I saw this article written by Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State in the paper & thought it was worth posting up. These first two paragraphs summarise perfectly the feelings of many people towards the Iraq War. Why on earth did we all get caught up in this insane crusade to invade a country that posed absolutely no threat to any of us. Well it sure poses a threat now, and George Dubya is now planning to invade Iran… scary stuff how an imbecile can become the most powerful man in the world.
The threshold question in any war is: What are we fighting for? Our troops, especially, deserve a convincing answer. In Iraq, the list of missions that were tried on but didn’t fit includes: protection from weapons of mass destruction, creating a model democracy in the Arab world, punishing those responsible for the September 11 attacks and stopping terrorists from catching the next plane to New York. The latest mission, linked to the “surge” of troops this year, was to give Iraqi leaders the security and manoeuvring room needed to make stabilising political arrangements — which they have thus far shown little interest in doing.
A cynic might suggest that the military’s real mission is to enable US President George Bush to continue denying that his invasion has evolved into disaster. A less jaded view might identify three goals: to prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for al-Qaida, a client state of Iran or a spark that inflames region-wide war. These goals respond not to dangers that prompted the invasion but to those that resulted from it. Troops are being asked to risk their lives to solve problems our civilian leaders created. Mr Bush is beseeching us to fear failure, but he has yet to explain how the military can succeed, given Iraq’s tangled politics and his administration’s lack of credibility.
You can read the rest here: