The Blair Legacy

Now that the US forces are no longer involved in "combat operations" in Afghanstan, the Guardian has today reported that Afghanistan's police and army are losing too many men in battle. Casualty rates have regularly topped more than 100 dead a week according to General Joseph Dunford.

This is the first time that I have become aware that Afghan soldiers and police officers are facing death and injury on a huge scale.

Surely this proves the point that it's easy to enter into a conflict (however limited the reported objectives may initially be) but it can be very difficult to get out of it? The foreign military presence was viewed by at least some of the population as an invasion, and led to further radicalisation. Now that the US is no longer engaged in "combat operations", the Afghan army and police have the unenviable task of trying to keep order.

General Joseph Dunford is reported as saying that it may be necessary for western troops to stay in Afghanistan until 2018.

Surely avenging a wrong is extra-judicial as it involves deliberately causing harm.

Fat chance of Assad ever coming before the ICC, bearing in mind that a) local vengeance will probably pre-empt any possibility, as with Gaddafi; b) if he were to be tried, Syrians would probably prefer to use the Syrian courts; and c) the US is not party to the ICC and Russia has never ratified its membership.

As I've said before on another Syria thread, I do want the atrocities avenged.

I would like to see Assad brought before an international tribunal, charged with crimes against humanity, and punished accordingly. I really hope that happens.

I do not want the atrocities "avenged." I want the governments of the world to engage in rational and thoughtful debate about what action (if any) might produce the best outcome for the people of Syria and of the rest of the world.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/libyas-future-looks-bleak-as-media-focus-turns-elsewhere-8563076.html

We may have "won" in Iraq and Libya but the people of those countries certainly haven't. When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, we heard lots of stories about how life was so much better for the population there. Now all we hear is the almost daily body count figures.

There is also virtually no media coverage as to the present state of Libya, which has been described by some as "ungovernable". This article in The Independent suggests that Libya is in chaos but it seems there's a reluctance in the media to report what is happening there.

Now it appears that our own government has been less than careful about issuing licences for the export of chemicals.

Yes. I know. It's hard.

You don't have to target the people to hit them. They have a habit of getting in the way.

front page of the Indie

front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

I want the atrocities avenged.

I don't believe they would target the people.

It is not a risk that should be taken.

If they do not target the weapons dumps, then what/who do they target? People without a doubt - and who are the right people? And how do you target them? And should you?

The simple desire to avenge the atrocities is not enough.

looks like the Israelis and Americans disagree on that

Let's hope they get it right if it happens.

Well, I'm no military strategist. But I would think the Americans know a bit about it.

I think they were pleased to see Gadaffi dead. It was the rebels that killed him, wasn't it? They've had proper elections now, I think. Don't really know.

I just don't believe in allowing evil men to get away with horrific crimes.

elergran, you seem to see yourself as some kind of peace maker !! duh !¬!

There is a serious logistical problem about getting rid of chemical weapons dumps because you cannot do this safely - the chemicals are released into the atmosphere and people will be damaged. This is the crux of the problem. We cannot achieve the aim without more loss of life and injury.

And I do not believe that involvement in attacking Syria would be confined to those weapons stores.

One too many nows in that post.

But are the people he was being horrible to then now living happy peaceful lives now in undamaged cities, with an undamaged economy? And are they pleased?

I know an Iraqi who country was freed from a dictator, and he is not pleased. He lost family and friends, and many more of his family and friends had to leave the country to survive, and will never return.

And of course absent, - I feel so sorry for Saddam, Bin Ladam, Karadzic, and all the other buggers we've seen the back of in recent years.

Not.

Probably not as bad as it was when he was on his killing sprees

What the fuck is wrong with a bit of triumphalism, when it is a horrible dictator who has been triumphed over?!

And the state of the country is …?

Deposing/killing heads of state willy nilly is contrary to international law – in exactly the same way as using chemical weapons.

Triumphalism is a disgusting emotion.

Err, we won! Gadaffi is dead.

j08 What was successful about intervening in Libya?

Susieb755 Blair and Bush used a demand for UN weapons inspectors as, they reckoned Saddam would refuse, a way of justifying invasion. Saddam let them into Iraq and, although he did mess them around a fair amount, remember that it was Bush and the NeoCons who forced them to leave early because Shock and Awe was already scheduled. Iraq was the most heavily overseen country in the world and at the time Blair and Bush were shouting their mouths off about the risks to the West, there was no evidence whatsoever of any changes in the country. This was followed by the two dossiers, one of which contained an outright lie and the other of which was plagiarised from the web. No wonder many people feel unable to trust politicians with decisions about – and, importantly, reasons for – invading other countries

It would be nice to get rid of Assad, but that's not on the agenda.

We intervened successfully in Libya.