Summary of April Debate on Iraq
A lower attendance than normal was no doubt due to the upcoming council elections. Apparently the activists were all out canvassing. How dare they!
We nonetheless had 12 people and a lively debate as usual, if a little less structured.
The main theme that came through was that none of us was clear about WHY Britain is in Iraq - both in terms of why we originally went in, and what the objective is now. Is it to make Iraq safe for Iraqis? Is it to secure our national interest in terms of energy security (ie oil)? Is it to make the Middle East safe? Is it to set an example of democracy for the rest of the Middle East and beyond?
A comparison was drawn with previous wars (WWI, WWII, the Falklands War...) in all of which cases there was a clear reason why we were at war. There was a clear and easily articulated "mission statement" which the public could buy into, and which also motivated the combatants. There is no such clarity of "mission" with Iraq, and therefore it is all the more difficult to set criteria to withdraw. Are we remaining in Iraq mostly out of guilt (the "we broke it, therefore we must fix it" mentality!)?
As we discussed it, the question broadened.... Why do we have a foreign policy at all? What exactly is the objective we are trying to achieve?
We discussed the relative lack of commitment to fighting for democracy among the general public, among the press (who are making a very big deal out of 104 British deaths in Iraq, when more have died in Northern Ireland, and many times more have died in previous wars), and even among the armed forces themselves. Have we "gone soft" as a nation? Are we complacent about democracy, so that we are no longer prepared to fight for it?!
We discussed the strategy that we might adopt in Iraq, in order to stop the fighting. One suggestion was to consolidate those areas that are not violent, and invest in those areas, to set an example to those areas where there is fighting. Perhaps we should talk down the violence, which the press are keen to talk up and exaggerate.
We talked about what might have worked to prevent the current situation. Some felt that we should have gone in with more troops on the ground (the US is short of infantry troops, apparently), or that we should have considered replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a Monarchy (under which previously there was apparently peace and prosperity in Iraq). We acknowledged sadly that we are now in a difficult position - whereas Saddam Hussein could control the country by terrorising civilians, we can't do the same, even though it might be effective!
So what should we do now? Some thought we should bring in many more local or regional troops (eg from Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries). Others thought we should bring in democracy gradually (over 20 years), starting with the elite, rather than bringing it in instantly.
We discussed whether there were votes riding on Iraq as a policy area. Perhaps there is an incentive to develop credible and differentiated policies on Iraq, since Muslims (as a group in general) could be considered natural Conservative voters, but the immigration policies of the Conservatives have put them off. A sensible, sensitive, well-thought-through set of policies on Iraq might appeal to Muslim voters. We all agreed that - regardless of the Muslim vote - if the Conservatives could articulate a clear objective in Iraq this might be the beginnings of a policy that could be sold to the electorate, and would differentiate Conservatives from Labour.
However there was certainly little sympathy in the room for the idea of following the Lib Dems into a policy of withdrawal. All appeared to agree that we had a duty to stay for the time being.
We nonetheless had 12 people and a lively debate as usual, if a little less structured.
The main theme that came through was that none of us was clear about WHY Britain is in Iraq - both in terms of why we originally went in, and what the objective is now. Is it to make Iraq safe for Iraqis? Is it to secure our national interest in terms of energy security (ie oil)? Is it to make the Middle East safe? Is it to set an example of democracy for the rest of the Middle East and beyond?
A comparison was drawn with previous wars (WWI, WWII, the Falklands War...) in all of which cases there was a clear reason why we were at war. There was a clear and easily articulated "mission statement" which the public could buy into, and which also motivated the combatants. There is no such clarity of "mission" with Iraq, and therefore it is all the more difficult to set criteria to withdraw. Are we remaining in Iraq mostly out of guilt (the "we broke it, therefore we must fix it" mentality!)?
As we discussed it, the question broadened.... Why do we have a foreign policy at all? What exactly is the objective we are trying to achieve?
We discussed the relative lack of commitment to fighting for democracy among the general public, among the press (who are making a very big deal out of 104 British deaths in Iraq, when more have died in Northern Ireland, and many times more have died in previous wars), and even among the armed forces themselves. Have we "gone soft" as a nation? Are we complacent about democracy, so that we are no longer prepared to fight for it?!
We discussed the strategy that we might adopt in Iraq, in order to stop the fighting. One suggestion was to consolidate those areas that are not violent, and invest in those areas, to set an example to those areas where there is fighting. Perhaps we should talk down the violence, which the press are keen to talk up and exaggerate.
We talked about what might have worked to prevent the current situation. Some felt that we should have gone in with more troops on the ground (the US is short of infantry troops, apparently), or that we should have considered replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a Monarchy (under which previously there was apparently peace and prosperity in Iraq). We acknowledged sadly that we are now in a difficult position - whereas Saddam Hussein could control the country by terrorising civilians, we can't do the same, even though it might be effective!
So what should we do now? Some thought we should bring in many more local or regional troops (eg from Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries). Others thought we should bring in democracy gradually (over 20 years), starting with the elite, rather than bringing it in instantly.
We discussed whether there were votes riding on Iraq as a policy area. Perhaps there is an incentive to develop credible and differentiated policies on Iraq, since Muslims (as a group in general) could be considered natural Conservative voters, but the immigration policies of the Conservatives have put them off. A sensible, sensitive, well-thought-through set of policies on Iraq might appeal to Muslim voters. We all agreed that - regardless of the Muslim vote - if the Conservatives could articulate a clear objective in Iraq this might be the beginnings of a policy that could be sold to the electorate, and would differentiate Conservatives from Labour.
However there was certainly little sympathy in the room for the idea of following the Lib Dems into a policy of withdrawal. All appeared to agree that we had a duty to stay for the time being.
posted by Helen at 5:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home