I agree about these interventions. The track record isnt good. The circumstances that they can work under are extremely rare.

Lol subtle editing there

David,

I think that is almost exactly it; that the positions of both are more a product of a desire to avoid looking ‘soft’ on these issues and that is why these contradictions emerge.

Darrell: “When does occupation government become part of the problem and not the solution??”

Hurrah!

Thanks for that; it was a good piece. I dont deny that we still have responsibilities but I do think that there is a legitmate question behind this whole debate, namely;

When does occupation become part of the problem and not the solution??

Asking that question is not ‘far-left posturing’. The fact is that there is no doubt in my mind any kind of ‘Dayton like accord’ would necessarily have as one of it’s preconditions the withdrawl of Coalition forces in any case…however, my point is basically that there presence would act as a barrier to the formation of any such accord in the first place…

http://www.libdemvoice.org/troops-out-then-what-141.html

“I fear the long-term presence of British and American troops may be part of the problem, not part of the solution, in Iraq in particular. We cannot credibly present ourselves as peacekeepers to a population in which a significant number resent the coalition invasion.”

and this is what I was drawing out above. How, on earth, do people expect us to be seen as brokers while send the opposite message by pouring troops into the area?

But I fear the long-term presence of British and American troops may be part of the problem, not part of the solution, in Iraq in particular. We cannot credibly present ourselves as peacekeepers to a population in which a significant number resent the coalition invasion.

We should seek – perhaps at greater financial cost – to support neutral peacekeepers and the regeneration of Iraq’s own security services. But a vision for long-term Western occupation of the country appears, in my view, to be counter-productive to peace and stability.

On “the war on terror” – I suspect the paradigm of a traditional war fought against state sponsors of terror is unhelpful in suppressing the trans-national terrorist groups that threaten the lives of innocent people. It beggars belief that so much good will and so much attention has been directed to Iraq, rather than actually capturing Bin Laden.

We cannot argue, as a mature political party, for the same groundless “bring them home” schtick as the far-left and anti-everything types on the fringes.

Our troops need to be sent home when it is clear the Afghan or Iraqi forces are able to look after their own areas, and even then we need to ensure the Red Cross and others can work there in peace.

The “war on terror” is not some tangible part of history with a start and end point. It cannot be concluded any more than a start date can be identified.