The last post ended with this thought about the BBC’s coverage of the migrant crisis…‘Nothing like massaging the truth to cover up your own part in the tragedy of the refugee crisis.’ and it is clear from recent BBC broadcasts that this is a policy that has moved up a gear as the BBC tries to start blaming British foreign policy for the crisis, the point of which is, not only to move the blame from where it belongs,, on the Left and the BBC in part, but also to suggest that if it is British foreign policy that is to blame then we must be responsible for the immigrants and therefore open the borders….clever huh?
Trouble is no one believes that…oh..accept the usual suspect who is an apologist for Islamist extremists anyway.
‘Any Questions’ first question, and I’m sure it was not carefully chosen at all by the BBC, was ‘Is British foreign policy to blame for the migrant crisis?’
Unfortunately, and a great shock to the BBC I’m sure, the right-on panel, almost to a man, said no, it wasn’t to blame. The one exception was Peter Oborne…he being that apologist for Islamist extremists.
That not withstanding the BBC then ran its ‘Any Answers’ programme…the theme…
Migrant Crisis
The youngest was only about two years old. As the world reels from the news of a lorry full of migrants found suffocated to death in Austria as they tried to enter Europe, we ask to what extent has UK foreign policy over the last fifteen years exacerbated the refugee crisis in Europe?
British foreign policy has nothing to do with the crisis in Syria…other than the fact that we didn’t interfere and try and stop the war….due in part to the BBC’s covering up evidence of Assad’s use of chemical weapons just before the vote in Parliament. Syria exploded due to internal protests against the government and the harsh government response…along with Assad’s support for ISIS after releasing them from his prisons, which then went out of his control. Zilch to do with the UK.
Oh and Tory Priti Patel was somewhat outgunned by the Left on Any Questions by a Labour MP, a Miliband supporter and of course, Billy Bragg. Not saying the BBC, as usual, has loaded the dice against the ‘right winger’ but they have haven’t they?
If British foreign policy is to blame then there is an easy solution I’ve outlined before ; reduce it .
Go back to the Splendid Isolation when we were at our most powerful . Imagine not getting involved in world events except when we are directly affected .
We won’t be blamed , the left/liberals and BBC can’t whine and no one has the right to come here , even from the EU .
Sack 95% of the Foreign Office and save on the Security Council .
The most effective way to respond to 9/11 was not to bomb and invade Islamic countries, but to stop all Muslim immigration to the West.
1. It would cost nothing.
2. It would save billions of pounds, not having to support tens of millions of Muslims, who are unemployable and thus survive on Benefits
3. It would save hundreds of millions in security spending
4. Tens of thousands of young girls would not have been raped.
5. The Muslim population already here, would be on notice – no halal nonsense, no huge rise in FGM, honour killings, no massive increase in criminality etc.
6. There would be no swarms of migrants entering Europe.
7. The existential crisis that we have got ourselves into, would not be.
Left to itself, the Islamic world would have turned on the radicals if they wanted to be part of the rest of the woprld. Islam reformed.
If they didn’t, Islam would eat itself – again Islam reformed. Either way, it would be their responsibility, and their problem – not ours.
All this for doing nothing but stop Muslim immigration.
Instead, for far worse, we have taken the responsibility for the Islamic world, while having no say in Islam.
In addition, the cost and blood of our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan would not be.
One of the few consolations in the regrettable situation of being at war is that the FO is largely curtailed in its ability to screw things up for Britain. It generally does most damage in the lead up to any conflict, when it appears to do its best to ensure that we enter it at maximum disadvantage, and in complete confusion.
Very perceptive.
We are kidding ourselves if we think that USA NEOCONS Foreign Policy backed up by blatant lies and spin of Blair cronies, did not cause this massive migrant crisis. Why else are multi-millions of Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis part of the largest migration since World War II?
They have set the Middle East on Fire and the power vacuum has been filled with a savage medieval cult which the genuine normal inhabitants are desperate to escape, just like you and I would.
The Afghanistan campaign, after 9/11, is well understood, although I disagree with the way it was conducted and impractical democratization aims. Now the Alliance troops have nearly all left, the place is falling back into its old ways, making the Trillion dollar exercise and massive loss of life, destruction and disability totally futile.
Instead to avenge 9/11 they should have conduced a short blitz (months not years), against Bin Laden and its Al Qaeda training camps, under Taliban auspices. Then rather than massive occupation, regime change and democratic instituion aspirations thy should, after destroying the Al Qaeda/Taliban core and leadership, (as opposed to civilians), get straight back out and then keep them in their box with no fly zones, continuing selective strikes backed up by incentives of aid and assistance. Much the same as they did with Saddam until the idiotic 2003 invasion.
After seeing the mighty Soviets retreating a decade earlier, there was clear evidence there was never any chance whatsoever of a democratic regime succeeding in Afghanistan. That fact was staring them in the face surely?
Sharia dominant society is totally at odds and incompatible with democratic principles and just could never work. It never will until a fundamental Islamic reform is forthcoming in most of the Middle East, like Qatar, Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait etc.
No surprise then that I think the Iraq 2003 invasion was totally wrong?
The Western intelligence agencies were well aware of the atrocities committed by Saddam’s regime, in the same way as they knew all about North Korean, Burma, Zimbabwe, Libya, Oman, Uzbekistan, Sudan and many other degrees of disgusting regimes right around the world committing atrocities and also deserving of their despotic, autocratic governance change.
It is not an ideal world though.
In any event the largest demonstrations by mankind on every continent alone should have made Bush NEOCONS and Blair, with millions on our streets too begging him not to go invade.
Saddam was being kept in his box with no fly zones, WMD inspections, Kurdish protection, notwithstanding abuses of the oil for food programme. These sanctions busters could have mainly been dealt with by Western Democracies righting those wrongs.
The crazy execution of the Iraq campaign, particularly the deplorable mistakes in planning for the dismantling of all Iraqi infrastructure, caused massive vacuums leaving us a decade later dealing with those deathly consequences.
The Arab Spring infection also set a lot of the Middle East and North Africa on fire with so many millions displaced, wounded, dead or trudging and boating towards EU Borders speaks for itself.
There is a lot more of these unbelievable Middle East Policy consequences yet to come. No wonder they have difficulty with Chilcot.
Afghans were fleeing the Taliban long before Iraq war…remember the hijack at Stanstead airport in 2000.
Saddam was not being ‘kept in his box’…he managed to kill well over half a million Iraqi children during the sanctions period, and those sanctions were about to come to an end…which would have let him do absolutely as he liked.
The Iraq War: Not Illegal, Not Immoral, and Not Over
‘In the 15 years before the 2003 invasion it killed up to half a million of its own citizens. After the failed 1991 uprising in the south, its agents poured petrol down the throats of rebels and set them alight. Back in Baghdad the Special Treatment Department was busy dismembering living prisoners with chainsaws, squeezing their skulls in metal vices until brain-matter oozed out, and making parents watch their flailing children disappear under swarms of wasps in confined spaces.’
Iraq without our help would now be in the same situation as Syria, total chaos, anarchy and bloodshed…at present it is holding on against ISIS which was only given room to spread by the retreat of US and Brit troops…so the opposite of ‘interference’..once again, as with Syria, the failure to stand firm caused chaos…that lack of will driven by the barrage of press from the Left…oh, and the Daily Mail.
Cameron used the vote in Parliament to duck the issue and claim it was a matter of principle instead of what it was, craven cowardice….
‘David Cameron lacked ‘balls’ to head off the rise of Isis, says former defence chief….In a scathing analysis of the UK prime minister’s approach, Gen Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said Cameron’s approach seemed “more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft”.
At least Iraq was given a chance with nearly 200,000 troops around to help stabilise the country….what the Iraqis did with that chance is their affair….but that premature withdrawal of those troops was a huge mistake driven by the media…ala Vietnam where the Viet Cong were smashed and the US army won every battle but lost the war….all due to Walter Cronkite.
Syrian refugees, as said, are not a result of any part of our foreign policy…and Libya was not a war made here….British military force was used merely to stop a massacre. The start of the conflict and the subsequent events are down to the Libyans.
No country in the world can expect to make the transition from dictatorship to peaceful democracy overnight and without problems. Good things take time…look at our own history with the civil war that deposed and beheaded a King and ended up eventually with what we have now.
People give up too easily.
I think Chilcott may surprise a few people and not be the condemnation of Blair that they think….he may get it in the neck for some things but possibly not the legality of the war nor for his ‘dossier’. Clare Short, that ‘principled’ anti-war mouthpiece (Declared she would resign if war went ahead but actually supported war, only then two months later resigned), has apparently been soundly drubbed by Chilcott…so it should be an interesting time.
I agree with much of that. But premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq was not driven by media p0ressure so much as stupidity and a short-term aim for political gain by Obama. ISIS filled the vacuum Obama left.
Alan
You do not give a reason why the largest migration since World War 2 is now happening?
You say “Iraq without our help would now be in the same situation as Syria, total chaos, anarchy and bloodshed”.
Just a minute: That is exactly what is happening in Iraq today. Over a decade later, amplified by the Arab Spring infection caused as a direct result, there are also millions of refugees now trudging the dusty roads, dying, in dinghies attempting to escape to the EU borders.
In Iraq alone there is an increasing death count, (last year 17,235 and this year 11,000 already), with massive atrocities, suicide bombs, gays being thrown off buildings and all the other medieval tortures and murders continuing on a daily basis, mainly in the ISIS spheres of influence. That is Iraq death count alone. Add on the infection areas, North Africa, Syria, Yemen etc and the scale of this atrociously bad Iraq invasion decision becomes very apparent.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Saddam Hussein’s large-scale atrocities mainly took place during the 1980s and early 1990s, not after the No Fly Zones, WMD inspection programmes and oil for food and other incentives were established in Iraq.
You also state “At least Iraq was given a chance with nearly 200,000 troops around to help stabilise the country…”
Unfortunately the US/Alliance lost the will to continue and that should have been predicted, since it was on the cards politically due to the initial bad decisions and planning for aftermath, made by Bush NEOCONS backed by Blair lies and spin. It is not the fault of the Iraqis as you put it.
Blair, with his difficulty in getting the initial Iraq decision agreed by Parliament and the agencies, achieved only through, lies and spin validates that he need to take a different pragmatic political decision and advise Bush he was wrong with the full scale invasion and 200,00 troops on the ground would fail.
Attempting to democratize autocratic, demonic, Islamic Nations is a lost cause and pretty much the sixth sense of the world wide street demonstrations against the Iraq war, including the millions in the UK, saw that.
As I said the world pretty much realised if: “the mighty Soviets retreating a decade earlier, there was clear evidence there was never any chance whatsoever of a democratic regime succeeding in Afghanistan. That fact was staring them in the face surely?”
What was working better and acceptable politically in the world, was the pragmatic limiting Saddam damage by military actions, like the NO fly zones, sanctions and highly targeted bombing and drone missions, backed by incentives to change like food for oil programmes.
I could go on for hours discussing this, but I have to leave to catch a plane soon early tomorrow, but will leave the other experts opinions which basically match mine like:
and Blix:
“Why else are multi-millions of Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis part of the largest migration since World War II?”
Cheap travel and precedent !
When people started to come to Europe with falsified stories, they learned that not only did idiots believe them, even if the Home Office did not, but also that it took an absolute age for the state to process cases in its usual incompetent aching slow way.
That meant that even if they knew they were unlikely to succeed with their claims they could probably work as well as claiming benefits.
It’s that woman again ! Yes! it’s Lyn Homer a train wreck of a boss who screws up where ever she goes, and once she had a massive backlog at the borders agency she simply moved on. Leaving behind a huge backlog means catch up with Tory cutbacks is next to impossible. The Tory party are so money obsessed that they see saving £1000 on the asylum process, whilst spending an addition £100 000 on asylum seeker benefits as a genuine saving to the nation !
Claimants should be fully dealt with from claim to final appeal within 6 weeks Those without passports and laggardly governments should be dumped in the care of their countries embassies for them to deal with and pay for. We’d soon see a speeding up of passports if there was a couple of hundred clogging up the embassy!
You talk about Syrians Afghans & Iraqis as if you believe that’s what they are. How do you know they are what they claim to be? Believed the BBC propaganda? How do you know the Afghan isn’t a Pakistani, or the other Jordanians / Egyptians etc etc?
“British foreign policy has nothing to do with the crisis in Syria…other than the fact that we didn’t interfere and try and stop the war….due in part to the BBC’s covering up evidence of Assad’s use of chemical weapons just before the vote in Parliament. ”
AND due to MiniMiliMinor’s duplicity in leading Boy Dave on to believe that he, MiniMiliMinor, possessed a spine and was prepared to confront Assad.
Oh we did interfere !
Do you not remember Vladimir Putin stood apart from all the corrupt Western leaders ? Was it Gleneagles? When he made a speech wondering about what on earth they were all doing supporting Islamic extremists, just after one of them had pulled a mans heart from his body & eaten it?
The truth is that Saudi and all the other Sunni oil rich states supported ISIS and so we also did, because our leaders are in the Sunnis pocket and do exactly as they are told. It was only once ISIS said that they wanted to depose the Saudi Royal family and demolish their tourist attraction at Mecca that we suddenly didn’t like them. That by the way is the true perversion of Islam. The demolition of the Ka’abba at Mecca, not any of their actions which are wholly in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an.
If only people could wake up to the possibility that our leaders are being bribed, we might at least have the chance to investigate it, but sadly as even people here don’t even seem able to countenance the possibility any wrongdoing will continue undetected.
And who over threw Gaddifi ? He was blocking them.
Islam has been involved in internal wars since the time of the Pedophile. The West have occasionally taken sides, or have occasionally fought Islamists. But left alone, without any interference, they would be at each other. The present conflicts are but a continuation of a seemingly endless war whose origins cannot be attributed to Bush’nBlair and long predate the western need for oil. Leave them alone and they will continue to slaughter.
As for British policy – keep out, keep them out.
Islam has been involved in internal wars since the time of the Pedophile.
Brilliant.
I think the Islamic calendar should be named as BP and AP.
The late lamented Lawrence Auster was firmly of the opinion that any involvement in the affairs of the Islamic world was counter productive. That eventually what he called seperationism would have to happen.
That means precisely what it says. No or minimal contact. No trade. No tourism . No diplomatic other than basic contact. No flights . Nothing ar all.
Oil and gas are the problems as there is nothing else the West needs that the ME produces.
The West floods the ME with arms as we know to offset the energy money flowing from the West.
Contact severed ,and it could be done if we had the will and were prepared to suffer a drop in living standards, Europe would then shelter behind it’s military strength and heavily fortified frontiers. No incursions or terrorist events would be tolerated without the most draconian reprisals. If this sounds like something from the past then so be it. I know of no other way for the West to survive.
Oil and gas, start looking, the West has it.
I agree. Written so on sites such as LGF long before L aurence Auster.
“Saddam was being kept in his box with no fly zones, WMD inspections, Kurdish protection, notwithstanding abuses of the oil for food programme. These sanctions busters could have mainly been dealt with by Western Democracies righting those wrongs.”
Charlatans, my recollection of 2003 is very different from yours. Saddam had been kept in his box by sanctions, but the sanctions policy was falling apart because the will to continue them was being undermined across Europe by the Left – because the sanctions policy was led by the US. As a result it was becoming more and more difficult to sustain at the UN.
Here in the UK we had daily stories from the BBC on how sanctions were hitting the Iraqi people, with thousands upon thousands of children dying because Iraq couldn’t afford to buy medicines. There was nothing about Saddam finding the money to rebuild his army. The BBC was doing everything possible to undermine the sanctions policy, to the extent that it was crumbling before our eyes. The alternatives were military action or leave Saddam to resurrect Iraqi power and threaten his neighbours.
A robust sanctions policy would have made military action unnecessary, but the collapse of the sanctions policy made military action necessary. After 9/11 the US wasn’t going to back away and give Saddam free rein to attack the Gulf states.
By undermining the will in the UK to continue with sanctions the BBC has a significant responsibility for the war. Their internal understanding of this is what gives rise to all the heat and noise they generate – disguising a guilty conscience.
Yes RJ, you are right the sanctions against Saddam in 2003 needed a strong UK and US Government to rigidly right the wrongs that were appearing.
That was what was wrong. Bush and the NEOCONS combined with Blair did not grasp that nettle, but it was slowly becoming apparent through whistle blowers. I have replied to Alan above and would like to discuss further with you, but unfortunately I have to pack my case and make my way to the airport soon. Sorry this is not a copout I promise.
People still failing en masse to even begin to see what is happening in the Middle East and in the West. For Gods sake if even Yasmin Aliibhai Brown can see it why can’t you?
If you want to know the why’s of what the West does in the Middle East then look to Saudis position, because by some almost unbelievable set of ‘coincidences’ Western foreign policy in the region follows the Saudis almost exactly.
Bin Laden family at the Bushes ranch on 9/11 one of the wealthiest Saudi families – you think they just popped round for a quick cuppa?
The Saudis hated Saddam Hussein because he wasn’t a practicing Muslim even though his government was largely Sunni, the Saudis wanted him gone, and in their ignorance failed to think what might fill the gap when he had.
They saw he had a large army and a long land border with themselves. They were extremely nervous after what happened with Kuwait. The other gulf states weren’t happy either.
Money buys an awful lot of influence and especially so with Western politicians, it doesn’t matter whether sanctions would have worked, the Saudis weren’t interested.
Today both the Bush & BLiar families are very wealthy from money given to them for ‘speaking engagements, and government advising’ No one stops to examine if these activities are actually worth the money paid, but if BLiar is really that good why has ALL of his money come from oil rich Sunni Muslim states? We’re talking something in the region of £180 million and why does he feel the need to maintain such secrecy and security?
The only scenario which makes any real sense is the corruption of Western leaders by the Sunni Middle Eastern states, and we do appear to slavishly follow what they want from us.
‘ For Gods sake if even Yasmin Aliibhai Brown can see it why can’t you?’
Because she is nuts. A sane individual examines what YAB says then proceeds from the starting point that opposite conclusion is far more likely.
No doubt the Saudis are implicated in a lot if the world’s trouble but the mess we are in is far more complicated than that.
Yasmin Aliibhai Brown must be worried. For years she has vilified the Christian West, and suppoorted Islam. Now that Sunni Islam is getting powerful in Britain, as an Ishmaeli Muslim, she must be worried for her future.
Alan,
“British foreign policy has nothing to do with the crisis in Syria…other than the fact that we didn’t interfere and try and stop the war….due in part to the BBC’s covering up evidence of Assad’s use of chemical weapons just before the vote in Parliament.”
I don’t recall that at the time. The BBC, as I recall, did mention the alleged use of chemical weapons and seemed to be suggesting that action might be taken by Britain on behalf of what is now known as IS/ISIL/ISIS/Daish/Daesh because of the claimed use of chemical weapons. I seem to also recall they were pretty neutral back then. I think they had not turned (or had not been turned) to Labour in 2010 & 2011 as fully as they became during 2013 and 2014. They pushed the ‘Assad=chemical weapons’ line until the UN investigation either proved that Assad’s regime was innocent or there was no clear proof they were using chemical weapons. They even mocked Miliband at one point over his sudden turn on Syria policy & the Commons vote. Then the BBC went very quiet. They still are quiet on the subject, or misleading even, forgetting to mention the investigation (& disposal of whatever components the Assad military had – has that been done now?) in the rare recent news items on the actual conflict within Syria. The BBC then appeared to me to act as judge & jury on the subject of barrel bombs.
If the BBC are at any great fault on Syria is that they have done very little investigating of what is actually going on in there. Yes, I realise they have no access but there are ways & means especially as there are past links between Britain & Syria. Indeed, if they had any real guts in their News operation at present, they could & should be trying to find out what has gone wrong in the relationship between Assad & Britain, what the Foreign & Colonial Office have been up to and why Cameron has been so inactive, especially at the UN. Perhaps Gen. Sir David Richards’ book will nudge the BBC into some journalistic action over Syria.
I largely agree with Charlatan on this. I don’t see how it’s possible not to see that the massive destabilisation caused by the second Iraq war wasn’t one of the prime factors in the chaos that we see today. Of course there were refugees from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Why wouldn’t there be, it was a monstrous regime. But nothing like on the scale we see today. I’m also not dismissing the effects of radical Islam, mass communication and economic migration, from both these regions and other parts of the world. It is complex, multi-faceted problem that feeds off itself.
As for Afghanistan, the objective of the war changed from the simple aim of hunting down Bin Laden to regime change, as soon the Taliban seemed to have fallen. And just like the Soviets before us we found ourselves embroiled in an unwinnable war (does the word Vietnam ring a bell?). I do believe the distraction of Iraq exacerbated this problem. One issue I have to take with Charlatan is that the Soviets were certainly not trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan.
Was Blair a liar or a fool? Clearly he was both. The British public are now paying for his vanity and desire to play on the world stage. I’m not holding out much hope for Chilcott, when it is eventually published – I expect a whitewash.
But despite all of this I don’t support Asylum. Not just because it is routinely abused, which it is, but because it just isn’t viable. We may well vote in our politicians, but we are not responsible for their idiocy.
“And just like the Soviets before us we found ourselves embroiled in an unwinnable war (does the word Vietnam ring a bell?).”
Vietnam wasn’t unwinnable. It was lost at home, not in the jungle, in large part thanks to Walter Cronkite.
We should have learned from watching that how dangerous it is to allow the mass media to control public opinion.
This is an interesting thread but I think we in the West are too tough on ourselves about our ‘failure’ to deal with muslim fanaticism in one way or another.
Afganistan- this country has been impossible to subdue over an awfully long period, by either the British in the nineteenth century or more recently the Russians or the Americans. Compared to the colonial period, the development of ‘asymetric’ warfare and ease of travel and communication has also now come into play. It favours insurgents against the big powers whether in Afghanistan or Iraq/Syria.
Syria/Iraq – the growth of Sunni fundamentalism predates the 2003 intervention and would have happened anyway. If Saddam had been left in place and the policy of containment continued, I don’t think he would have survived the Sunni-Shia civil war any more than Ghaddafi survived the uprising in Libya or Assad could stay in control of more than an enclave in Syria. The 2003 invasion may have hastened things but in the longer run will not be seen as the root of the problem. Anti American and anti Blair left wingers don’t see this but its true nonetheless.
The post WW1/Skyes-Picot settlement in this part of the old Ottoman Empire has now broken down. Subdivision of Syria/Iraq on ethnic and religious grounds is now going on and will have to work its way through. Big population shifts and ethnic/religious cleansing as we now call it are usually a result of this process. It had already been happening to minorities such as the Christians and the Armenians well before the upsurge in Sunni fundamentalism made it worse.
I think there is a case for Western intervention against ISIL simply because they are such extreme proponents of fanaticism, death and cultural nihilism. But lets not kid ourselves that the basic forces at work in the region won’t continue. Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Yazidi etc will have to live separately and be capable of defending temselves and we can’t prevent this by occupation or maintenance of old colonial borders.
“I think we in the West are too tough on ourselves about our ‘failure’ to deal with muslim fanaticism in one way or another.”
A very good point. Not everything in the world is the West’s fault, and in many cases our intervention has reduced the suffering even if it didn’t solve the problem. As a simple example, average out the number of Iraqis who died each year during the Saddam years with the average killed each year since his death. The ideal would have been a peaceful Iraq, but at least the number of deaths has been reduced and the Iraqis have a chance, slim as it may be, to build something rather than being murdered by a brutal regime that is immovable.
As to the the future, the lifting of sanctions on Iran is likely to result in the success of their nuclear programme and I don’t see the Saudis sitting back and letting Iran be the only nuclear power in the Middle East. I’m not sure how the BBC will blame that on Bush, but I’m sure they’ll invent something.
As a post script to the causes of the 2003 war, there is one point that I’ve never seen covered by any analysis. The 9/11 hijackers claimed that one of the reasons for their action was the stationing of US troops in Saudi, thereby defiling the Muslim holy cities. A basic demand by Bin Laden was the removal of US troops from Saudi and this was winning Al Qaeda a lot of support across the Muslim world. From Bush’s (the West’s) perspective the US had to keep troops there to safeguard the Gulf States from Iraq, so a precondition to any consideration of reducing troop numbers (and support for Muslim terrorism) was the removal of that threat, which meant deposing Saddam.
If the Iraqis had deposed Saddam in an internal coup the problem would have been solved, but his grip on power was too tight, and he was getting enough money through sanctions busting to keep his army loyal. Bush’s options were leaving Saddam in power, with US troops in Saudi giving Muslim terrorists a cause they could rally round, or depose Saddam and hope to create something stable in Iraq despite the inevitable paying off of old scores, an eruption of Sunni/Shia violence and the intervention of Iran looking to act in support of Iraqi Shias. Whatever Bush did it wasn’t going to end in a peaceful and prosperous Middle East will a general “kiss and make friends”, but in terms of the “least worst” option I can’t argue that the invasion was the wrong choice.