Thursday, March 23, 2006

Europe's Top NeoCon Reloads

Commentary by Martin Kelly
October 1, 2004

On Tuesday September 28, Europe’s top neoconservative rammed home the message to anyone willing to listen that the neocons are unrepentant for the carnage they have visited on the country of Iraq, nor do they feel any real regret for the loss of at least 11,000 Iraqi lives. It was nothing to do with oil. It was nothing to do with international terrorism. It was just personal all along, driven by hidden agendas and/or their lust for glory, and they’re in it to the end.

In his speech to the Labour Party Conference in Brighton, Tony Blair said:

“The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept that…the problem is …I can’t, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison and not in power”.

He added, “I have come to realise that caring in politics isn’t really about ‘caring’. It’s about doing what you think is right”.

So much for laws and policies. If making war is what you think is right, then do it. Yes.

The sole rationale for this war was to disarm Iraq of its Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anything else reeks of hidden agenda.

For whom is the world a better place, Prime Minister? Although the secret police may not be knocking on their doors any more, one can hardly say that the lot of the residents of Fallujah, Samarra and Najaf has improved any. Because of a group of outsiders who chose to take cover in their midst, they are now at very much greater risk of aerial assault than they were before. By all accounts, Baghdad is pretty much Tombstone on the Tigris, which it certainly wasn’t before. But that’s just a tragic consequence of war, Tony. I understand. We all feel your pain.

It’s not much better for the nearly 1,300 dead Coalition personnel, of whom over 60 have been Brits. But they were doing their duty, even although the first Brit to die, Sergeant Steve Roberts, was ordered to give away his body armour to a colleague who had none, while the government continues to treat the public sector on the home front like a giant make-work scheme for preferred demographics, pouring money into unproductive politically correct projects which receive massive funding and from which few derive real benefit. But I suppose that just shows your commitment to social inclusion, doesn’t it Tony? I understand.

It’s not much better for the British Army in Basra. Recently, attacks on them have grown exponentially, up to 800 in the last month.

Blair’s soft-focus message was that he’s acted like a man of principle in taking us into this mess. He’s done what he thought was right. It was right to invade Iraq to disarm them of weapons they never had. Presumably, it is now also equally right for any sovereign nation to invade any other sovereign nation in order to change a regime its leaders don’t like.

This is a serious point of law. Just what will they do when Red China decides to enforce its policy of regime change on Taiwan?

To paraphrase Michael Kelly, killed in Iraq, I believed you, Prime Minister, when you stood in the House of Commons and said that WMD could be launched in 45 minutes. I believed you when you said this man was a threat to world peace. I believed you when you said that he was connected to international terrorist groups not of the past but of the present. I believed you when you said all those things.

But the interests of the neoconservative movement, as stated in documents from ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ to ‘Project for the New American Century’ to ‘An End to Evil’ (what a dumb, arrogant title for a book!); from
the interests of government departments with sinister names like Douglas Feith’s ‘Office of Special Plans’; to the interests of a man burning to avenge his family’s honour, like George W. Bush; to the interests of the most truly narcissistic Prime Minister of recent times, all of whose actions are triangulated with one eye on his place in history, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair; all of these interests dictated that the government of Saddam had to go, regardless of whether he had the weapons or not.

All policies of deterrence were discarded. No cause in the world was greater or more urgent than this man’s removal.

In retrospect, it was all a crock of yellowcake.

But having been against one tyrant, they’d be against them all – right?

Blair’s subordinate Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, was in New York City recently for the UN General Assembly. The conservative community on the web did not seem to notice that another visitor to the General Assembly was the Hitler of Zimbabwe, Robert Gabriel Mugabe.

Mugabe continues his rape of that beloved country, turning white farmers, the country’s biggest employers, off their land in a redistribution scheme from which prominent members of his ZANU-PF party are the greatest beneficiaries. Many of Zimbabwe’s white farmers are able to claim British citizenship, and have found my government most obstructive of their attempts to resettle here. His genocide of the Matabele in the 1980’s continues to go unpunished. His most prominent opponent, the Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo Pius Ncube, continues to be harassed by Mugabe’s goons to the point of breakdown. Mugabe continues to call gay men pigs.

Under those circumstances, a very potent case could be made that the interests of the United Kingdom, and those entitled to citizenship of the United Kingdom, would be best served by confronting this fascist madman than by being in Iraq. Instead, Jack Straw shook Mugabe’s hand. That’s real progress, of the kind that Tony Blair called for in his conference speech.
Only a real neoconservative could pave the road of history with the skulls of Iraqis and call it the road to progress.