracy is the rule of the majority – and they are the majority) and so it has proved. As long as Saddam could be prevented from murdering Shia in the south (or Kurds in the north) there was no actual reason for full scale invasion.

    Of course Saddam had murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of civilians (a “detail” that seems to be missing from this post), but the “no fly zones” in force at the time of the war (in both the Kurdish North and the Shia South) had put a stop to such vile activities.

    However, the aims were clear and actually were achieved. The enemy were defeated (contrary to the absurd statements in this post that the Americans “lost”) in spite of the enemy policy of MURDERING VAST NUMBERS OF IRAQI CIVIlIANS (indeed Sunni terrorists are still murdering Iraqi civilians – they did so today),

    Even when this post was orginally written it was quite clear that Islamist groups were responsble for the vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq – yet there is nothing much about that in this post. WHY NOT?

    Surely none of these terrorist groups had any connections with your friends in the Islamic Republic of Sudan – did they Sean?

    Contrary to the false comment (under a false name) the several elections have not been rigged (although the last elections in Aghanistan were rigged – the elections in Afghanistan in the time of Bush were actually fairly straight, but the RELECTION of President of Afghanistan was a farce).

    Establishing democracy in Iraq has been American policy (approved by Congress and the President) since the time of President Clinton.

    Actually (although it is often forgotten now) George Walker Bush was elected, in part, because he OPPOSED the active policy overseas suggested by John McCain in the primary contests within the Republican party, and in the general election against Albert Gore Jr.

    How sincere Bush’s opposition was is open to debate – but certainly it vanished after 9/11, not just on Afghanistan (where a lot of people, including me, made a terrible blunder), but on Iraq.

    The British Prime Minister Mr Blair had been very active argueing for the “democracy agenda” for some years (going back to the time of Clinton) – however, he may have been pushing at an open door

    As for the specific claims made to justify war to the British Parliament.

    “No weapons of mass destruction”.

    Well that would have come as a surprise to the many thousands of people whom Saddam Hussain gassed.

    “No I mean no such weapons in 1993″ – actually there were a few chemical shells found, but YES there was not much.

    Obviously if Saddam had still had a vast amount of chemical weapons any invasion would have been unlikely – as he would have used them on the invading forces. It makes more military sense to attack BEFORE he had rebuilt his chemical forces.

    It is always sensible to try and get an enemy to lose his worse weapons BEFORE one attacks (this was the Roman policy with Carthage). And very unwise to wait till an enemy has built up their forces again.

    “But that means that Parliament was lied to” – perhaps it was. As I think the war was a bad idea anyway I am not going to waste time defending “Tony” Blair (although he may have been totally sincere – who knows?)

    With nuclear forces – well Saddam Hussain certainly wanted nuclear weapons. However, his nuclear bases had a habit of blowning up – and his scientists kept having fatal “accidents”.

    How nasty my relatives must be for organising these explosions of nuclear bases and “accidents” for atomic scientists.

    Unlike Iran (which is a much bigger problem) I see no reason why this policy (in relation to Iraq) could not have continued – so I did not see (and still do not see) any reason to actually invade Iraq.

    “No link with AQ”.

    That is not true Sean.

    Certainly AQ wanted to kill Saddam – but that does NOT mean that elements of AQ (and other Islamist groups) would not also cooperate with him.

    As you know Sean – just because people want to kill each other, does not mean they can not cooperate together to kill other people (that is how the Middle East works “I would like to kill you and you would like to kill me – but can we not work together to kill so-and-so?” ….. “Oh very well – but I will kill you next week”……. “fair enough”).

    The “secular” socialist Saddam Hussain was quite happy to play the Islamist card – even producing a copy of the Koran written with his own blood.

    A bit melodramatic – but Saddam could be over the top at times (and as there were questions about the sincerity of his Islamic faith, he thought grand gestures were in order).

    Of course AQ would stll liked to have killed him – but they were also happy to cooperate with him on the common objective of killing other people (again that is how the Middle East works – there is no point in getting upset about it).

    What may have influenced George Walker Bush may have been Saddam’s plan to kill his father (George Herbert Walker Bush). Of course the motives of those who kept shoving this stuff in front of “Bush 43″ nose were not exactly pure (they were trying to get him to sign on to their democracy-for-Iraq plan and did not care what it took to provoke Bush).

    One should not be influenced by family concerns – but people normally are. That is also a very Middle Eastern thing.

  3. As for British forces in Iraq.

    As far as I know most of them landed near Basra – and were near Basra at the end of the war.

    British special forces may have been important (I do not know), but the main British forces?

    There was an odd British policy of trying to make friends with local Shia groups – which responded to (as one would expect) by the local Shia killing British soldiers.

    Not that the local Shia opposed the invasion to overthrow Saddam – they supported that.

    However, if “infidels” are making it easy to kill them – then they are going get killed (even if they are doing what you want them to).

    It is the old scorpion and frog thing.

    “Why have you stung me – I am taking you over the river, now you will drown”

    “It is my nature”.

    Of course there were moderate and reasonable Shia clergy – as one would expect they were the first to be murdered (they were not pro Iranian).

    They had no large armed groups backing them – their deaths were going to happen. Iran willed it – and local Shia armed groups did the deed.

    If one is going into a place like Iraq (I REPEAT it is a mistake to do so) the attiturde of the 101st (Airborne) is correct.

    “We are here to kill or capture the people the President of the United States has told us to kill or capture – and we will kill anyone else who attacks us”.

    “Who are your friends?”

    “We have no friends – we are the 101st”,

  4. But to hope that a savage invasion of Iraq would be right is to hope that statism is a boon, Sean. Why would you hope that?

    I would not think it apt to blame the general public of the USA for the foreign policy of the USA, Sean, no more than I would blame the British public for that of the UK since, say, 1800.

    I do not think the ruling class, or should I say the ruling set, are the enemies of pristine liberalism. Indeed, liberalism has no enemies but only those who are ignorant of it. Such people think that politics is socially useful when, in fact, it is utterly wasteful, as the pristine liberals and anarcho-liberals say it is.

    What does the prestige of the west matter? This is the sort of fetish that addles the mind of the likes of Michael Heseltine or Douglas Hurd. It is a recipe for high taxation followed by wasting the money confiscated, not least in futile wars, like the one in Iraq or Afghanistan. Prestige leading to war is the main aim of the EU, if ever it can make it as a superstate.

    There are no general public interests that political power, or any state, can aid in the world. The state can only waste resources. There is no realistic chance that armies can aid the general public, unless it is in the most unlikely case self-defence. How many UK or USA wars have been in defence since 1800? I would say none. The one of 1812 was in defence of Canada, not the UK.

    • David, you have an inadequate view of the State and of the interest groups that cluster about it.

  5. Of course I should have typed “no weapons of mass destruction in 2003″ not “1993″. There were a few chemical shells in 2003 (but nothing much).

    Indeed had Saddam actually managed to get his WMD schemes back on track it is unlikely that an attack would have been launched.

    After all G. in Libya was overthrown AFTER he had got rid of his WMD and no one is attacking North Korea.

    The North Korean regime savage regime (hard line Marxist – not just Arab Socialist like Saddam Hussain) and actually had nuclear weapons (as opposed to wanting them).

    That (my cynical self suggests) is the reason North Korea is NOT attacked.

    As for why Iranian nuclear development has not been attacked (a far more serious threat than Saddam was in 2003),at least not a full scale attack…. That is complicated – to do with the decline of the United States.

    I suspect that other people will have to do the job (or die trying to do it).

    If these other people wish to survive.

    The fundemental law of existance, at least in the Middle East, is kill-or-be-killed.

    Turning the other cheek just gets you exterminated.

  6. Actually it is an interesing example of how ideology (religious, ethnic, national….) can trump clear economic interests.

    And it is not new – “Uncle Bill” (not a blood relative – but an old friend of my mother’s family) served in Iraq in the 1930s.

    When I was as young as Barack Obama was when he sat on his mother’s knee (three hours a day – poor knee!) to be taught about his duty to help in the extermination of the evil “capitalist” United States, my “Uncle Bill” told me about the Middle East and its groups.

    The different groups in the population of Iraq had a clear economic interest in peaceful trading (as individuals, families and so on) – and they knew that (they were not stupid).

    Many of the locals stil choose to kill each other (as well as try and kill anyone who tried to stop them killing each other).

    The place is hopeless.

    As hopeless as going to the Castle of Nimrod and saying “that is the road to Damascus – think of all the possibilities for trade and tourism”.

    Trade (and so on) would indeed by profitable for all concerned – but it is also a fool’s hope.

    And not just because of “the nasty leaders on all sides”.

    It is the ORDINARY PEOPLE who are the main driving force (at they are in Pakistan – where people are brutally murdered for, supposed, crimes against Islam every day)

    Something that neocons refuse to understand.

    They fall back on platitudes such as “the Koran and Hadiths have been distorted by…..”

    They have not been distorted.

    Modern Islamists are doing exactly what Muhammed would want them to do.

    And being intelligent people (who know far more about their own relgion than a bunch of necons in the United States – for example they know the tolerant sounding Suras are early ones, spoken before Muhammed had built up an army, and they know they are trumped by other Suras) they know that.

    The above is why, although opposed to Western intervention in the Middle East, I could never get involved the “anti war movement”.

    The basis of this movement was “the locals are lovely”.

    If that was true then the neocons would be CORRECT – off to liberate these lovely people from the evil dictators (and they were and are evil) we should go.

    But the locals are not lovely – not lovely at all. Not lovely in Afghanistan (silly me), not lovely in Iraq, not lovely in Syria, not lovely in Egypt (President Morsi was recorded, back in 2010, talking about how the “pigs” [Jews] and “apes” [Christians] should be crushed), and certainly not lovely in the Islamic Republic of Sudan (as you know well Sean).

    And, contrary to Sean’s post (where he says that …… are not doing…….. in Britain – which they are, and indeed have to do so according to the doctrine of Islam) things are not much different here.

    It is just the numbers game that is different in Britain.

  7. All that Tony Blair and George Bush needed to do was to say:-
    “Listen, guys. Saddan Hussein is not a fit person to be given the charge of people. He was given a family gun to do his first murder of a person, when aged 11. He moved further backwards from there into worse evils than even that, as if that was not awful enough. It is, was, and will be always, meet and right for proper people to “go in” and “get” him, and if needed “accidentally shoot him while he is resisting arrest”.

    But Blairbush didn’t do that, did he. Wrse, Bush was led into evil, himself a God-fearing-man, by the wicked basilisk BlairCherie.

    It is not right and good, even for libertarians, to have to suffer the existence of dictatoroids, even over other people, in “faraway countries of which we know little” in which we have no interest at all. If it is wrong to be a dictatoroid, then it is wrong to allow these to exist over others. As the First Libertarian Principal Secretary of State for War, I will take my obligations to other peoples in faraway countries rather seriously, even if the Lord Protector has his reservations.

    Indeed: the £11 billion we are spending per year on “foreign aid” could, if passed to the Navy and Air Forces, profitably be spent, for more tangible results in the political and economic liberation of more people for less money and less blood, in decapitating (literally, I do mean it, read my lips please for once) tyrannical regimes worldwide, and putting…nothing…nothing at all…in their place.

    I may not be allowed, for example, to assault the Chinese governing-class directly, in the first few years, to properly liberate “their people”, but time will tell: it may transpire that this enemy-class-outfit may dissolve itself naturally under the influence of Hong Kong given a few more years. It will save me the trouble and expense of making and sending low-polar-orbit-orbital-forts, armed satellites, atomic-sumbarines and, perhaps even ships – more vulnerable and visible. Meantime, I may be allowed to practice on North Korea, Venezuela, Argentina and Cuba and Australia (itself rapidly descending into a dictatorship of politically-correct pre-capitalist-barbarism), which would be small but useful successes.

    I’m sure, for example, that Aussie Ockers would rather like to not be bullied by nannies, while enjoying a few smokies indoors quaffing tinnies, while simultaneously ogling skimpies inbetween renting the contents of the tinnies in the dunnies.

    Oh, and Saddam did have WMDs. You did all know, but had forgotten, that the Polish contingent of the “whatever it was force” found them. They were French chemical rockets. The French Government said to the Polish general: “If you grass us up on this one, your country will not be allowed to join the EU next year (2004).” So the Polish General said “We did not find any “active” WMDs. The date on the rockets was April 2003, but we are advised that this is a “service-by” date and not a “drop-by” date”, and they are clearly not French, and are clearly not serviceable”…

    So. There you are. Do you want a libertarian planet or not? If you do, you will have to fight for one.

    If not this one, then the next one. They will not let you get out otherwise.

    Would you prefer to fight on Mars – or the Moon – or here? I do not care: I will fight the bastards anywhere. But it’s better here, for we know what we are doing, and it’s cheaper to kill a GramscoFabiaNazi on Earth than in space.Also, it’s one more border back from us, to them, which will be the bigger burden for them to cross and not us (for they are socialists and therefore expensive) if we can halt them on Earth.

  8. I “take the long view”, you see.

  9. Of course we all all now in principle for every action, there follows a reaction, I think the war was a mistake, the causation of this has caused a new arms race, with irans industrial production of missiles, with russia spending 600 billion upgrading it’s defences, and new missile launches in parkistan, the war was a big mistake, there were no weapons of mass destruction as the governments claimed at the time, the whole war directives have not acheived any real result, other than econimic detriment,

  10. Yes David – there was some chemical stuff found (in my original comment I said “a few chemical shells” – yes there were rockets as well so I aplogise for downplaying the matter) however, NOTHING LIKE AS MUCH as was claimed would be found.

    That is Sean;s point – and although he expresses himself in a way that makes me grind my teeth (as he so often does), on this point Sean is essentially CORRECT.

    If someone (for example) says “there are ten thousand shells over there” and one goes in and finds one hundred shells, the originial claim (of vast amounts of stuff) was not true.

    Do I want a libertarian planet?

    Yes I do,

    However, how dows a government of Shia Islamist parties ruling Iraq help the libertarian cause?

    It was not hard to predict that this would be the result of victory – and yes the war was WON.

    The objective was democracy – the majority of the Iraqi population are Shia (and deeply religious Shia).

    Therefore………..

    Therefore one was going to end up with a Shia government.

    Not exactly “rocket science” – no pun intended.

    Still I agree that the struggle for liberty is universal.

    And that includes opposing certain political parties (in another country) who want to (de facto – by obstructive regulations) forbid Christians (and atheists) from raising pigs and selling pork.

  11. Karl.

    Pakistan has been hopeless since Bhutto took power at the start of the 1970s. Nothing to do with the Iraq war.

    It was the socialist Bhutto who said “we will have nuclear weapons even if we must eat grass” (not that this “Hampstead Socialist”, a rich landowning socialist, would be eating grass of course).

    The opposition to Bhutto (General ZIa and so on) were Islamists – and, in many ways, as bad as him.

    That is where Pakistan still is in 2013 – Socialists and Islamists (and some are both Socialists and Islamists). The various different factions slaughter each other (and kill their own faction members – in internal struggles), but none of the major factions love outsiders – indeed we (the aliens) are legitimate targets (even if we live thousands of miles away). The nice people in Pakistan (and there are nice people there) just have no chance.

    It is hopeless – quite hopeless. People are slaughtered there every day – and even the ordinary people (indeed especially the ordinary people) are obsessed with building up military forces and dreams of conqest (ask them about K….). Of course there are nice peop[le in Pakistan – but their situation is just hopeless (sorry to keep using the same word – but it is the correct word).

    By the way – most supplies for our military effort in Afghanistan go through Pakistan (work out what that means for the war there).

    Putin was in charge of Russia before 2003.

    Again (since the fall of Yeltsin) Russia was committed to the dark path BEFORE the war of 2003.

    Iran?

    President Carter opened the gates of Hell there. Back in 1978-1979.

    By deliberatly undermining the Emperor (and it was deliberate – part of Carter’s “Human Rights” obession). According to Carter the new religious ruler would be a “Gandhi type figure”.

    It is dificult for many people to grasp just how DEEPLY STUPID James Earl Carter was (and is).