Allies: The U.S., Britain, and Europe, and the War in Iraq [Anglais] [Relié]

I bought the book in order to read 'the other view' because I was very much opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It's not often that 'the other view' can change my mind on an issue of which I am very certain but this book managed to make me rethink quite a few of my objections to the war in Iraq. I particularly enjoyed the author's dissection of the motives and machinations of France and Germany, especially in light of their having been the beneficiaries of the Marshall Plan - and its resultant prosperity.

They came across as very selfish, self-serving ingrates - a point of view I hadn't considered before reading the book. As well, the clearly anti-American stance of both countries and their obstructionist politics are revealed in all their damaging and self-serving glory, along with the author's analysis why, no matter the reasons, it is fatal to the world community future.

The book is easily readable and short but contains a balanced perspective on the mistakes the US has made along the way coupled with the long history of Iraq's brutal dictatorship. The book makes the case that, in spite of the lack of found WMD, the war in Iraq was not only necessary but humane. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with the author's view - though I am neither a Republican nor any fan of the Bush administration.

I gave the book 5 stars because of its readability, balanced view and the author's list of consulted resources and in spite of the many typos the book contains. Was the editor sleeping on the job or was this a 'rush to print'?

At any rate, I highly recommend this book for two reasons:
1. Read by the people who already agree with the invasion of Iraq, it will give them cogent material to support their view and,
2. Read by the people who disagree with the invasion of Iraq, it'll give a more balanced perspective and just might change a mind or two.

Finally, the book makes clear a fundamental truth that no matter what the reasons for the invasion, it is clearly the moral and ethical responsibility for the world community to support successful reconstruction of Iraq and ensure a free future for all of its citizens.

William Shawcross is a man of the left who made his reputation with the book Sideshow, which was about Kissinger, Nixon and their campaign in Cambodia. Unlike many on the left, in this slim, provocative volume he supports the Anglo-american alliance in Iraq and the Bush-Blair campaign to oust Saddam Hussein and attempt build a more liberal Arab society in Iraq. Shawcross was appalled by the death of his friend Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN diplomat who was killed by the truck bombing of the UN compound in Iraq. He sees Islamic terrorists as the forces of darkness who are opposed to the civil society and feels that leftists who express sympathy with them are terribly misguided. Shawcross is very critical of French policy, which he feels has not been driven by idealism but by cynicsm, craven self-interest and myopic anti-Americanism.

First of all, the cover of this book as well as its title are both misleading. This book isn't just about relations between Tony Blair and George Bush per se. It is broader than that, encompassing relations amongst the big 4 allies, actually: Germany, France, Britain & the USA---pretty much ignoring Italy, Turkey, and other NATO allies. A more accurate title of this book would have been entitled something like: "The Collapse of Consensus: Euro-American Relations & the War in Iraq." There's nothing new in this book, however, but it does provide a rather concise summary of how heretofore Allied consensus ran aground over the shoals of whether to employ force against Saddam Hussein or not. Most involved were of the opinion, after all, that Saddam was a brutal dictator and that he was bucking the authority of the United Nations. Some just refused to countenance the use of force to do anything about it. A little history: UN Resolution #678 was adopted in 1990 authorizing all member states "to use all necessary means" to enforce the removal of Saddam's army from Kuwait "and to restore international peace and security in the area." Once such was accomplished, Saddam formally accepted ceasefire terms---codified under UN Resolution #687 in 1991---that he unconditionally give up all his chemical & biological weapons capability/stocks/development. Quoting Mr. Shawcross: "In March 2003, not one of the fifteen members [of the UN Security Council] doubted that Iraq was still in breach of all the relevant, binding Council resolutions since 678." (Incidentially, the word "binding" herein refers to the fact that Security Council resolutions are enforceable, unlike General Assembly resolutions---against Israel, for instance---which are purely political & NOT binding. So the double standard some see herein is but a canard.) Back to the above, it is not just the author's opinion that everyone was in agreement. You have only to consult the unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 (November 9, 2002) which threatened "serious consequences" for Iraq if it did not utilize this one last chance. France & Germany both voted for this resolution & 4 months later both continued to caution against calling "time's up" for Iraq to fully comply. French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin argued that "Everyone is faced with the choice of disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully or by force." To which, said Jack Straw, his British counterpart: "Dominique, that's a false choice. The choice, Dominique, is not ours as to how this disarmament takes place. The choice is Saddam Hussein's." A little more time, and a little more time, and a little more time, of course, accounted for the fact that Saddam had strung out the UN over this for over a decade up to this point. Listen to this view: "If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." So said Bill Clinton in 1998. Unfortunately it took September 11th to bring this issue to a head---and not because Saddam hard a hand therein, but because such made it then too dangerous a gamble anymore to let Saddam's unrenounced desire to use and/or develope---or transfer---chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons. September 11, you could consequently say, allowed the neoconservative view of pre-emption to gain traction; being expressed by the likes of Tony Blair, Jack Straw, & George Bush, as well by leaders in Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Australia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Holland, et al. Others, of course, preferrred the status quo, believing that September 10th thinking was still supportable in a post 9/11 world. Thanks for reading my review. Cheers!