| It's Your Friends |
|
|
|
| Written by William P. Kreml | |||
| Monday, 17 November 2008 13:23 | |||
It's comfortable to blame George W. Bush entirely for the Iraq War but, as Nixon used to say, "It would be wrong." Recall that at the outset of the war, the Germans said "no," the French said "no," and the Canadians said "no." Three out of four of our closest allies ain't bad, but it ain't good enough. The conventional wisdom is that Bush bullied Tony Blair and the British into going along with us. I don't believe it for a moment. The British have been diddling in the Middle East since long before Larry of Arabia. I went to graduate school with a former RAF pilot who was so proud of his World War II service and at the same time so ashamed of his bombing of the Jews in 1948. A little history, please. Even before the British and the French – along with the Israelis – marched on the Suez Canal in 1956 to keep the oil flowing, it was the British who convinced the American government to overthrow Mossadegh in Iran, that nationalist having the audacity to declare the oil to be Iranian instead of anybody else's and asking a fair price for its sale. The British had tried to convince Truman to overthrow Mosadegh but HST waved them off, audaciously suggesting they deal directly with the legitimate head of the Iranian government. But shortly after Eisenhower was sworn in (1953), he appointed Allen Dulles head of the CIA and brother John Foster as Secretary of State. Now, here were two people the British could share a brandy with. And so it was done, with the Shah doing his best not to leave anyone out of the torture regimen that pretty much closed down the opposition. Of course, the modern Iranian knows of, and even occasionally mentions, the above, while FOX News miseducates again by wondering aloud what the fuss is all about. Just bomb the bastards. And so, whether it's BP or Royal Dutch Shell – which is half British – or a host of other enterprises – the British interest remains. You don't have to be a distant cousin of the Queen (like America's George Ill) to understand all of this. The "puppy" images were far less than accidental, the least we could do for Tony being to give him a little cover with the home front, that just couldn't quite equate Baghdad with Dunkirk. The Brits are mainly gone from all of the fighting now, their paltry casualties covering the southern flank – demonstrating once again that tails do in fact wag dogs; and when it’s the mother country – hey, who's counting? I write after learning of two more American deaths: the results of what the joint command calls a "hard landing" of a helicopter. Well put, eh wot? Prof. William P. Kreml is retired from the Political Science Department at USC. His The Twenty-First Century Left is available at Dr. Books in Five Points: 718 Santee Avenue, Columbia, SC 29205 Add your comment
|
|||
| Last Updated on Friday, 05 December 2008 19:55 |





It's comfortable to blame George W. Bush entirely for the Iraq War but, as Nixon used to say, "It would be wrong." Recall that at the outset of the war, the Germans said "no," the French said "no," and the Canadians said "no." Three out of four of our closest allies ain't bad, but it ain't good enough. The conventional wisdom is that Bush bullied Tony Blair and the British into going along with us. I don't believe it for a moment. The British have been diddling in the Middle East since long before Larry of Arabia. I went to graduate school with a former RAF pilot who was so proud of his World War II service and at the same time so ashamed of his bombing of the Jews in 1948. 






