Book à Allies Author William Shawcross Å 329 pages Download µ William shawcross

Text ð Allies Author William Shawcross Ø William Shawcross

Allies Author William ShawcroAllies is an analysis of the risks taken in Ira the reasons for them and the ways in which the challenge p Overall a good read probably deserves three and a half stars Shawcross is a British neocon journalist who tells the story of the build up and aftermath of the 2003 Ira War While the book cover seems to cast this as a book about the British US relationship in terms of the war it is as much a book about the United Nations as anything Those who found themselves frothing at the mouth and chanting Bush lied and people died during the Bush years should probably read this with an open mind It gives a cogent articulation for the neocon case for war against Ira and shows that those in favor of this were not some evil conspiracy or irrational actors Further Shawcross is not uncritical of the Bush Blair team and exposes faults where he finds themShawcross starts his work with some unuestionable observations about problems in the Arab world to include the tendency of the Arab dictatorships to blame the United States for everything even as they accept aid and protection from the same and the startling results of the UN's 2002 Arab Development Report p 15 He specifically keyed in on the lack of freedom in the Arab world to include civil liberties political rights media and women's rights He assesses very little of this will change until Arab countries somehow acuire decent governments and good governance Political freedom and political representation must be freed up; public administration must be reformed; civil society must be liberated; the media must be freed p 16 He points out Baathism's direct connection to Nazism as it is explicitly Arab Nationalist Socialism p 17 An irony really that those who were most vehemently against the Ira war characterized Bush as Hitler for overthrowing an avowed Arab NaziShawcross also examined the rise of anti Americanism in the post Cold War era particularly in Europe He cites Robert Kagan Robert Kaplan and Samuel P Huntington though he ought to also have included Jean François Revel Shawcross noted Europe's impotence and its failure to take any concrete action in the Balkans much less further afield in Rwanda or elsewhere This left effective action solely in the hands of America which was the only power that proved again and again able and willing to intervene and end misery or evil in the world pp 78 79 As his review of the 1990s concludedBy the end of the decade some 200000 people had died in the Balkans on Europe's watch It was America that put a stop to it In 2001 it was only America that could liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban regime The results in Bosnia Kosovo and Afghanistan are far from perfect But all those countries are better off than they were and only America could have initiated those changes American participation is essential to the world p 85Shawcross rightly identifies the threat posed to civilization by extremist Islam and he even uotes Ayatollah Khomeini to prove his point p 224 This begins to highlight what was really flawed not only with Shawcross' argument in the abstract but the execution of the Ira war and reconstruction in the reality The significant threat to US and Western interests generally came not from Ira but from neighboring Iran Shawcross spent much of his book pointing out both the proliferation danger of Ira and the flouting of UN resolutions not to mention the potential for use of WMDs by terror organizations But Iran had a demonstrated history of ties to violent terrorists murdering thousands abroad including hundreds of Americans and calling forfomenting Islamic revolution in other Muslim majority states As Shawcross notes himself experts like David Kay found that Ira posed no immediate threat p 189 and 192 The only argument Shawcross uses against any other interventions aside from Ira is a brief uote from Tony Blair They ask me why we don't get rid of Mugabe why not the Burmese lot Yes let's get rid of them all I don't because I can't but when you can you should p 150 Shawcross takes it as self evident that Ira was the main country to focus on; while one can see Ira taking priority over Burma the same does not hold true for Iran Iran's military was far intact in 2003 than Ira's along with its nuclear and other WMD programs Much of the resistance in Ira and Afghanistan found sanctuary intelligence arms and training in Ira including Sunni groups completely hostile to the Shia rulers of Iran Shawcross points out that Ansar al Islam was the main initial resistance to the American occupation and it found refuge in Iran when cornered by American forces 195 The EFPs designed and supplied by Iran that murdered hundreds of American soldiers were yet to come when Shawcross published this Yet Iran's strong ties to terror and enormous investment in its nuclear and rocket programs were not Had a hostile Iran been out of the picture both Ira and Afghanistan would have gone far smoothly and the world would not be today calculating how many months were left before Iran possessed real nuclear weapons Shawcross also briefly notes how the war in Ira weakened and pulled away from the hunt for Usama bin Ladin and al a'ida not to mention reconstruction in Afghanistan without much apology Given that Saddam was or less contained although at great cost and with US pilots being shot at almost daily the world community had an opportunity to carefully review priorities and play things out a bit intelligently Sadly these points are largely omitted from Shawcross' work I cannot dispute Shawcross' case that Saddam had to go and UN authority had sooner or later to be enforced or risk undermining the UN completely But that did not make Saddam the world's number one priority; it is too bad that Shawcross' work is so narrow that such considerations are not debatedThe work is reasonably short easy to read and while there are not foot or end notes per se Shawcross does list his sources for each chapter It gives a good overall argument for the war in Ira though it honestly reviews the many mistakes of the reconstruction from my own experience in Ira Shawcross needed to focus on de Baathification and how that alone doomed any hope of success I especially recommend it to anyone opposed to this point of view but willing to read it with an open mind; at least it might reduce the frenzy and fervor of some opponents even if it doesn't foreclose all objections My m

Epub Allies Author William Shawcross

Book à Allies Author William Shawcross Å 329 pages Download µ William shawcross Ñ [Reading] ➶ Allies Author William Shawcross – Allies is an analysis of the risks taken in Ira the reasons for them and the ways in which the challenge posed bOsed by Ira was unlike anything faced by the post war Western consensus Perhaps for that reason the decisi Le principal intérêt du livre de William Shawcross n’est pas son contenu mais son auteur Allies se présente comme un plaidoyer sans nuance en faveur de la politiue anglo saxonne en Ira C’est un mauvais travail de journalisme forgé à partir d’une documentation de seconde main et non exempt d’erreurs matérielles Si l’auteur critiue les carences américaines à reconstruire l’Ira il écrivait au lendemain de l’attentat ui a coûté la vie à Sergio Vieira de Mello son ami et alors ue les actes de résistance à l’occupation américaine se multipliaient dans le pays c’est la seule ombre à une présentation idylliue du combat u’auraient mené George W Bush et Tony Blair contre le terrorisme et pour les droits de l’homme u’aucun lien crédible n’ait jamais pu être identifié entre Saddam Hussein et Al aïda ne gêne en rien William Shawcross alors même ue les Etats Unis ont toujours présenté le renversement du dictateur irakien comme une étape nécessaire de la guerre contre le terrorisme u’aucune arme de destruction massive n’ait été retrouvée sur le sol irakien embarrasse plus l’auteur ressortissant d’un pays ui entendait justifier son intervention par la violation répétée par l’Ira des régimes de non prolifération Mais il s’en tire par une pirouette tirant des rapports des experts la conclusion sinon de l’immédiate accession de l’Ira au statut de puissance nucléaire du moins de son inéluctabilité Cet argument une fois exposé peut tout justifier dès lors ue Saddam Hussein a par le passé démontré son mépris des lois internationales sa mégalomanie et sa cruauté il est inéluctable u’il cherche à se doter des moyens d’une puissance absolue et l’utilise contre sa propre population et contre ses ennemis proches ou lointains Dès lors la communauté internationale est en situation de légitime défense pour mener contre lui une « guerre préventive » CFD La seule ombre au tableau est le manue de solidarité des soi disant « alliés » William Shawcross n’a pas de mots assez durs pour Gerhard Schröder et la coupable faiblesse avec lauelle il a utilisé l’anti américanisme de ses concitoyens comme argument de campagne électorale à l’automne 2002 Mais il réserve ses critiues les plus acerbes pour la France de Jacues Chirac et Dominiue de Villepin « Super Liar » est présenté comme « le plus proche ami de Saddam Hussein à l’étranger » p 91 leuel aurait financé son élection à la mairie de Paris en 1977 Tout y passe depuis la participation de la France au programme nucléaire irakien aux arrières pensées commerciales ui auraient justifié la réticence française à sanctionner trop durement le régime baathiste après la première guerre du Golfe en passant par la visite de Jacues Chirac à Bagdad en 1974 W Shawcross franchit les limites de la décence et de l’honnêteté intellectuelle en faisant porter au président français la responsabilité des morts américains et britanniues en Ira p 149 La critiue est d’autant plus excessive u’elle vient d’un journaliste britanniue plus connu pour son combat en faveur des droits de l’homme ue pour son américanolâtrie béate En 1979 dans Sideshow il avait dressé un réuisitoire sans concession de la politiue américaine au Cambodge En 2000 avec Deliver us from Evil il critiuait la passivité des puissances internationales face aux nettoyages ethniues dans les Balkans ou en Afriue Comment ce gauchiste droits de l’hommiste s’est il mué en défenseur des Néoconservateurs Il serait injuste de reprocher à William Shawcross d’avoir renié ses principes Comme Bernard Kouchner ou Bernard Henri Lévy William Shawcross est aujourd’hui comme hier une « belle âme » sincèrement révoltée par les exactions commises par un dictateur Non sans pertinence il dénonce le paradoxe à voir la gauche humaniste réclamer à corps et à cri une « guerre juste » à Sarajevo au début des années 90 puis protester contre l’invasion de l’Ira Pour lui l’opération américaine a avant tout permis de renverser un régime odieux Et cela suffit à ses yeux à la justifier nonobstant ses défauts ultérieurs Au delà de la première impression la position de William Shawcross a donc le mérite de la cohérence Est elle pour autant justifiée Elle le serait si l’intervention américaine en Ira avait été réellement motivée par un engagement sincère en faveur des droits de l’homme Mais la vérité oblige à dire u’à supposer ue la défense des droits de l’homme ait compté au nombre des motivations de la Maison Blanche ce ne fut et de loin pas sa principale la lutte contre le terrorisme et contre la prolifération des armes de destruction massive l’accès aux ressources pétrolières du Golfe la stabilité régionale ont plus pesé dans la balance Certes la guerre en Ira a eu pour effet « collatéral » de débarrasser le monde d’un tyran sanguinaire Mais cet hommage du vice à la vertu ne doit pas cacher les ressorts peu altruistes du nouvel interventionnisme américain Si les Etats Unis sont intervenus en Ira ce n’est pas pour en déloger un dictateur dont ils s’étaient bon an mal an accommodés depuis plus de vingt ans mais pour se prémunir égoïstement d’une attaue terroriste réelle ou fantasmée

William Shawcross Ø Allies Author William Shawcross Ebook

On to go to war in Ira threatened and to some extent still threatens to smash that consensus to smithereen A scathing indictment of FrenchGermanEU policy going into the Ira War which lauds the heroics of President Bush and Tony Blair This book was written just following Bush's now infamous Mission Accomplished speech so obviously we look at with some hindsight and skepticism In addition the book is short on information and chopped full of opinion That said the author is one of the foremost journalists on foreign affairs and most famous for his early writings which were not friendly toward conservative or for that matter any US foreign policy Taking this into account it's a bit eye opening to see such unabashed support for Bush and somewhat refreshing to read about yes his early accomplishments The most interesting passages are where the author provides veteran insight into the international relations framework that existed following September 11th