Win a holiday

Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

June 15, 2007

Why we must break with the American crazies

Anatole Kaletsky

When Gordon Brown returned from his fact-finding tour of Iraq on Monday, he proclaimed the importance of learning from our mistakes but also of looking forward instead of backward. Did this admission hint at a shift in Britain’s foreign policy when Mr Brown takes over in ten days’ time? To judge by the announcement he made in the next sentence – a restructuring of the British security apparatus to guard against future intelligence failures such as the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction – the answer is “no”. Mr Brown’s foreign policy will remain as backward-looking and self-deluding as Tony Blair’s.

I say this with growing despair, because I too have returned from a fact-finding tour, to America. Viewed from across the Atlantic it is clear that the parochial British obsession with WMD and “sexed-up dossiers” bears no relationship to the catastrophes now unfolding in the Middle East and beyond – not only in Iraq, but also in Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and soon maybe Syria, Iran and Pakistan. What people are talking about in America is not whether the invasion of Iraq was legally or morally justified but why it went so disastrously wrong and whether the same blundering fanatics will launch another catastrophic military adventure, most likely a bombing campaign against Iran, to distract attention from failure in Iraq. After all, the neoconservative ideologues who still run the Bush Administration have nothing left to lose politically – and in their fevered imaginations they still think they could inflict military defeat on the “Islamofascists” in what they now see as an even greater historical confrontation than the Cold War.

While Mr Brown and the British media are still fretting about who said what to whom about WMD intelligence, the talk in American policy circles is about an article, The Case for Bombing Iran, published two weeks ago in Commentary and The Wall Street Journal and cited approvingly to anyone who cares to listen by officials close to Dick Cheney. Its author, Norman Podhoretz, is an intellectual mentor to the people who took America into Iraq. His self-explanatory message is that Iran today is more dangerous than Hitler’s Germany, since it could soon have nuclear weapons – and that Israel’s very existence is menaced now as never before.

It is significant that Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, travelled to Washington at about the same time as the article was published to plead with congressmen “not to tie President Bush’s hands over Iran”. Also that John McCain, the only unequivocally pro-war presidential candidate, endorsed Podhoretz’s argument, stating that “the only thing more dangerous than attacking Iran is allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons” – and that Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN nuclear inspectorate, came out with a strikingly undiplomatic public statement, giving warning that “crazies in Washington” now seemed to be planning to repeat the Iraq disaster by attacking Iran.

To their credit, well-informed Americans, some even inside the Bush Administration, are now looking forward instead of backward, debating not what happened five years ago, but how to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and, even more urgently, how to prevent “the crazies” from starting another war. Instead of obsessively returning to now-irrelevant WMD and intelligence issues, Americans understand that the greatest scandal of the Iraq war was not its alleged justification but its conduct and the lack of preparation for the chaos that the invasion unleashed.

Compare the intelligence failures from which Mr Brown wants to draw his lessons with the facts – confirmed in numerous published memoirs – about this war’s irresponsible and incompetent conduct that are now common knowledge in America. For instance, General Anthony Zinni, the chief of US central command, war-gamed Iraq for more than a year before the invasion and every scenario he devised ended in a disaster, requiring many hundreds of thousands of US troops to bring it under control and remain in occupation for many years. Yet none of these scenarios was even considered by President Bush when he made the decision to invade.

Vice-President Cheney viewed the Iraq as a perfect opportunity to prove the “Rumsfeld doctrine” of low-manpower, shock-and-awe aerial warfare, without any need for the US to win allies or for the military to engage in “state-building” tasks.

There is now strong evidence that President Bush didn’t even know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims when he decided to attack Iraq – and that dissenting opinions were simply blocked by Mr Cheney before they could reach the President’s desk.

The State Department had prepared to send hundreds of diplomats and private sector construction experts with Arab-language skills and Middle East experience to help to rebuild Iraq. But less than a month before the war started, all these people were “stood down” on orders from Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, as their Middle East experience would bias them towards an “Islamist” and defeatist worldview. The peremptory disbandment of the Iraqi Army and the Baath party, now regarded as the worst mistake of the immediate postwar period, was decided at the “highest level” in Washington and was then imposed against the advice of the US military governor Jay Garner, who quickly understood the anarchy that this would unleash.

The list of misjudgments and mistakes could go on and on, but my point should by now be obvious. The question Mr Brown must now ask himself is whether he can still allow himself to remain publicly allied to a US Administration that is so recklessly belligerent in its diplomatic conduct, so demonstrably incompetent in warfare and so irresponsibly dangerous to the peace of the world.

As the anarchy in Iraq goes from bad to worse and Washington’s only answer is to expand the circle of its aggression, clichés about the special relationship are no longer sufficient. Mr Brown must decide whether to remain a silent but active partner in this madness, whether to retreat quietly like the Italians, Poles and Spaniards or to develop a third and genuinely courageous option. This is to positively forestall further disasters by breaking publicly with the Bush Administration and trying to develop a genuine European alternative to the suicidal American-led policies, not only in Iraq, but also in Israel, Palestine and Iran.

"In normal society it is normally the "old and wise" who do the leading whilst the "youngsters" do the work. Why is it then in the World politics situation the less experienced nations get to do the leading?"

The idea that a nation-state which has existed for about a century and a half and democratic for less than half that time is 'old and wise' while one that has been in existence for over two centuries and had over two centuries under the same democratic constitution is a 'youngster' is one of those ridiculous claims that somehow has never been laughed at enough to have gone extinct.

Here's the deal. When France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the rest of you show enough wisdom and maturity to operate under the same democratic constitution for, oh, let's say a century and a half, y'all can join the U.S., U.K., and Switzerland at the adults' table. In the meantime, play nice and and keep your voices down while the grownups talk.

Steven, El Paso, USA

Why don't we "crazies" just leave the rest of you to the gathering storm...who would you call first if a problem arises? Hmmm???

Lou Newberry, Atlanta,

Well stated as many of us in the USA have realized for the past 6 bloody years that a fascist regime has taken over our beloved land and brainwashed a good deal of the lumpen unedcutcted to seig heil and to obey in fear. Time for England of all nations to stand up and take the lead from a now captured United States. Hopefully, come the next round of elections these warmongering fools will be dismissed as an embarrassing aberation and slink back into the swamps from which they came. I'll never throw a stone at the German nation for the maddness which inflicted them , the disease of warrior worship and the rule by a corporate clique has also infected the United States. We are fighting here for our democracy and freedom and the assistance of an "awakened" England would be most helpful. Thanks mates..we are in the trenches here and it is a nasty fight.

Robert Berkeley, Boston, USA/Mass.

Uh, yes. We have learned something from it. Don't colonize countries and expect them to love you afterward. Don't create borders for them. They hate the West for it. As the French in Indochina, and the English in Palestine, the Soviet Union in Yugoslavia, the many European powers did in Africa, the world makes a mess and leaves it to America to clean it up. We are sick and tired of it. With the exception of Poland and the Czechs, you folks can take care of yourselves. You can clean up your own mess. America was a colony, we never had a colony, never will have one. We promote democracy, which is a disaster sometimes, especially in places like Iraq and Palestine. That is unfortunate, but it is the choice of the people. If they choose a fanatical theocracy, well, that is unfortunate. If they choose fratricide, we can at least say we did our best. That is better than raping the culture, the land of it's resources, and leaving it to rot, the European way.

Katheryn, North Tustin, CA, USA

It never ceaes to amaze me that amongst the comments so many here do not understand the difference between Iran and the Arab nations. Iran is an Indo-European race that happens to be in majority shi'ite Muslims. The Arabs, 250,000,000 million of them are all semites and their closest racial relatives are the jews. Folks, get it straight for once the Arabs have no love for the Iranis, only Syria is in bed with them along with a few terrorist groups that Syria and Iran use as proxies to attack American interests. Even Syria, while a secular dictatorship is govened by a tiny sect, the Alawites based on shi'ites but considered heretical by virtually all other Muslims. If generally the West could get its facts straight, and this is mostly the USA we might have a means of discusson with some Arabs - about 20% of whom are Christians, though the west largely seems to ignore this. For centuries European powers influenced by the concept of divide and rule, when is America EVER going to learn.

John Twiss, London, UK

Anatole,

You have hit the nail on the head with this article. The absolute hubris and incompetence of these neocons with regard to Iraq has been astounding . Its ironic that we went to war to find and neutralize WMD in Iraq but instead now face a WMD threat from their neigbor Iran who is the real threat to American policy in the mideast.

rick, Gloucester Twp, USA

Thanks Katheryn for the history lesson. Have we learned anything from it? Every day we are reminded that we did not. There's no doubt that the present disaster was provoked by an insatiable greed for oil and manipulated by those whose power feeds off it.

Conrad Auten, Canterbury,

George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign adventures."

Robert, Toronto, Canada

Just as many of you EU people suspected here- yes many, perhaps most, Americans do support our "crazies" as you call them. That's how Bush was elected, twice. So when the Euros guess that the personally nice Americans are being led against their will by a small evil group at the top, you are mistaken.

We support a strategic view of the world and support taking action now against the real "crazies" in the Middle East before it's too late. We as a country supported Bush more than we didn't support him taking strategic action in Iraq so we didn't have to deal with Russia and France down the line giving Saddam nukes and then blackmailing the world with them.

So, no, it's not just Bush going against all Americans. We support Bush in his efforts against Islamofacism, even if we criticize him. We take responsibility for our government and it represents us. So when you attack the "crazies" here, you are not just attacking the group at the top, but you are attacking most Americans.

Claudia , Atlanta, USA

Seriously, you people in England are crazy. Do you think the world has forgotten that YOU are the ones responsible for the nation of Israel? Now you want to walk away and leave the responsiblity to us in the U.S.? The British Mandate was yours! Bear the responsibility of your own actions. In the U.S., we took responsibility for the Pacific after the World Wars. We still do. We still look after the Philippines, Japan, South Korea. Don't blame us that you do not know how to make a map. These areas were yours to administer. Step up to the plate and clean up the garbage you created, Brits!

Katheryn, North Tustin, CA, USA

I am concerned about world terrorism-- unlike most libertarians who seem to be in a state of denial via wishful-thinking, saying that 9/11 was the fault of the US, claiming that it was only in retaliation for our policies "invading and starving their people--" and that otherwise we would "get along fine." This is such idiotic nonsense that it barely needs response, except that it's the basis of most criticism; the fact is that if someone believes that terrorism against civilians, and holy war, then that's what they're going to do whenever things don't go their way.
While Iraq probably wasn't behind 9/11, the fact is that stopping terrorism requires an active position against it, not bending kneee to the terrorists. Of COURSE terrorism increases when you take the fight to them-- libertarians act surprised at this.
As for going into Iraq in the first place, this was quite obviously the result of Hussein's refusal to obey the 1441 Accords following the LEGAL war against Iraq in 1991.

Brian Anderson, Detroit, MI, USA

Bob from Gloucester...You stated that "The war on terror should be one primarily of intelligence and farsighted foreign policy..."

Do you have any specific ideas along these lines? For example, what farsighted foreign policy would be appropriate regarding Iran, a state whose leaders openly reject U.N. demands and continue to go nuclear while evangelizing the annihilation of Israel?

If Saudi television teaches young children that Jews are inhuman and kill babies and drink their blood, will "intelligence" be enough to counteract their hatred in the years to come?

And perhaps H. Gutfreund from Upton would like to elaborate on the "greater sophistication" of EU foreign policy in the context of its failed negotiations with Iran for years now, or the Kosovo debacle.

When people want to kill you for their God, sophistication isn't very helpful.

I don't mean any disrespect. I'm enjoying this dialogue and look forward to reading your thoughts on these matters.

Bob Christopher, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Just to Let Chip Six Pack in Texas and David Fowler in Memphis know, solutions to problems can only ever be dealt with by talking. Northern Ireland & South Africa have shown this. I would feel so much happier and safer without the supposed protection of the USA. American interest begin and end in America. They want to defend America by using bases in Poland and the Czech Repiublic.

America, like all bullies, know who to pick on and who not to pick on. Nearly all the September 11th Hijackers were Saudi Arabian but they invade Iraq. Where is the logic to that?

Panama and Grenada are their successes at world domination. In Iraq they are getting a severe beating and in Vietnam they got nowhere. They have had an economic blockade against Cuba for decades and it's got them absolutely nowhere. America has to face facts, their days as a 'Superpower' are over. Even Hamas have beaten their stooges Fatah.

America has nothing to offer the world unless it can practice what it preaches.

A Thomas, Durham,

Kim Righetti "Why were Britain and the US able to take down The Axis Powers in 4 years during WWII but can't take down two countries smaller than the size Texas in 5? This war is insane."

We took down Iraq in about a week. What's the other country you're referring to? Do you mean Afghanistan, the same country that stymied the USSR for 10 years? That took us 1 year to root out and marginalize the Taliban.

Yes, the Taliban, the fascists who executed women in soccer stadiums and blew up priceless monuments since they were an affront to their version of Islam.

This war is insane, and it is very difficult. Technology is cutting both ways, it gives the guarantor of freedom, the USA, great tools for its missions. It also puts greater firepower in the hands of militias, and enables Iran to fight the US and support Al Quaeda in Iraq, without directly confronting our vastly superior military.

It is a grim, terrible war and I hope the good guys win.

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

What an excellent article. I hope that Gordon Brown read it. The most damaging thing any British or European govornment can do at the moment is to side with the US.
They have endlessly shown their incapability in dealing in international affairs. For example, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa to name a few. In normal society it is normally the "old and wise" who do the leading whilst the "youngsters" do the work. Why is it then in the World politics situation the less experienced nations get to do the leading? Politically the US is more or less the adolescent . All the enthusiasm and simplicity of youth but lacking the sensibility and prudence learnt with age.
The war on terror should be called the war of fear. The only thing we have to fear is the Fearmongers (US) and their insidiose attempts to scare the rest of the world in doing what they want.
Oh and by the way I have visited the US on several occaisions. You have a great country just do not ruin it with bad governance.

Kent, Turin, Italy

Mr. Kaletsky writes: "What people are talking about in America is not whether the invasion of Iraq was legally or morally justified but why it went so disastrously wrong and whether the same blundering fanatics will launch another catastrophic military adventure, most likely a bombing campaign against Iran, to distract attention from failure in Iraq. In reality, very few Americans are actually engaged in such conversations, and almost no one in America has ever heard of Mr. Podhoretz. Outside the DC Beltway and empty frenzy of the media, there is surprisingly little serious discussion about the true "state of the Nation" or its role in the world. Why? The vast majority of Americans are simply overwhelmed by the range of issues and special interests that compete for their attention, and feel powerless to make a difference. While it's important to confront the "crazies," but it's even more crucial to awaken and empower the rational, pragmatic center of American society once again.

Keith Everett, Seattle, USA / Washington

Kaletsky is right on occupation failure but wrong on the rest. Blair's foreign policy is anything but 'backward-looking and self deluding'. He brought peace to NI, stopped ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, helped Sierra Leone fight of Liberia, extirpated Taliban facism in Afghanistan and removed the single worst tyrant in the last 50 years. Where are these so-called 'crazed' Neoconservatives? Wolfowitz is long gone. As is Richard Perle - a low level nobody. Rumsfeld wasn't a Neocon, or Cheney, Rice, Gates or Bush. The only people who have 'fevered imaginations' here are conspiracy theory crackpots.

N Murdoch, Coatbridge, Scotland

Ad hominem attacks on American neo-con "crazies" does not
constitute a reasoned argument for or against a policy. Neither
does setting up a straw man (the crazies are going to bomb Iran).
Selectively quoting el Baradei doesn't help either. Where are the facts
and conclusions in this article about Iranian capabilities and intentions?
If it would be better to appease Iran, what would be results? How would
that advance UK interests? Inquiring minds want to know.

Richard Pious, South ,

Great article. Makes me proud to have marched against the War.

Following the invasion of Iraq, Hamas have taken control of the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah have proven themselves to be the strongest military force in the Lebanon, the Taliban have been resurgent in Afghanistan, Al Queda Sunni extremists dominate parts of Iraq, Shia fundamentalists are in the corridors of power in Iraq, fundamnentalists are edging towards power in Turkey and Egypt...

These Americans are crazy - they are not rational in any sense of the word, their philosophy is anti-enlightenment, utterly faith-based. Their knowledge of the Middle-East is based mostly on hearsay and biblical prophesy - and let's face it, there's not difference twixt the two.

What a sad state of affairs for the supposedly 'enlightened' West. Currently, Iran's leaders seem to have more clear, rational thinking on these issues than any of the leaders of the occident. How sad.

Alfonso Parelli, London, UK

Kaletsky is right. The chance of an Iranian first strike against UK or N.Europe is zero. UK interests will not be harmed if Tel Aviv is hit, nor if Iran succeeds in excercising its ancestral claims over the gulf. Whilst a forward position is desirable, the cost is too high in blood and treasure, and our nuclear cruise missile capability is a pefectly adequate deterrent or punishment weapon for our purposes. If the Iranians (or any body else in the region) get a long range capability, that will threaten Moscow, and the Russians will do the work for us. As for Afghanistan, who cares if they kill each other, as they have been for centuries. Time to come home and stay in fortress Europe.

Tiresias, London,

It's not fitting for the UK government to the represent the interests of US and Israeli business - whether commercial, political or military - over the security and moral objection of its own citizenry as well as those of the rest of Europe.

Mark, Cannes, France

There were WMD found in Iraq by Polish troops after the invasion. Of course this is rarely reported as it does not fit the media agenda. Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. We HAD to assume they were still there.

Ben, York,

Thank you Anatole for this article. Joan in Longmont is right. The only way to contain a psycopath is to not give them what they want. No troops, no bases, no support for the "suicidal policy" that so many on both sides of the Atlantic clearly see.

Which brings up the question of "qui bono" over adhering to such a suididal policy: "It is significant that Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, travelled to Washington at about the same time as the article was published to plead with congressmen “not to tie President Bush’s hands over Iran”.

AIPAC has a stranglehold over Congress and has appeared successful in pressuring US policy into actions that not only benefit Israeli interests, but get the US (and the few the US could bully) into doing the heavy lifting for them.

BTW, is Canada so moral in staying out of Iraq? We (like idiots) agreed to move into Afghanistan, after the US first made a wreck of that country "looking for Osama" so they could start wrecking Iraq.

Sariade, Calgary, AB

TERRY radstock ,if you think that's funny check out the
Americans comments on u tube ,Iam totally addicted
GREAT FUN ,AND THERES 300 MILLION OF THEM
which really gets you thinking .

george william taylor, hull, uk

If you knew what you were talking about, perhaps someone with a third grade education just might and remotely consider you seriously.

Nice try at Blame America and Hate America first. We have your number.

Snooper, Plano, TX

Although I don't agree with the notion that looking at the mistakes that led to war is useless - largely because we want to make sure that it doesn't happen again - I am pleasantly surprised to find an article that states the obvious as bluntly as it needs to be stated.

To address some of the comments posted, using arguments with which the average American neocon ought to be familiar, I personally think we should be extremely strong in preventing religious fundamentalists who have a desire to attack sovereign countries without provocation from ever getting nuclear weapons. Now that would be a disaster.

Let's make sure we don't let any more unprovoked invasions take place if at all possible, please Gordon. A full-blown inquiry into the causes of the last war would be a nice starting point to show we mean business... Let's learn from history and not repeat it.

Steve, London, UK

I think the biggest problem with the mess in Iraq is people are trying to pinpoint the "Good Guy" in the midst of it.

Sad fact is, folks.....

There ain't one.

Darren Willett, Evansville, IN,

Michael Philadelphia*

Last time I Checked:
The USA has Guantanamo Bay {Fellow Humans are Detained indefinately without Charge}
The USA employes Extraordinary Rendition { Humans Kidnapped and Sent to countries that Allow Torture } { Ill let you decide what happens to these people}
The USA Supported Saddam in his War against Iran and supplied him with Weapons including the Chemical Weapons he later used against the Kurds.

Finally

There is only one Country on record that has used a WMD on another Soverign State
Ill let you guess which country.

I understand ignorance is bliss for you guys, but your bliss is utter destuction for others

Anthony, london, UK

It's well known that there is a battle between Rice and Cheney over whether to atttack Iran. Rice currently favors the EU approach of negotiation and she has the upper hand. But that may change given that Bush has said he won't tolerate a nuclear Iran and Rice's policy hasn't delivered. The U.S. has had a problem with Iran since the 1979 hostage crises. It regards Israel as an ally that must be protected at all costs. Iran also seems to be arming the opposition in various war zones and is now a nuisance in the Gulf. But somebody needs to explain the likely consequences yje day after an attack. Brown is probably hoping that the issue will go away, but unfortunately the UK may have to decide where it stands. Jack Straw clearly thought a military strike was a bad idea when he was foreign secretary. It will be intersting to see if Brown re-appoints Straw when he becomes PM.

brian case, burlington, VA

Nice to see the"Times" publishing this article by Mr Anatole Kaletsky. It still isn't too late for the good quasi -"neo-con" folk out there to reject the doctrine of stupidity that the Washington Christian -Taliban embrace as foreign policy. It is about time that politicians on both sides of Congress reject the influence of the powerful Israeli lobby groups. The greatest threat to world peace today is this nexus of the willing between Washington and Israel. To solve the problems of the middle east there needs to be a dramatic change in the political will of Americans, a rejection of pro-Israel policymaking and an acknowledgement that the US and Great Britain were instrumental in the theft of Palestinian land just after WW2. Maybe nothing will happen until the US economy unravels and Americans discover they hold little respect or influence in the world unless they are prepared to work with others to fix up the wrongs. I don't think there is much on offer in the US these for Gordon Brown

PJP, Brisbane, Australia

America pretends to be a democracy and claims that it is trying to spread democracy to Iraq and other countries, yet it is run by a president who represents a different political party than both its houses of parliament and who cannot be removed despite massive unpopularity. The administration told brazen lies about weapons of mass destruction to justify its war. Not one of the 9/11 terrorists was from Iraq or even Iran. The terrorist pilots were trained by Americans. If the purpose of invading Iraq was to stop Saddam, why did America leave him in power in the previous Gulf war when he invaded Kuwait?

Sam Catt, Queensland, Australia

Is this not Mr. Bush’s baby. Poor Mr. Blair is left out of the places he would have loved to go.
BBC announced to 22nd May 2007. Mr. Bush wants an American Bank Manager. And he is not.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president under a plan actively touts Blair as new EU president.
But the British prime minister remains unpopular with governments in countries such as Italy and Spain, which opposed the Iraq war. Mr. Blair’s failure to take Britain into the euro will also count against him.
“Why not? He is qualified for it. We want a politically strong Europe. We want a president who is credible.”
Sir I am but a feeble man from the sub Sahara country who knows that the Iraq war has cost me a lot and I am totally broke because of this war. What's more I just saw the SKY news the advent of the new TECH of the RAF that was 25 years and the RAF now.
The cost of the planes is smaller but it is deadly.
Between the two sandwiched issues when I want peace, I see the hi tech sophisticated war panes cheaper, and the Iraqis and soldiers who may receive the gold medal posthumously, I have little to comment.
In fact to be very honest I feel sorry that Mr. Sarkozy had this idea in the head at all.
Is he trying to go the Napoleon Age?
Downing Street does not want this.

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

Well, as usual, the responses here suggest a complete lack of understanding regarding the ethos of this article and of the feelings behind it.

I'm not sure that there are too many people from that insular country who can really comprehend the complexities of international politics and i'm not about to try and start to explain it to them in this arena.

Regarding any further rantings from the "Insane American Cowboys" :-)

-I shall refer you to this article again.

Harry Coombes-Jones, London, England

Terry from England: "I was curious as to why so many american based contributors bother to read the Times so I logged on to the New York Times and now I know. "

I love it! The Times article is linked on realclearpolitics.com, that's how I found it.

I normally don't read the Times but when I do I am infuriated by Anatole. He's definitely got my buttons.

It is refreshing to see contributors from New York that aren't lockstep, pacifist liberals.

It is also good to hear from the Royal Marine based here in California.

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

Brian Lewis, Phillipines "Perhaps I never did understand democracy as it is practiced in 2007 in both London and Washington. It seems to me inevitable that in a world of nearly 7 billion people that if decisions are being made on the personal say-so of a few confident but ignorant elected individuals, we are in for trouble. "

To quote Winston Churchill (if not precisely) "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones we've tried"

Do you miss Imelda Marcos and her shoe collection?

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

The problem many Americans face is that they've never ventured out of their local town let alone state or country to see the world as it really is. Add to this their complete lack of understanding history including their own and its no wonder you get the neo-cons committing mistakes on top of mistakes and doing nothing for world peace. Over two hundred years ago they employed insurgency to good effect to drive us Brits out of America and then fail to comprehend why Iraq is a now hot bed of bombings and assassinations. After WWII various administrations pressured bankrupt countries like Britain and France to give up their colonial activities like Suez only for the US administrations to start their own surreptitious changes in other countries governments in places like Cuba, Vietnam or El Salvador. Its always been a do as I say and not as I do but Blair was hooked into Bush's neo-cons by trying to emulate Thatcher over the Falklands. Maybe Gordon Brown will have more sense, maybe.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

Dear Mr. Kaletsky,

Thanks for your article. But I am unable to make a comment on this. I think perhaps you could help me to understand your points by telling me:

1) MORE ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY YOU HAVE FOUND during your trip to the US, besides that published article? Whom you have met in the US and what did they tell you?

2) For the paragragh, 'The State Department had prepared to send hundreds of diplomats and private sector construction experts.....towards an “Islamist” and defeatist worldview.', is it possible to tell us the source of this piece of info? 'Officials close to Mr. Cheney' is not good enough, I am afraid. I have heard about that some experts were actually there. Do you mean they were called back to the US before they could start doing anything? or they have never been there?

Thank you.

Megan Chan, Hong Kong, Special Admin Region of China

The fact that this war on terrorism is based on a lie says so much about the present administration. There does not need to be a real threat in Iran, because the Bush regime will create another false flag operation to create a reason to bomb Iran.

The fact is that the psychos are running the asylum here folks. The sooner we all wake up to this fact, the sooner we can do something about it.

Islam is NOT the enemy. The people that are lying to us are.

landers53, Seattle, Washington, USA

If they do as Mr Kaletsky suggests, Europe will have no friend in Washington as war and terror washes across Europe.

America has already hedged its bets about Europe's willingness to defend itself. By working with Poland and the Chechs to host our anti ballistic missile system we have bypassed Nato. We will offer to defend those two countries as well as ourselves from attack, but because its not part of Nato, no such guarantees are offered "Europe". With the inevitable spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, something that started almost 20 years ago, Europe will be a neighbor to countries that are practiced in the arts of genocide and consumed with hate for all Europe is.

America has doubts about Europe's willingness to fight. I think Europe will need all the friends she can find in the next few decades.

Rich, Mpls,

I think the whole position is crazy. It is crazy that in this hypertechnical modern age the decision on war rests on one man. This isn’t reasonable government, it is madness writ large. Whoever might be the US President or the British Prime Minister, neither of them are qualified to take such a decision. More broadly considering the position, nor are any of their advisors. The fact is that they can get away with it under present political arrangements and hence the inevitable resulting chaos. They get all the benefits and we pay. Why else would they do it? It has nothing to do with WMD or regimes. That’s the excuse. It is nothing more grandiose than the material interests in and around Washington and Westminster. There is thus only one way to limit these wars and that is if it were possible to ban any invasion of a country except by properly constituted United Nations forces of which the combined American and British component is never more than 30%.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Dearest Greant from Scarsdale, NY:

Just so you know "Iraqis" didn't perpetrate 9/11 or the London bombings. The fighting in Iraq does not solve the basic underlying problems.

Additionally, any good general knows you do not defeat an enemy by confronting him in headlong frontal attacks. And the stubborn hevay handed methods used in Iraq are the worst strategy to assume when conducting 4th gen warfare.

Dropping laser-guided maverick missiles and 2000lb JDAMs kill far more civilians than "enemies" and drive a population to hate the US.

And so you have to ask, what are the strategic goals for maintaining a force in Iraq and do they help in winning the war on terror?

Gene, Chicago, IL, USA

Rob Wheeler: "These two countries (US & Israel) have shown their willingness to attack and occupy other countries, repeatedly. The US spends as much money on its military as the rest of the world spends combined."

Think about what you are saying, and think about the countries that the US has invaded. We invaded France to liberate them (succeeded). We invaded Vietnam to prevent the march of communism (failed). We invaded Kuwait to liberate them from Saddam's agression (succeeded). We invaded Korea to again, forestall communism (failed, but we all know what happened to the USSR)

You see the pattern here, Love it or hate it the US has been and continues to be the one, true guarantor of freedom in the world.

I can't say I always agree with Israeli policy and you conveniently lumped them together. the inconvenient part is, who will defend free peoples against tyrants, if the U.S. is emasculated and retreats behind its shores?

If Milosovic were alive, he would say, NOBODY.

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

Americans also need to break with the American crazies. Such a lovely country, the US could just as easily be loved by those who now hate it. The US needs to fix its foreign policy, take better care not to harm others, lean heavily on Israel to seize peace offerings, make reasonable amends where it can and open dialogue with all nations. The needs of all countries need to be looked at, Afria needs to kickstart development and everyone needs to join an international legal system. I think the UN should be able to move, without permission, whenever 1000 people are distressed in any nation.

Em Hawthorne, Ottawa, CAN.

What is suprising is the incompetence shown by the US administration . The goowill that america had after after 9/11was sqandared they should have finished the job in afganistan ( the home of the terrorists ( Saudis)), helped Pakistan (a nuclear power under the threat of islamist terrorists) stabilise its democracy before trying to send a message to the rest of the middle east by the iraq invasion. going foward they should look for a timely withdrawal and appeal to the international community to help diplomatically (a dirty word in washington) and financially. They have made the Iraqi people look back at the saddam regime as bearable due to the current numbers killed and displaced ( over 1million people have migrated) . Within america there is a large community of Arab-language speakers with intrest in the middle east who can be encouraged to help broker a solution. I have lived in the usa the people are intelligent, hardworking , welcoming but only a conservative voice is heared.

steve, london, uk

"(W)hy it went so disastrously wrong and whether the same blundering fanatics will launch another catastrophic military adventure"?

Can you offer any justification for this perfectly absurd statement?

In terms of American casualties and dollar cost as a percentage of GDP, this is the most brilliantly successful war in American history. Coalition casualties are low. Almost all Iraqi casualties have been the result of IEDs and suicide bombers, terrorist weapons, and they are minor compared to the genocide of the Saddam years.

Conflict, repression, and death are endemic in the world of fundamentalist Islam, and nothing will change until we make it change. President Bush has made a magnificent start on a long, slow process.

Every (!) insurgency is eventually defeated. The only question is whether we will carry the current low-cost option to completion, or whether we will suffer another, and potentially much greater, 09/11. Only or a fool or a leftist thinks otherwise.

Iago, Houston,

Perhaps the author should go on a fact-finding mission in Gaza and interview people who witnessed Hamas militants executing fellow Muslims in the street. Has this "fact finder" ever visited any areas where Muslim populations border non-Muslim populations?

Long before the US invaded Iraq, places like the Philippines, Kosovo, Chechnya, Kashmir, the Sudan and Lebanon were a blood bath. Did he ever write any opinions and/or criticisms of the forces making those borders so bloody? I doubt it. It's not so easy and safe to criticize them, is it Mr. Kaletsky? You might end up like Theo van Gogh.

We are in a civilizational clash with the militants of Islam, their followers and apologists. And it won't be long before they have nukes. What does Mr. Kaletsky suggest we do about that? Continue to negotiate with Iran like the U.N. and Europeans have done for years now? Twiddle our thumbs and hope for the best? Please, enlighten us.

Bob Titsch, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

I live in a small city in western mwhose reason for to exist was as a major Ordinance producer for a company called General Electric. Maybe you've heard of them. Anyway they're all gone now leaving lots of PCBs and few jobs. Quess who bought up the last of G.E>? The Saudi's! The idea of closing our borders and let the rest of the world sort it out is naive at best. The decision to attack Iraq was a done deal on the morning of Sept. 12 6:00 am, if you beleive Richard Clarke, as I do seeing he was their and tryed to stop them{the neo's} Congress rolled right over for them. There are plenty like me in this country who pray that Mr. Brown will think for himself and disassociate with these lunatics. Cheers!

Stephen Cimini, Berkshire Co. MA, america

The West does not know what to do in the Middle East, nor does it know how to stop Al Qaeda (whatever that is). So, in a state of confusion, it will be those who have a plan who carry the day - however crazy their thinking. Hitler did it and the necons did it too!

Wars have a nasty habit of creating much worse problems than anyone anticipated at the outset. The Great War was expected to finish by Christmas 1914 and we live with its consequences in Iraq today. Hitler also found his purpose in life during that war - who knows what monster is being created in the Middle East now?

Incidentally, a small gripe of mine, but I abhor this constant criticism of Chamberlain and appeasement (see comments below). Chamberlain was doing his best to stop another Great War. Does anyone really think that a British attack on Nazi Germany in 1938 would have been successful? We would almost certainly have been defeated (as was the BEF subsequently) and Europe would now be the Third Reich.

Charles, London, England

How right Anatole Kaletsky is. The present US administration could leave the Middle East in ferment and, with the exception of Israel, totally and utterly anti the West as represented by the US and Britain.

Brown should start a dialogue with Hamas, the democratically elected and, since this week, also the de facto government of Palestine. It is futile to say they are terrorists and must disarm before dialogue can start. Then talks will never start. Brown must also recognise that when a country has been invaded and occupied for 40 years then every person in that country has surely a right to take up arms to drive those occupying their land back to the 1967 frontiers. That would be a sound starting point on which Brown could start talks before going on to recognition of Israel and what to do about the Palestinian refugees still in camps around the Middle East.

By having talks with Hamas Brown would at once change Britain's standing where it matters, in the Middle East.

Bertram C. Johnston, Overijse, Belgium

gosh! What a lot of Americans and all pretty eager to say how people don't like them just because they don't like their government's policies or actions. I just got back from aniother 3 week stint in the USA. I get on well with Americans on a personal level and admire a lot about them. I am always heartened that so many of them, though, make the point to me that they don't want me to think they're all like George Bush. I also like to point out that most people like Americans personally and don't conflate the people and the government. Indeed this seems to a a particularly American persecution complex. Having also majored in US politics I'm also interested in whether this problem is born out of all the striving they do to prove how American they are rather than be seen as something else. It's not healthy really. You're OK! Relax. We like you! It's just that we think your government is currently a bit weird. You'll sort it out. Just breathe slowly and think!

Sammy, Farnham, UK

It is true . Britain and W. Europe have become obsessed with trivia and only recently are they becoming aware of the Moslem menace which is really caused by allowing Islamic people from outside Europe to settle here. It is a real danger, worse and more imminent than global warning, basically caused by utterly incompatible cultural, religious, historical and other factors. Not to mention epic birth-rates attracted by European social welfare. Yet the US seems to do things to deliberately alienate countries and people who could be potential friends. Eg Russia through colour-regime-change funding, breaking promises re NATO expansion, and open encouragement to a small group of non-ethnic Russians to steal Russia's amazing resources with the aim of eventually owning them. But yes, I do agree we need more backbone in Europe

Marco Borg, London, United Kingdom

Someone said that EU cooperation on financial sanctions would have led saddam to capitulate and allow the weapons inspectors in to do their job more thoroughly... Well please join us in the real world and realise that this whole war had little to do with protecting america (from a non existant iraqi terror threat) and more to do with lining the bulging pockets of the corporate ellite.
Bombing a few mountains in Afghanistan and rounding up a bunch of sheep farmers to gitmo was the begining of political lunacy all of which is nothing more than act of revenge for 9/11. Iraq will turn out to be another military blunder and a sad waste of human life on both sides. All this for cheaper gasoline (apparently).....

john bull, london,

This is exactly the reason I opposed the invasion, I certainly wasn't against seeing Saddam deposed but it was obvious right from the start that the American civilian command (Rumsfeld in particular) had not thought through what they were doing and were inviting anarchy. Meanwhile Blair was tagging along with this insanity, pretending he had influence but in reality powerless to stop this disaster unfolding.

Both the British and American governments were warned, COUNTLESS TIMES, that this would be the outcome, but our objections were dismissed as 'anti-american'. The problem is that all the usual suspects are just a beligerant as they ever were, they don't seem to have learnt from their mistakes.

Owen, London, UK

One more commentator who says attacking Iran would be folly but proposes nothing to prevent Iran from destroying Israel as promised.

Does he think we don't notice his silence on this issue

SDMW

Simon Wagstaffe, Prince George, Canada

I am so tired of Europe. I envision the relationship as one between a husband and a wife but not just any wife...a nagging wife who offers no solutions to any problems affecting the family. If only divorce on the international stage was possible, we could both go our merry way. Sadly not the case and as usual she will come begging when things go horribly wrong. When I say "horribly wrong" I do not mean being called names like those that brought tears to the eyes of your esteemed royal "marines".

Michael, Washington, DC

it makes me anxious to read how many us people think up an at em is the answer to the middle east madness. We should not be in iraq, we need to steer clear wherever possible because they are NOT like us, they do not think like us, they do not want us hanging around their back yard and their values and ours are incompatible. Bush and co - stop trying to impose your oddball values on the rest of the world. Stay home, keep your guns in the cupboard, get lost.

michael, harrogate, uk

Rob, "we" might have to blow up an asteroid or something.

Dan, Manawa,

Over 10 years ago I was writing that the next major war would be between Christianity and Islam. Seems you're nearly there. The contributions of many US based Internet correspondents are truly disturbing. It seems there are two major factions in the US that do not communicate with each other. I can't share anyone's feelings of nationalism or patriotism (unless it involves home grown revolution). "My government would never do anything that wicked" simply evokes a hollow laugh. So acting on the gut feeling that the world was going to hell in a hand basket, I took myself out of the limelight. Suggest you do the same.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Nagano

Den, England: "These are the facts. We had to go to war, said Bush & Blair, because Saddam was developing WMD."

And of course there weren't any. Beg your pardon, you are neglecting the fact that Saddam *had* WMD and used them on his own citizens. And that he was not allowing weapons inspectors to do their job and verify their existence or lack thereof.

We talk about mistakes, and there have been plenty, Saddam's fatal error was thinking the U.S. would not invade, that he could push around the weapons inspectors and there would be no consequences.

Col Quaddafi, in Libya, recognized Saddam's mistake after watching him get pulled from a filthy hidey hole. He promptly renounced his nuclear weapons program and threw open the doors to international inspectors.

That's the American approach. Let's see how well the nuanced, sophisticated Euro style works with Iran and North Korea.

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

The US Congress voted overwhelmingly to go to war against Saddam. [Congressional Democrats who then were in the minority but now are in the majority voted overwhelmingly in favor too.] As a practical matter Bush cannot go to war against Iran without Congressional approval. The fear that Kaletsky expresses is misdirected when it is directed at Bush advisors. The fear should be directed at the Congressional majority, the US Democrats. It is they who were voted into majority on a platform based on withdrawing from Iraq. How likely is it that they will vote to go into Iran?

William H. Dobbs, San Francisco,

There seems to be a total lack of education about Iraq under Saddam by the global community. The world thinks back fondly about Saddam's Iraq, and called it the Middle East's most prosperous economy and a threat to no one, and think we are just plain evil to have invaded such a great place.

The reality is that hundreds of thousands of Shia and others were tortured and imprisoned there. Many more women and children died because of oil-for-palaces sanction scandals where the food meant to go to the children went instead to build more palaces for Saddam. Lifting the sanctions meant that the Russians Anatole is so fond of, would have gladly built Saddam the latest nuke technology for cash, just like they did with Iran, allowing Saddam to blackmail the world with nukes and oil.

Come on get real people! It was our only choice. And you should be ashamed for not helping us help that country now.

Claudia, Atlanta, USA

Iraqis have been torturing and murderign each other with power drills and turning hospital wards into torture and execution chambers. Hundreds of Muslims are kiling each other every day in Iraq and Afghanisatn, and now in Gaza and Nablus ( incidentally, neither Nablus nor Gaza is 'burtally occupied' by Israel); who are the real crazies?

Carol Philips, London, UK

It would seem by some of the comments here and this article that Neville Chamberlin is alive and well in and the lessons of history have faded or are lost on some. What I find truly amazing is that people are still under the deluded impression that these folks can be reasoned with. They don't want to talk, hold hands and sing campfire songs...they want you to convert or die. The beheadings should be proof of that. Ultimately , this war is no different than the last one...it's competing ideologies struggling for survival. And for all you moonbat lefties...your fate would be no different under the caliphate state than any neocon. I plan on playing to win and in a truly proud American fashion...for me...I'd rather die on my feet and live on my knees. Which is where this article's type of thinking will lead us.

D, Chicago, IL

(Third Attempt:) I fear that Mr. Kaletsky is conflating the matter of attempting to force 'democracy' upon ill-prepared Iraqis with the matter of disarming an aggressive and growingly dangerous theocracy from the air. There is no need to invade or occupy Iran if we wish to disarm it; that can be done within days at no harm to anyone should we provide warning to civilians to evacuate military sites, and to the theocratic government that attempted retaliation will assuredly result in the destruction of more than merely military infrastructure. The real question, then, is simply whether this *ought* be done, not whether it *can* be done. And, in light both of what this monstrous regime has been doing beyond its borders over the past 25 years, and the offensive capacities it currently is developing, it seems to me that in prudence we *must* disarm Iran now. If I am wrong about any of this, somebody please tell me how. Many thanks.

Maynard, Oxford, UK

The call to bomb Iran by the "crazies in Washington" is a prelude to nuking Iran, which I believe is the ultimate objective.

Joe Keegan, Bonifay, USA/FL

While there is much to blame to be heaped on the Bush administration for the conduct of this war, we should remember that most of the post-WWII debacles stem from the detritus of European colonialism. Iraq is a European creation, an artificial country. And given the lack of efficiacy of European actions during the Bosnia and Kosovo incidents, not to mention the complete lack of response by European "powers" to Rwanda (other than to send a handful of paratroopers to protect and evacuate white Europeans), the thought of a "Eropean alternative" is not only laughable but worthy of derision.

Phil , Yorktown, USA

typical left wing dialogue, nothing to help the situation but just telling the world what has happened is wrong. this person (anatole kaletsky) has some idea what is happening in the world but wants to blame the usa. the problem is not the usa but the terrorist. the terrorist are taking over the world one part at a time.

t.j., tampa, florida

I am always amazed by the vapid ignorance and apparent cowardice of many of the European people. Are you completely blind to the threat growing around you every day? Within the borders of your countries you have growing populations of militant and violent Islamic radicals. They blow up subways and trains killing hundreds and still you pretend that the threat is not there. They congregate on your public squares swearing oaths to their god that they will not rest until the West is destroyed, its people subjugated (or executed) and sharia law is in place worldwide. And still you preach appeasement and doing nothing. You delude yourselves by thinking that if you just ignore the threat and focus on your pseudo-intellecual cockail banter, the threat will just go away. You are in an existential battle and you won't even realise it until you wake up and find yourselves converts, second class citizens or dead. There are many Chamberlains in Europe but very few Churchills.

D. A. Terry, Austin, Texas

Mr. Kaletsky characterizes a view with which he disagrees as "crazy," but he barely takes the trouble to explain that view. He does cite the errors and missteps by American and its allies, including Britain, in Iraq--the first serious attempt to counter worldwide Islamist aggression against the West. Mr. Katetsky refers to the article by Norman Podoretz, but does not mention that Mr. Podoretz, over almost half-a-century, has been one of America's most distinguised, respected commentators on foreign affairs--one whose views and predictions about the Cold War almost always proved true. Nor does Mr. Katetsky mention that Podoretz provides a detailed, step by step comparison between the current approach to Iran and the appeasement of Hitler. Give the man a break, at least let readers judge for themselves, his rather brilliant article at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=all. I read this article, after Mr. Kaletsky's column. It wins the debate.

Walter Donway, New York, New York

Be my guest. Break away. When the handbasket takes the express route to hell, please don't come knock on our door. Wars aren't pretty and they aren't finished in a microwave. I would love nothing more than for the Iraqis to grow their own military and police forces overnight so that we could leave post haste but that simply isn't possible. Ask any American soldier there or in the chain of command and they will tell you the same. Until Iraq is secure within its own borders we cannot leave it prey to its neighbors to be torn apart like so much meat. When our forces and theirs are to that point, then we'll leave - or if a liberal administration takes over, then the troops will be brought home sooner and the vultures will be waiting to swoop in. If you want to break with us for trying to finish the job, please, be my guest. If you should find yourselves with undesirable calling cards from unfriendly individuals, well, don't look our way...after all you can't trust the "crazy ones."

H. M. Norrell, Bedford, Texas, USA

Why resume in 2003 the 1991 war? Opponents say Bush bullied an innocent for oil. But Iraq initiated two wars for oil hegemony. Hussein begged a ceasefire. We agreed, knowing the cost of regime change and not wanting a vacuum for Iran. Our condition - certifiably dismantle WMD programs. For 12 years a state of war continued - our pilots in harms way every day, troops in Saudi, conditions never fulfilled. Sanctions failed, causing, we are told, 5,000 Iraqi deaths per month. In 2002 the policy was unraveling. Iraq's neighbors couldn't afford sanction compliance, and "Oil for Food" only served to buy off corrupt Euros and UN'ers. Hussein's strategy to wait us out, and resume his quest for hegemony and WMDs was working. Everyone's intelligence was off in 2003, as in 1993 when we found he was far closer to his bomb. Who knows where the WMD went? Syria? Regardless, Hussein made resumption inevitable. Sooner better than later. Islamists know Iraq's the central front. Win the war.

JJ, Seattle, WA, USA

There's a simple solution to render we American crazies ineffective (actually, old beans, I prefer "insane American cowboy" -- just make sure you smile when you say that).

Here's what you-all should do-- withdraw your UK forces from Iraq/Afghanistan immediately, and forbid the American military the use of UK bases to support its war effort. We'll be forced to withdraw, as we won't be able to sustain the effort without our air LOC and we don't have enough troops to take up the slack in the UK-evacuated combat areas.

If you can get the Canadians to similarly pull out their troops, and the Spanish and Germans to similarly forbid us the use of their airspace -- why, then Bob's your uncle. Lord knows there's similar domestic opinion in their respective countries.

All it takes is the courage to put your actions where your mouths are, brave-Euro-citizens-oh-so-much-wiser-than- us. Now -- back to my NASCAR, playing on the remote TV here by the chuckwagon.

Paul H. , Eureka , CA

These are the facts. We had to go to war, said Bush & Blair, because Saddam was developing WMD. So we went to war and allied soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians were killed as a result. Iraq is now de-stabilised and the death rate grows each day as fanatical Shia forces fight for power with fanatical Sunni forces. Allied forces and 'ordinary' Iraqis are targeted by both sides.
Yes, there is a very real threat from radical muslims intent on destroying any opposition to their quest for world domination - born from years of unequal treatment, in their eyes, by the western powers who only want their oil.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that by invading Iraq on the pretext of destroying WMD, we have only poured gasoline on the flames by radicalising even more muslims and caused the deaths of so many innocent people on all sides.
Someone was responsible for the untruths that led to the invasion of Iraq ...... I just hope that person is still not calling the shots.

Den, wirral, England

It's funny to see all the american posters still attacking each other (right left right left) instead of looking at the big picture. Granted, some of them think they _are_ the big picture but never mind that. Instead of thinking about future attacks and pre-emptevely attacking countries, take time to find the reason for their behavior and look back in history. Specifically, what did the world do to Germany after WWI - and the consequences, and what it did to Germany after WWII - and its consequences. Desprate people make desprate choices. All terrorist attacks are a result of something. People don't wake up in morning and decide they're going to kill a bunch of people. I used to love America, but I can't recognize it anymore. I used to admire Americans as people, but when I see that half of them are defending their party (no matter what they do) just because the 'others' can't be right - makes me lose hope for this once great nation of freedom.

Bo, Sarasota/Florida, US

Yes, by all means Mr. Kaletsky, let's toss over those "crazies" with the hare-brained schemes about freedom from tyranny and nurturing democracy, ideals that plainly have no relevance in the middle east, and opt instead for a "European alternative", presumably led by the stable, prudent, never-threatening President of Russia. This must be what you had in mind, since as the survivors of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. can attest, the non-Russian European states really haven't done much in the way enlightened foreign policy for a while, have they? In fact, not since 1811 (the year BEFORE Napoleon invaded Russia). Yes, it is time for Russia to assert the hegemony she deserves, but do she had better be quick for she is producing too few children for the future.

"American crazies?" But what is not crazy about pining for a new "European" (read "Russian") emergence while failing to face a global irrelevance precipitated by irreversible decadence and looming demographic extinction?

John Rogitz, San Diego,

Britain does not get a free ride on this one I support their sticking to america ( its in their long term intrests) But the post invasion incompetence has to be shared by the coalition of the willing.The british who have a colonial history should have had a voice about occupying countries saying that it dos not work in the long term . The future might mean fedral iraq sunnis shites and the north (Kurdistan) having their own autonomus regions . and a federal goverment that disburses resources. alternatively get the middle eastern goverments involved in the solutions by taking a lead. replacing the us forces with one from the surrounding counties . britian pulled out of colonial countries they usally left a regime they could control (uganda, nigeria etc) with disatrous consequencies as these people were uneducated yes men who brutalised their people but enabled british economic intrest to florish this has to be avoided as america (chille , south america) will try the same.

steve, london, uk

Few people posting comments seem to be engaging with Mr Kaletsky's vital point: that the bombing of Iran (and any other concomitant acts of aggression) would be escalating tensions that are already desperately out of hand. In Britain at least, the war has not been popular overall, and not everyone sees the rush to war as the only answer. Knee-jerk reactions fuel the problem, and inter-faith relations are under pressure everywhere.

Bush has avowed that he went to war because God told him to. And I am wondering, Emmie, whether this certainty you have - that Islam is the 'next Totalitarian order' - is also some God-given knowledge? If we cannot understand that there are good Christians and bad Christians, good Muslims and bad ones - indeed good people and bad people - and stop villifying everyone under any single banner, will we ever find an answer to this moral melee?

There are crazies in every country: America has no monopoly. Let us try, though, to avoid crazy words and actions.

Tania, Bath, UK

Time will reveal that the real crazies are the ones who fantasize about world peace while Islam flourishes right there on their turf. Perhaps the European pacifists/defeatists will never realize or be appropriately grateful for what the U.S. has done in dethroning Saddam. What is even more nauseating is the sound of any American who is more concerned about what the world thinks of them than whether or not this country did the right and courageous thing. War is not nice, but a lack of action can be a thousand times more catastrophic.

Carol Lazarus, New York, USA

One has to consider how much experience the American forces ACTUALLY Have at fighting wars when compared to say, there european counterparts. They have all the equipment in the world but have had only 221 years to know how to use it effectively. Most countries in europe have had experience from twice that amount of time. I think the UK from this needs to consider if it wants greater involvement in the EU contrary to cultural and liguistic reasons as well as public opinion. Or closer ties with the US... Having lived in germany as a british citizen we are a joke on both sides of the Water. Perhaps greater ties with the EU and a little more public understanding would be in order.

Peter, Portsmouth,

Yes indeed, Shawn from PA. Comments like yours demonstrate the US's outstanding political acumen. It's reassuring to hear you are so willing to tread carefully on this tinderbox! And I wonder, is everything in your world this black and white? Or is it just that the states themselves are this red and blue?

Rue Losey, Wells, Somerset

Why were Britain and the US able to take down The Axis Powers in 4 years during WWII but can't take down two countries smaller than the size Texas in 5? This war is insane.

Kim Righetti, Upland, Calif. USA

To John Eggers, "Some lessons continue to go unlearned"

Yes: Vietnam. But this time USA will try harder. Of course, it would be crazy to abandon all the American oil under the Middle East sands!

Josu, Basque Country, Spain

Break with the US if you wish. If you in the UK ignore the warning signs and dangers, that is your business. Churchill's Nazi warnings fell on deaf ears--he was generally considered a has-been crank--until the invasion of Poland. "The Wall Street Journal" said in an editorial(paraphrasing here) that most in today's UK are slumbering in post-Iraq pacifism.

Besides the very real overt threat of Iran, UK and Western Europe have a population time bomb to deal with. Suggest a (nonfiction) book titled "The Last Days of Europe" by Walter Laqueur.

The recent riots that the French could not control? British friends, contemplate the consequences of your population change, and remember: The Kerensky government had not the will to crack down on the radicals--Lenin took power. The Weimar Republic could not control the streets--the result--Hitler's control. The Spanish Republican socialists did not crack down on the military--led to Franco. Who is going to rule Britain in 30 years?

Terry L. Walker, Ladson, S.C. / USA

These questions about what will happen if Iran gets The Bomb are ridiculous. The real question is What will happen if the US or Israel get the Bomb? These two countries have shown their willingness to attack and occupy other countries, repeatedly. The US spends as much money on its military as the rest of the world spends combined. No the US should be prevented from getting the Bomb at all costs. In fact, Iran should threaten to attack the US to ensure that it doesn't get the Bomb.

What's that you say? The US already has the Bomb? Impossible, how could they be leading the charge to stop Iran from getting the Bomb if they already have it - 20,000 times over?

Well, in that case we better make sure that the US, along with France, UK, India, Israel, China, Russia, Pakistan are forced to dismantle and get rid of their nuclear weapons immediately. Then perhaps they will have some legitimacy in trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Rob Wheeler, US
rob@wmgd.net
www.wmgd.net

Rob Wheeler, Scotland, PA/US

Most of the posters here, with the exception of section9, have zero knowledge or understanding of history. Islam is the next totalitarian global movement. As usual, Europeans want to put their heads in the sand. There are only bad choices and worse choices here. You can't just pretend that if you just mind your own business, they will leave you alone. If they don't overrun you in your own time, it will be your children's or their children's. Is this the legacy you'd like to leave?

Emmie, Melbourne,

What has happened to the Britain of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher? It's a shame says Matt Gordon, Vero Beach, FL.

Field Marshall Viscount Wolseley came to lead the British forces to crush the Zulu people. Kitchener came to introduce the scorched earth policy during the Anglo-Boer or South African War, that resulted in the first emergence of concentration camps, and the conduct of open warfare against women, children and the elderly, to force their armed husbands, fathers, sons and brothers to sue for peace, as did the Boers in 1902." . "And Churchill came to South Africa, as he did to Sudan, to serve under Kitchener, and write for the British press."

Read a book Matt......

Jon Kingsbury, Southampton, UK

Perhaps I never did understand democracy as it is practiced in 2007 in both London and Washington. It seems to me inevitable that in a world of nearly 7 billion people that if decisions are being made on the personal say-so of a few confident but ignorant elected individuals, we are in for trouble. It would be sad to see a great people that the Americans once were get themselves in to a situation from which they cannot withdraw without a calamity ensuing.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

It is an undeniable fact is that the Iraq "conflict" is now a component of the war being waged against the West by Islamofascists or more correctly "Islamo-luddites".

Thus it is incredible that there are so many in the UK who are so myopic that they believe that merely retreating from Iraq will solve anything. Apparently events like 9/11 and the London bombings didn't happen.

There are no shortcuts: it will be long, it will be hard and it will be bloody.

Grant, Scarsdale, New York, USA

Some lessons continue to go unlearned.

"Peace in our time" – Baby!

John Eggers, baton Rouge, USA / Louisiana

Come on you US bashers....give credit where credit is due. You ask what the US has done? Well, for one thing, the US brought down the Berlin Wall and reunited East and West Germany. The US brought down Saddam Hussein and ended his reign of terror. It was US Statemanship that finally brought the peace initiative together in Ireland. Despite all you naysayers out there the USA contributes far more to the third world that ALL of Europe put together. The USA gives more to charity than THREE times that of the Common Market put together. The USA put men on the moon. The USA - with a very, very small input from NATO plus the UK - has kept the Western hemisphere free from world war for over 60+ years now.
By the way - not that it matters - but I am a Royal Marine here in California.

Chris Yelpoc, Sacramento, California, USA

Good luck to you Brits. Keep turning a blind eye to the ever-increasing Islamoproblem you guys have brewing over there. The entire European continent seems fatally naive to the problems they will encounter in the coming years. Looks like France is just starting to understand, and with any luck, the rest of Europe will eventually wake-up and follow the lead.

...Or they can just get used to the honour killings on their own soil.

I'm afraid for them.

Randall, LA, LA, USA

One of the things that has always puzzled us Americans on the left is why Mr. Blair who seems so coherent, intelligent and well-spoken has been so obsequious and supportive of Bush, The Beloved Leader, instead of standing up to him. Any break should have happened long ago.

David, California,

I would have to guess you have not seen how Hamas that "freely elected government" is threating the people in Gaza. Let's give them money so they can kill a lot more of their own people. Get a clue!!

Buck, Seattle, Washington

I agree with most of the comments made here but object to a few generalizations. That is typical in articles like this though.
One thing that I just cant forget though and one thing that is really glossed over is that Saddam did have WMDs which he hid succesfully for almost 4 years until his son in law defected and showed the UN where they were. Thats a violation of the peace treaty and we had right to remove him.
On top of that, the US and the UK weren't the only ones thinking he had WMDs. EVERYONE thouht he had WMDs that he was hiding. The US, UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia, Jordan, Egypt, and the list goes on. Everyone thought he still had them. In fact he even thought he had them.
In the end it is better that he gone but, the HUGE mistake made in intelligence can not be made again.

Dan , Frederick, US

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Sir Winston Churchill

LYNNE, Melbourne Australia, Australia

I was curious as to why so many american based contributors bother to read the Times so I logged on to the New York Times and now I know.

Terry , Radstock, England

I can’t believe so many people from the UK believe that it is the Americans and Bush who are crazy, and not Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Neville Chamberlain also believed there would be “peace for our time” when he signed the Munich Agreement. America has learned from history to take dictators at their word when they promise war. Millions of lives would have been saved if we would have taken Hitler at his word.

Shawn, Pleasant Unity, PA, USA

Mr Kaletsky - Please break with us, for it is your naive point of view that is dangerous to World Peace. And while it's unfortunate that you don't understand why, it's encouraging from the responses to your article to know that not everyone in Britain shares your narrow view of reality.

jj, los angeles, ca

I agree with Dr John Stanley of Galway.

This militaristic policy that we can burn oil and then go and bomb other countries for their energy is grossly immoral, environmentally damaging, irresponsible, and lacks intellectual foresight.

Leaders at the G8 summit are described as ''world leaders''.
That they are certainly not. What they are is self-interested leaders of their own nations. Its time they realised they also owe a duty to the world at large and to humanity, a duty they have abrogated.

K Urban, London, UK

Dear coward,

Don't ever come to the United States again, and if you do, have the balls to talk bad about us while you are here instead of throwing insults at us from GB. Something tells me you would have been a big fan of Neville Chamberlain.

PM, miami, FL

The irony here is, had the Europeans cooperated on economic sanctions against Iraq, Hussein might have capitulated and allowed UN weapons inspections in his country.

Then, we would have seen that he had abandoned his WMD and this whole mess could have been avoided.

Talking, with some arm twisting, could have worked! Maybe next time...thanks for everything, Europe!

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

It is clear that the Bush/Cheney axis was after filling their bottomless pockets. They are still personally profitering from the war in Iraq, and are still hungry for more (Cheney's stock options in defence related industries have been solely estimated to have gained over $ 8 million sice 2003). Blair wanted also a piece of the pie (for the British industries of coures - a reminder of Thatcher going round diplomatic missions signing contracts for her son's company - but she was doing it for the Queen and the country, you unpatriotic skeptical cynic :-) ) One hopes that Brown has more brain and honesty. But the 'special relation' bonding is too strong.

salicornia, San Jose, USA

Having just recently been subjected to tapes of Margaret Thatcher talking about her glorious 'defense' of the Falkland Islands and thinking about her great support of, and friendship with, the hideous General Pinochet, I'm reminded that Britain has hardly been a positive guiding light for us. We recognize that the god of self-interest is unlikely to loosen his grip on you, no matter what the moral upshot, so don't fret. We've learned to live with the disease here too. Better you work out what would be the honorable position without regard to our insistent demands.

Tony Somera, Champaign, Illinois

Wait a minute. Good God! The Iranian regime is the fascist theocracy. The Iranian regime has the Revolutionary Guards and is smugglign EFP's into Iraq and Afghanistan and is setting them off. The Iranian regime was largely responsible for starting last summer's war, and once again, the Eurotrash blame US? Jesus wept, no wonder we're all marking time until the Islamic Overlords begin the program of beheadings.

section9, Sunrise, Florida/United States

Sadly what you write is spot on. Here in Australia we have a government that has slavishly followed Bush albeit at a bit more distance than the UK.

At the street level the glamour of going to war has long worn thin but there are enough crazies here too that will keep supporting the Bush administration no matter what lunacy they dream up.

Bill, Bayswater, Australia

A brilliant idea, Anatole. USA, and its puppet Israel, have been running affairs in the middle-east for too long without anything to show for it. In fact they have made matters worse in the last few years. It is time that they take a back seat and let the rest of the world have a go at resolving problems in the middle-east.

Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

Danger Ranger - Kosovo was lead by a competent administration. Kaletsky is speaking of this administration, truly incompetent. And you just prove his point by looking backward. America - let's pull our heads out. What is wrong with saying oh, we made a mistake? Yes we have a brave and professional military, the best in the world. Let's not waste their lives on this childish pride we have.

Huhemorism, New York, NY

Peggy - How delusional do you have to be to believe that the US is "provoking" Iran?

It's people like you who are more frightening than Osama bin Laden.

Marta Keever, Jackson, MS

Gordon Brown is right to emphasise changing the way intelligence is handled to prevent a further catastrophic American-led war in the Middle East. Without the the aid of the "dodgy dossier" and the 45-minutes to destruction rhetoric in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Blair would have been incapable of getting sufficient support for British involvement in the war.

Depoliticising British intelligence, and restoring reason and objectivity free of the taint of US black ops propaganda, will provide a rational basis for Brown to distance himself from US policies. He may already be following the course you indicate, but in a subtle way that provides him the "plausible deniability" that the US usually extracts from UK cover and support.

Brad , London,

I wonder if Mr Kaletsky ever imagined wargaming the consequences of leaving Saddam in power, protected by a corrupt UN - or wargaming the consequences of using only diplomatic means to prevent the mullahs from getting the bomb - and wargaming the consequences of their then achieving the bomb. The result - a condition of universal warfare that would make the present situation in the world - Iraq and all - look like a golden age.
Small-scale thinking from a small mind.

Mark Rutherford, New York, NY

What Mr Kaletsky and other liberals fail to provide in their talk about avoiding a war in Iran is an answer to the question: 'what happens if your European alternative fails and Iran gets The Bomb?' It is very easy to talk about a 'third way', but not so easy to take responsibility if it fails; or is the EU going to guarantee Israel's security against Iran (including deploying troops in the region to be nuked) if all the talking comes to nothing? Until they provide a full and credible alternative, Mr Bush's policies are they only choice going; talking and hoping for the best is not enough.

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

This logic is exactly why there will be a Londonstan in my life time. Good luck with that.

Gerry Kubly, Beloit, Wisconsin

Yes it's all the nasty Americans fault.

Nothing to do with Blair, Brown et all.

I look forward to your 'fact' finding trip to Gaza.

Clark, Genf, Schweiz

THE ONE THING THE WEST AND THE ISLAMIC
PEOPLE HAVE IN COMMON THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS , DEATH,DIE ,GENOCIDE,????????
70000000 people in the wold with aids yes 70 million
and expanding rapidly one dying every 3 seconds
and they worry about terrorism .

george william taylor, hull, uk

Since the Bush administration has quelled dissent in the U.S. by avoiding a draft it would be helpful to peace if Great Brittan stopped supporting Bush. The Bush doctrine does not reflect how the American public feels about the mess in the Middle East and this blind support of Israel.

DOUG WARD, GROVER BEACH, CALIF - USA

This column is simple minded and exceptionally shallow. To look at the various political and religious factions in the Middle East and place the blame on the US for all problems shows a strong anti-American bias. Since you obviously prefer radical jihadists and spiralling oil prices perhaps you will have the courage to write a supportive article of the alternative? Yes, and be sure to prias Hamas for their murderous tactics in your version of the 'New World Order"

Pilot, New York, USA

"Genuinely courageous third option?" That's your solution? What the hell is that?! I've been listening to the Left's caterwauling for years, and that's all it ever is. What's your answer to the Persian Bomb? That it's inevitable and that we just accept it and live with it? Get you head out of the sand, Neville!

robert d schaps, Litchfield, USA/Minnesota

Britian preserved its democracy by giving up its idea of 'empire'. US will have to as well. 29% approval of this President. Disastrous administration.

Beth Regal, Seattle, Washinton

I for one hope that the US withdraws completely from international affairs and allows the rest of the world to figure things out for themselves. I have full confidence in Europe's ability to talk the world out of future wars and make those that are unreasonable, reasonable. If in such a world Europe felt that military action was justified I'm also sure that America's help would be superfluous. After all, Europe can take care of itself, and be a beacon of light regarding how to deal with the rest of the world, right?

Joe, New York, USA

Neocons have probabaly screwed this war up as much as appeasers have encouraged the Islamofacists. No one gets a free ride on this situation. America will soon join the Europeans appeasement camp if the mood and ignorance of the threats to our free societies are ignored and pure politics and liberal media rule our thoughts. The very essence of the GLobal Jihad plan will be accomplished (America and the West are weak). I only hope we get some long term resolve to fight an opponent that does have this long term resolve. I'm afraid we'll have to see minorets over Westminister Abbey, English Ladies in Burkas, and demolished oil based economies before we do.

John, Dallas, Texas

Though the article is courageous in its examination on current western politics. It is evident the islolation that America is suffering at the moment, evidenced clearly within the comments written, here.

If America wants the support of the European Allies perhaps it needs to concede that not all people who are muslims are terrorists, and work toward a peace with parties that may not promote pro-american business interests in the middle-east.

Christian , London, UK

The US may well attack Iran. But if it does, it will not do so to obscure failures in Irag, but to attempt to slow down the Iranian nuclear program and Iran's meddling in Iraq, Lebannon, and Palestine. No responsible US president could have not invaded Iraq after 9/11. The fear that Iraq would supply al Qaeda and others with WMD's to be used against the US made inaction impossible. Iran and Syria cannot be allowed to dominate the Middle East. The US cannot afford to disengage in the Middle East if it values it's safety. It's mortal enemies are there and it must fight them there.

Grey McGown, Fort Worth, Texas

If you want to break with the american krazys, I only have two questions. Whats stopping you? and how can I help.

Jason, everett , wa,usa

"parochial British obsession with WMD " - absolutely right. The question is how they screwed it up so badly, not why we went in. But Anatole's conclusion - that 'demonstrably incompetent' fits with 'recklessly belligerent' - doesn't follow. Blame Cheney and Rumsfeld & co for the conduct of the war, but that doesn't make Podhoretz or McCain wrong about the danger of Iran. If we could just work out how to liberate a country properly and replace all the idiots in Washington who made all the mistakes Anatole sets out...

JA, London,

Neville Chamberlain would be so proud.

Bush may have been an idiot to risk this many Americans in this adventure, but to leave now would be to willfully permit genocide.

Roger Krueger, San Diego, CA, USA

If anyone doubts that there is Islamo facism, just print some more cartoons of Mohommad with an exploding turban.

Then appease the cowards when they light off bombs in restaurants to protest this offense.

Then bury your heads and blame George Bush

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

An empire when dissolving appears messy at best.
Arrogance of power gets comeuppance with the rest.
Bushaviks are leaving the sinking ship like rats.
No wonder much of the world thinks the USA is bats!

JoshuasGrandma, Columbia, SC

What a brilliant editorial !!

I'm sure the author's view is held by many in Britain and, indeed, must be shared by all those who live in coutries where the most common given name is Mohammed.

Keep up the good work!!

Rick, Thousand Oaks, USA/California

What you Euroites fail to understand is that: IF America ever decides to REALLY fight a war, there will be NO ONE left buggering about to whine and complain.

Geoffrey Von Friedberg, Albuquerque, USA

Roger Snowden lives in fairy tale land with the neocon nut jobs. Saddam Hussein wasn't doing anything, and it was Australia's wheat board rorting the oil-for-food program don't forget.

You need to get some semblance of the reality of the mess into your head.

Iraq was not a threat to anyone as even the congress decided years ago.

All the rest is hubris and hyperbole by lunatics.

Marilyn, Adelaide,

Hey Ko Meany, you're swimming to work because you built your home below sea level in a hurricane zone. And for over 100 years you never bothered to strengthen your levees.

Of course, hurricanes are George Bush's fault

Peter, San Diego, USA/CA

We've got your back.

Robert, Washington DC, USA

Mr. Kaletsky, I formally invite you to rural Citrus County Florida "across the pond". We have a very polite and well armed little town here. All are welcome here to worship as they please, eat at our 2 diners or drink at our 2 "pubs". But there is an old Southern saying---"you want some? come and get some". We have no stomach for what we see happening in the U.K. and France.

jamie, Floral City, America

the most dangerous form of liberty, is positive liberty. its nieve and grossly arrogant to think a country with western values can instill these on a people unresponsive to change, uneducated as to the benefits, and whom the liberators do not understand culturally, moreover, for a democracy to survive there has to be something upon which that democracy hangs, something which that democracy protects and nurtures. in the west that thing is affluence, health and comfort; commodities in short supply in many middle-eastern states. trying to put a democratic mechanism in place, with no foundatiosn for that mechanism, and it will little but fall flat on its face

simon mawdsley, london,

Gordon Brown needs to go further even than Mr Kaletsky suggests. The disaster in Iraq has as its root the delusional American obsession with 'cheap oil at any price'. This is dysfunctional, since it ignores the facts of petroleum geology. Our own UK North Sea fields have now passed peak production, and we have already become dependent on Russian gas, Isnt it time to reorganize a sane foreign policy to deal with the real-life challenges of peak oil and global warming? This is what is actually unfolding in the world. The fantasy that neo-imperialism can save us from these interdependent existential challenges is neurotic and doomed. Our only true option is energy autonomy, energy conservation, rapid deployment of renewables and moving rapidly to carbon-neutral electricity, even for transportation fuel. As a canny Scot, Brown might yet understand this more realistically than his failed predecessor Tony Blair.

Dr John Stanley, Galwa, Irealnd

Bernard from Delaware is ridiculous to suggest that Britain will be a Muslim country (the curiously German sounding Britianasburg). Unlike in America religion in Britain is insignificant, we don't have to suffer evangelical Christians obsessed with homosexuality, abortion and the second coming of Christ. Moreover, Christian extremism is as dangerous as Islamic extremism.

The tone of the article is not anti-American, it is against the current administration that has blundered into war in Afghanistan and Iraq under the banner of a war on terror, and that they shouldn't be allowed to do the same in Iran, Israel and Palestine. Gordon Brown should deal with America the same way as Margaret Thatcher did, backing them when they're right and telling them when they're wrong.

H Longton, Boston, UK

"The Americans are making up for being late for the past 2 world wars..."

Thank you, Chris from Winchenstein. You've given us the European mindset in a nutshell. You're big enough to make your own decisions as long as mommy is at your side, mop in hand to clean up your mess. If the European man-child truly believes its American mommy is obligated to fight its wars for him, then he should at least understand that mommies aren't perfect either.

Dan, Winsted, CT

People in Europe better speak their mind now , we all know that soon they won't be able . Europeans have invited the enemy into their home and are too weak to defeat them. bye bye europe

john creighton, chicago , united states

There can no longer be any clear-headed discussion on the matters of the Iraq invasion or Iran until Imperator Bush and his Neocon councilors are out of the picture. When "We the People" banish them back to the slime from whence they came, then let's all sit down and talk about this. In the meantime, we understand that you will continue to consider us gun-waving madmen, and we will continue to wonder how Britain and Europe could have let their own lands be reduced to the socialist hells they have become.

Dave, Fort Walton Beach, FL

Isn't Britain the country with the longest tradition of tolerance in the world? The answer is Yes, it used to be, and No, it isn't any more.

Barney, North Carolina, USA

Bad advice. Bush doesn't have enough support in Congress, even among Republicans, to launch a war against Iran. He is so unpopular that he is already a lame duck. Brown doesn't need to distance himself from America, and the affront to America would plague him and the U.K. long after Bush is gone. The American people have not forgiven the French for their lack of support, and they would not forgive the British either.

William Worsley, Arlington, Virginia

All of this is testamony to the power of the pro-Israeli lobbies both in the US (America-Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the UK.Numerically tiny but hugely wealthy groups in both states and political systems are totally distorting western policy in the Middle-East .Young and teenaged British soldiers are paying with their lives for these policies that are wholly bound up with the security of one small increasingly discriminatory and theocratic state that is democratic so long as you are of the correct religious group - and I do mean Israel.

Chris Davies , Stalybridge, UK

Anatole Kaletsky's article may not appeal to the above US citizens with their heads in the sand but it is very much to the point.
The one thing Anatole has in common with our friends on the other side of the big pond; remarkable ignorance about the state of the EU economy and of the greater sophisticaton of EU foreign policy.

H. Gutfreund, Upton, Oxford

Gordon Brown is right to emphasise changing the way intelligence is handled to prevent a further catastrophic American-led war in the Middle East. Without the the aid of the "dodgy dossier" and the 45-minutes to destruction rhetoric in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Blair would have been incapable of getting sufficient support for British involvement in the war.

Depoliticising British intelligence, and restoring reason and objectivity free of the taint of US psy-ops propaganda, will provide a rational basis for Brown to distance himself from US policies. He may already be following the course you indicate, but in a subtle way that provides him the "plausible deniability" that the US usually extracts from UK cover and support.

Brad, London,

The only rational choice for the British is to break with the Bush administration. I advise the American public to do the same.

Andrew Austin, Green Bay, WI, USA

When comparing Israel to Iran, of course America takes sides with and supports Israel. One is a democracy and the other is a 7th century theocracy bend on destruction of Israel and the west.

I'm also always a little shocked at the number of Jew haters that lurk on the left. Like American foreign policy is some sort of big Jew conspiracy. Do you know how crazy you all sound? It's like it's 1939 again.

Lastly, Europe, get an army! You think your soft power can accomplish anything? How are your talks with Iran going? If I were president I'd love to remove US forces from Europe. The thing is, when you are in the business of defending several continents, it changes your outlook quite a bit.

tom a, Northbridge, MA, USA

cos of this 'ministration I'm still swimming to work. ay'up

Ko Meany, New Orleans, US of A

I became convinced that something was dreadfully wrong with the WMD story when Canada had the guts to say “Hell No” to Bush. A nuclear bomb in the USA would certainly affect them and yet they couldn’t be convinced to go to war against Saddam. If only the UK had refused maybe enough Americans would have recognized the folly and prevented the war. The so called Downing Street Memo stated the evidence was being cooked.

Under Bush my country has been a bully and as shown by the mixed response to this article an alarming number still think it is ok. Scary isn’t it?

Pat Chandler, Seattle, WA , USA, Washinton State, USA

I don't think that highlighting the 'crazies' in Washington is necessarily ignoring the threat to the world at large from the Islamofascist terrorists. The war on terror should be one primarily of intelligence and farsighted foreign policy - not shock-and-awe and the murder of innocent people casually dismissed as 'collateral'. Calling 'preemptive defence' a Christian response is even more offensive, not least to the teachings of our Lord and Saviour. It appears that the major attitude in Washington is 'bring 'em on' in a playground stance of boyish bravado, ( and possible monetary gain) and I hope that our PM, Gordon Brown, will distance himself very sharply from the neocons in the US. These dangers to the world may believe in the Apocalypse as much as the Islamofascists but they have no more relation to Christianity than the terrorists have to mainstream Islamic people, who are just as scared of terrorists as we are. Jesus never taught us to wipe out innocents in His name.

Bob, Gloucester UK,

Even if Mr. Kaletsky's absurd hyperbole about the current American administration were the unvarnished truth, his advice to break off the trans-Atlantic partnership and irrevocably cast the UK's lot with the EU would be myopic. Bush, Cheney, et al. will be out of the White House in just over a year and a half. The odds of the US initiating a strike on Iran in that time are negligible. Kaletsky avoids advocating any course of action with regard to Iran, but whether he advocates any action or no action, the best projections we have at the moment are that Iran will go nuclear within the tenure of the next American president (especially if reelected in 2012), not Bush. I'm no Bush supporter, but Kaletsky's vitriol against Bush is excessive and unjustified. However, even if it weren't, it would be foolhardy to start thinking of "courageously" ( ... ) actively opposing America during the twilight years of a lame duck administration almost certain to be replaced by something better.

John, Columbus, OH, USA

Mr. Karetsky says he just returned from a fact-finding tour in America, but I didn't read many facts in his piece, just the regurgitation of opinions and critiques we've already heard.

Perhaps the author should go on a fact-finding mission in Gaza and interview people who witnessed Hamas militants executing fellow Muslims in the street. Or perhaps he should search for facts in other parts of the world where Muslim populations border non-Muslim populations; places like the Philippines, Kosovo, Chechnya, Kashmir, the Sudan and Lebanon. Maybe then he would share his insights and/or criticisms of the forces that made or continue to make those borders so bloody. But...it's a lot safer to criticize the U.S. and ignore the growing scourge of radical Islam, as all of us discovered when Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered. His killer, Mohammend B., left a nasty message for Jews, Christians, Americans and Europeans impaled to Gogh's chest with the murder weapon, a dagger.

Wake up

Bob Christopher, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Is it possible for the US military to fight a succesful campaign in Iran? From 1945 to 2005 their only success was Grenada.

Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and Haiti, to name but a few, all saw US troops on the ground, but is it correct to say that all these campaigns failed?

Should Iraq and Afganistan see US troops leave without obtaining their stated objectives of a secular democracy, should they join the list above?

art ichoc, amsterdam, nederlands

Oh for christ sake "or to develop a third and genuinely courageous option. This is to positively forestall further disasters by breaking publicly with the Bush Administration and trying to develop a genuine European alternative to the suicidal American-led policies". America's current regime is a quagmire for all of us, but EUROPE!!!! now that they no longer start wars of aggression, they sit on their hands and pontificate and whine and do nothing. If we all depend n Europe to guarantee our freedoms we might as well all give up now.

Neil Murphy, cromer,

Please, by all means go your own way. Very tired of you all. We've had enough. Bye bye and good luck.

Phil, NY, NY

I hope Mr. Brown has the common sense and mental competence to end Britain's uncompromising allegiance with the embarrassing Bush regime. The neoconservatives in charge of foreign policy are so bad at what they do that not only have they ignored the lessons of history (Vietnam, Cuba) but they are even oblivious to the lessons from the Iraq wars' disastrous consequences. I'm ashamed.

Matthew Witek, Philadelphia, PA

Don't worry, if you believe the pundits here in America we'll have a Democratic president to go with our Democratic Congress in November 2008. Then, everyone will love the West, terrorists will drop their weapons and turn pro-American, Ahmadinejad will cower with fear, flowers will bloom from the desert and all will be right with the world.

I am reminded of Winston Churchill's saying (and I'm paraphrasing, so I apologize if I'm off a bit): Democracy is the worst form of human governance, except for every other form that has been tried. Similarly, perhaps the Bush administration is the worst American administration ever, except for any Democrat administration that could possibly follow it.

Alex, New York, New York

...A few points to consider

If the British military had had time to 'wargame' the Falklands War before 1982 then the prediction would have been a defeat. But they didn't, they dared and they won!!

Interestingly many commentators believed that in 1991 the US failed strategically because they stopped the war prematurely and left Saddam in power. But after Iraq's surprise invasion of Kuwait there was hardly any time (the liberation of Kuwait and ceasefire occurred only 7 months later) for planners to plan for any post-war occupation, stabilisation and rebuilding phase - so perhaps things would have been even messier than they are now!

Nobody believed Hitler was a serious threat in the 1930s either but they were all wrong and had to ask Churchill (the previously reviled 'warmonger') to come back and dig Britain out of the mess of 1940.

I could go on and on ....

M Smith, Alice, Australia

Mr. Kaletsky makes some good points, but is way off base on others. Example: The Iraqi army disbanded itself through massive desertions during the short (and completely successful) invasion phase of the Iraq operation.

Second, and much more important, President Bush has no intention of bombing or invading Iran, period! I do not credit the President with superior intelligence, nor do I feel that he entered office with the kind of broad knowledge of international affairs that one would hope a chief executive might possess. But he is not stupid. Both he and those who favored making Saddam obey numerous UN resolutions (see how the wording of a contention changes its impact?) have no doubt been sobered by the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.

The U.S. administration has been working diligently with the Western powers in an effort to squeeze Iran hard enough economically to convince the Mullahs to change their nuclear policy. Mr. Kaletsy should take a deep breath and relax.

William L. Rupp, Fallbrook, USA, California

Kaletsky's diagnosis of the problems with the American government are right, and are shared by a good number of Republicans in D.C., especially in more libertarian think-tanks; but his solutions to the Iran question are non-existent. The European efforts to persuade Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, based as they always were on wishful thinking, have run into the sand, and most Iranians are extremely worried (just as worried as many Americans) that their lunatic leadership will draw them into a catastrophic conflict. If this happens it will unquestionably be the fault of the Iranian Council of Guardians who made it impossible for cautious conservatives to dominate Iranian politics. Instead they saddled themselves with an ignorant predjudiced fool as president, and an extremist parliament. Only if the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, comes to his senses and reins in Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards will terrible conflict be avoided. All US pressure on Khamenei, please!

Guy Rowlands, Anstruther, Fife, UK

I'm afraid that Bob, Rexford, has fallen for the Islamofascist ruse. The US military has been lured into the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that there hve been no further attacks on American soil, but more US citizens have been killed outside the US since 9/11, than were actually killed on 9/11.
If the US military were the greatest and most efficient war machine on the planet, they would not be hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, with the leadership clueless as to how they can wriggle out of it and still save some face. Unfortunately, the US hasn't got a modern-day Patton to resolve the situation.

E J Murray, Kerry, Ireland

Regardless of the fiasco in Iraq, I can't help but feel the Islamists in the Middle East need to be saved from themselves before it's too late. In Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, the story is the same -- Muslims killing far more Muslims than the "West" has killed.

Iran going nuclear is a doorway to an epic bloodbath. After killing 3000 Americans on 9/11, the American response was to instigate the killing of unknown 100's of thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq. What if a nuclear bomb kills 300,000 in America? The American people will rightously demand a total genocide of Islam in the Middle East. And the "crazies" will oblige them.

And of course, world wide economic meltdown would follow. The world would never again be what it was on Sept. 10, 2001.

If a few cruise missiles need to be lobbed into Iran to prevent this catastrophe, it's a bargain.

maquimike, Seattle, WA

The view is correct; Europe must develop its own way. It should absolutely do it without America. However, after the Iraqi debacle (which most Americans oppose), American military action against anyone (and especially Iran) is not going to happen.

But, at least we learned some good lessons. Outside of the British, we have no European allies. NATO should be dissolved, and America should look to its own affairs.

John Wojtowicz, West Chester, USA/PA

Fellow Americans, stop embarrassing yourselves and our country by pretending that the Bush administration has ever had a clue, a plan, a vision or even a valid reason to conduct and end the war in Iraq. Attacking a columnist who points out that the Bush admin is dangerously, perhaps pathologically, deluded and therefore becoming an extreme liability to the nation and the world is not "anti-Americanism." It's called facing reality.

Tracey Roth, Danbury, Connecticut, USA

People outside USA: Please don't think that the Cheetos-munching BushCo Know-Nothings who have left their ignorance-droppings in this comment-thread are solely representative of the USA.

Tom, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

As an Americam I find myself in agreement with the author of this article. It is long past time for America to bring our troops home. From Europe. Also the middle east. I think it is way past time for the U.S. to effectively seal our borders, end all foreign political/military entanglements, build our missile defense system for ourselves, and let the rest of the world work through their issues without our interference. Hey good luck with that. Europe has proven themselves adept at ignoring history and I think we Americans owe you guys another chance. I am sure that you will do better this time. In the meantime America should be focusing our resources on absolute dominance, if not control, of space. That is where the future lies. Leave the rest of you ingrates to squabble over this dying mudball we have called home. This missive is only slightly tongue-in-cheek.

Johnny Dunn, Sardis, Ohio

In order to reasonably analyze where we are in Iraq, and whether we ought to be there at all, one needs to consider how we got there to begin with-- which was the response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Was that a mistake?

Had we left Saddam in power, we would have either continued the Oil For Food money-for-Saddam-and-Chirac pipeline, or would have had to simply pack up and leave. Either way, the risk of Iraq with WMD was still quite real, perhaps with Saddam competing with Iran for nuclear power.

For all our screwups on Iraq, at least we are attempting to defend our nation and culture. In this day when it is politically incorrect to refer to yourself as British, the UK might as well give up the ghost.

I do not mean to sound spiteful, but I think the UK should abandon all pretense of alliance with the US. Join the French "surrender" camp and be done with it. Give in to your growing radical Islamists and convert now.

Instead of the Church of England, consider Mosque of England.

Roger Snowden, Omaha, NE

Our European friends are united in not making any sacfrice that would defend freedom. They unite in their view that if Americans would only abandon Christian faith and self defense all will be well . The European view on Israel and the criminal attacks on Jews in Europe is also known. Europe is a land that lives in a perpetual state of apology for being Western . Yes , we make mistakes and will always make some but I don't think we are prepared to surrender . We are not prepared to be European .

Doug McPhail, Birmingham , USA

So lets see if I get this correct. We dont invade we are good, hundreds of thousands of muslims are murdered by Sadam, the "world" doesnt blink, thats fine. We are not in Iraq to make you 'feel', good. Iraq with Sadam at the head would menace and eventually control the region. Did they not invade and conquer Kuwait? WW1 ended we didnt leave troops in europe thinking it would never happen again, I guest that wasnt a mistake? Name me a perfect war? How many non muslims have to die before 'war', is justified? How many muslims have to die before "non muslims" step in?How many Non muslims have to die for Muslims to rise to our defense? What is the magic number of terrorist attacks occuring around the world that would bring the world together for a "just" war on terror? How many countries in the world speak 'American', because of our disregard for morals or laws? How many countries speak, English, Spanish, Arabic ... How many countries formerly 1st world lead are now 3rd world dives?

Charles, Panama, Panama

A Genuine European Alternative...And what might that be?

Europeans have proven that they cannot avoid World War...Twice!

Bush realizes that getting rid of the Iranian government is the only way to *avoid* WW3. If Tehran gets nuclear weapons then they will be able to control all mideast oil. This will lead to WW3. Starvation does that.

Preemptive strike before the Iranian government gets nukes is rational. These people would strap bombs to their own children...What do you think they would do with nuclear bombs?

John, Virginia, USA

No, this article is absolutely dead on, correct, damning, clear, and irrefutable. You can *want* to believe that America's foreign policy is coherent and effective, but your wanting cannot make it true. We have lifted the top off a kettle that is now ready to boil over and enflame the Middle East, just as opponents predicted and loyal conservatives denied. The flames could very easily spread into Europe and Britain. U.S. foreign policy is being directed by oil industrialists who keep conveniently forgetting that they are pushing human pieces around on their oil maps. People who still have some sense of humanity owe it to the rest of the world to demonstrate that they, at least, will not go along with Cheney and his gang.

etc, Knoxville, TN, USA

What would you coffe table liberals have us do? Roll over and die? Then you'll see just how horrible life can be in the U.K.

Art Ocone, Vero Beach, Florida

Perhaps as a warm-up act, UK could marshall world opinion, minus US involvement, to shape and then enact a plan for correcting the troubles of Darfur. Until Britian with the Eu actually has a plan it might be better to keep one's opinions to your side of the pond.

Bob, Covinton, KY

Somehow it does not surprise me that when Americans are confronted with the realities of the incompetence of the President and administration they elected, they become very defensive and attack the messenger rather than evaluate the facts which speak for themselves. I have read the comments herein posted by many Americans and can only believe that this is why Cheney and his ilk get away with so much - the American people want it that way. I say, stop blaming the administration and let's call a spade a spade. America with its gun-toting and reactionary religious conservatism is no different from the fanatic islamists they itch to kill. Europe should be united against this entity which is fast becoming more dangerous to the rest of the world than "fascist islamism" ever will be. Only a United Europe will be able to withstand and prevent this threat. Chirac saw it. Why can't Gordon Brown?

Alejandro, Geneva, Switzerland

"trying to develop a genuine European alternative to the suicidal American-led policies, not only in Iraq, but also in Israel, Palestine and Iran."

Absolutely spot on.

Adam, London, UK

I would be very interested to see the list of people that Prof. K visited and talked with while in the US. Probably the same people who have been saying anything they can get away with for the last six years because they hate Bush so much -- start with the NY Times personnel, many Democrats, and go from there.

As per usual when the Professor gets on a non-economic rant, he is in the wrong game.

This is the most childish thing I have ever read by him.

John Garber, Boston, Massachusetts

There's a big big difference between Iraq and Iran. Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a bad bad man and an evil dictator, but one thing he was NOT was a deranged Islamic fundamentalist. Ahmadinejad is very different, he doesn't even try to hide the fact that he IS hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and using them against Israel / the West regardless of the consequences. Whatever happened or is happening in Iraq, however many crazies and neocons are running the White House, whether it's the USA or Europe or UN or anyone else who does the deed, it doesn't really matter, but Ahmadinejad has to be stopped.

Hans Baldwin, Southport, UK

Extraordinary. Is this really Anatole Kaletsky? He's usually so good...

Suffice to say, this analysis seems to have very little idea of what's at stake in the Middle East. It pays no attention to the very specific threats posed by Iran. Bizarrely, it lumps Pakistan in with the Middle East. It's the kind of piece I'd expect to find in The Guardian, in fact.

James, London,

When I was a young lad, I was angry pretty much at any one who was a parent. My parents, your parents, whomever. I hated "parents" because they were bossy, un-hip, and were always telling me to not do this, do that , don't do this, etc. So I ran away from home. Suddenly, all the things that my parents supplied me were gone. A warm house, a clean bed to sleep in, a safe neighborhood to live in, a school that was an opportunity for me to become something better. I slept in shelters, ate from restaurant dumpsters, my only solace was whatever drug I could scrape together to help me forget the cold. After a year I could take it no longer. They took me back with open arms and weeping of joy. I am now 45, supplying all the same things that I eschewed when I was a young punk, to a set of children who seem to have similar attitudes, but hopefully no plans of going off the deep end like I did.
Whats the point of this story? The Left are the children, the Right are the parents. Get it?

Michael Fleming, Boston, Mass/ USA

it seems american crazys will have to save europe every 70 years or so. They seem to forget that making deals with radicals nazi's or muslums without any goodfaith is dangerous. I would think an economist, especially from the uk would know this. What happens to an economy without security. It dies. Tony Blair is no dummy. He knows you have to fight fire with fire.He understands and can see the threat. You cant see the forest through the trees. eu needs to growup and have some backbone. I grow tired of paying taxes that provide security for your sorry asses.

Jason, everett , wa

Please don't judge all Americans by the posts of those who don't have a world view.

Thinking Americans are working for the day when those responsible for the trumped up war in Iraq will be held to account.

The Bush war machine carefully whipped up the hysteria in their supporters' narrow minds. A little learning is a dangerous thing...

Bon Mo, Arizona, US

All these Americans bemoaning Europe's criticisms of the Bush administration seem to forget that the British Empire received the same criticism from America until it's eventual fall.

Americans should stop being so pious, acknowledge that the USA is an empire, and realise that because America has power doesn't mean that how it exerts that power is good. American policy in the middle east with respect to Israel, Iraq and Iran is destabilising the region. It is America that will ultimately suffer for its belligerency. Great Powers don't stay great through going to war.

H Longton, Boston, UK

Misjudgements...mistakes...incompetent in warfare. Actually, this is mild in describing the Iraqi war by people on the left and some on the right.

The worst critics of the struggle in Iraq probably never heard of the river Somme, or the French city of Verdun. There, there were real misjudgements...mis...etc.

The disagreement here is between some of us who see and first saw an over-arching threat to western civilization after 9/11 and others who didn't see or don't see or just don't care.

We who care about the 'west' will support the fight against the radical Islamic enemy who we believe would not have stopped and will not stop its aggression until the 'west' is subdued and they become masters like they are in Gaza right now.

R.K., St. Louis, USA

Hey UK, let's make a trade. We in the U.S. will send you AWOL George Bush and the COWARD Dick Cheney if you send us Gordon Brown. Two for one, it doesn't get any better than that.

Bill, Sheridan, Wy. USA

Lets brake with the USA and the EU too, time to bring up the draw bridge and batton down the hatches. The world has gone crazy all over, let's just hunker down and wait them out. Nobody apprecates anything we do, so they won't miss us if we leave the party early.

Susan, Barry, S Wales

Does Mr. K see any potential threats to the west in the wold today? No, perhaps he is quite comfortable with his head firmly imbedded in the sand. Best of Luck to us all.

miguel, st louis, mo us

Once again, a pedantic leftist, just back from his wholly irrelevant "fact-finding mission" in the US writes the typical, intellectually lazy garbage spewing from most America-hating, terrorist coddling cowards on both sides of the pond.
You have a wonderful future in store Kaletsky, over there in Londinistan. When the cowardly feckless appeasement of your crowd no longer works, when the mullahs who will certainly control your once great country in the very near future begin forcing women to don burkas, forcing the likes of Kaletsky to convert to Islam at the point of a gun, please by all means write another ridiculous article about how the US is to blame for all the problems of the world.
Get a clue, clueless.

Dave, New York,NY, USA

I became convinced that something was dreadfully wrong with the WMD story when Canada had the guts to say “Hell No” to Bush. A nuclear bomb in the USA would certainly affect them and yet they couldn’t be convinced to go to war against Saddam. If only the UK had refused maybe enough Americans would have recognized the folly and prevented the war. The so called Downing Street Memo stated the evidence was being cooked, Blair clearly knew.r.

Under Bush my country has been a bully and as shown by the mixed response to this article an alarming number still think it is ok. Scary isn’t it?

Pat Chandler, Seattle, WA , USA, Washinton State, USA

Bear in mind that a substantial majority in America believes the Iraq war was a mistake, wants out soon, and strongly opposes any attack on Iran. If we had a parliamentary system in the U.S. this government would be gone tomorrow. I do think that Brown should break with American policy, but if he can pull it off without either ruining the "special relationship" or being seen as "Bush's lapdog," his efforts will be met with both political success at home and gratitude here.

Peter, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

Just another wail from a frustrrated communist sympathizer. When, oh when, will these sad sacks learn Marx's dream ain't gonna happen.....ever.

F. Troman Harper, Santa Rosa,, CA

Sir-
There will be no war with Iran. American conventional forces have effectively all been committed. This American Crazy has a politically incorrect question for my British Friends: Has anyone considered there might be an upside to all this fighting in the Middle East? Radical Shiites battle radical Sunnis who have started battling al Qaeda in Iraq. Iran will soon be bogged down in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Iraq. This will divert resources from Saudi-supported Islamist charities and Iranian supported terrorists. If wasting more Western blood and treasure would stop this infighting, which it will not, would it be worth it? More cynically yet, I predict the oil will flow without further Western protection much as “blood diamonds” continue to gush from worn-torn areas of Africa. All this fighting is expensive and they will need the money.

William Edwards, Overland Park, KS, USA

Just because the middle east contains many self proclaimed enemies of the west, does not mean we should automatically consider the american far right to be our freinds, i'm disturbed that those around Bush withheld information from him "guiding" him to a war that the support stucture was dismantled for. while i understand the need to not bow to terrorist actions happening in the middle east now, i see no reason to unequivicably support the americans viewpoint either.

Ben, folkestone, uk

You must have been talking to our left-leaning "crazies" here in America. What our polls show is that a majority of people are frustrated with the war in Iraq, but if you ask them if they wan't America to lose and pull out, the result is very different. What we are frustrated with is that we don't kick butt and take names over there. We can't stand to see our boys attacked with little reprisal against insurgents.

By the way, they could have marched all the WMD Iraq had in front of Mohamed ElBaradei and he wouldn't have seen them. What has happened to the Britain of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher? It's a shame.

Matt Gordon, Vero Beach, FL

to andrew in sheffield - it really pains me to have to say this to a fellow tyke but: people in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones. you really shouldn't accuse anatole kaletsky of lazy journalism unless you've spent time understanding the situation in the palestine yourself; you patently haven't. hamas was elected by the palestinian people in free and fair elections demanded by the bush 'administration'. the hamas government was then shunned by the west and by israel and sanctions imposed. the us promised to lift those sanctions if hamas formed a unity government with fatah, which it duly did. now, surprise surprise, the us refuses to lift those sanctions unless hamas recognises the state of israel - once again demonstrating the neocons' breathtaking hypocrisy and unhealthy obsession with israel. just like in iraq, the us just can't help itself - it has to exercise its control freakery all over this poor, benighted planet. brown needs to break with these psychotic crazies asap.

elizabeth eyre, london, uk

Typical EuroTRASH tak. Europe has never sone a thing to protect itself since prior to WWII. The last leader that had any guts was Mr. Churchill and look what the Brits did to him prior to Hitlers attacks!
I suggest that if you can't handle your own affairs any better unless the Ghost of Nevel Chamberlin is using your keyboard? You attempt to take the permenant left turn of cruise control and look at things for what they are, instead of political gains. What a moron!

Richard Finn, Woodland, CA

Did anyone else notice how ornate and well-decorated the Fatah offices were as the Hamas thugs rampaged through them yesterday? Top of the line computers and faxes, chairs and desks far nicer than I have at work, and well-appointed interior decorating.
Damn the US and the EU for spending hundreds of millions of taypayer's money trying to assist the Palestinians with some shred of democratic governance!

Jason, Texas,

It loks like all we can do is pray that there will be no more preemptive wars or strikes before the current president departs. There does not appear to be a constitutional mechanism in place to stop a president hell fired bent on war mongering being stopped from doing so. When the new president takes over, there needs to be a mechanism designed and implemented to prevent such preemptive and unwarranted wars. If the Republicans win, I think it is more of the same. If the Democrats win, will they be able to resist the industrial/military complex to prevent more crazy adventures. God help us all if these people had the presidency at the time of the Cuban crisis.

Michael O'Leary, Dublin, Ireland

Congratulations!
This is the best article I have ever read on a British newspaper.

Armando Machado, Porto, Portugal,

Peggy in Ontario:

Yes, it is the US that is provoking Iran towards war, not Iran's leader who on a daily basis calls for the destruction of the US and Israel. Nothing provocative there!

Wake up, sweetheart, before it is too late.

Re Matt Myers in Redhill:

Ron Paul is a radical libertarian, and does not necessarily mean he reads the Constitution more faithfully than anyone else. In fact, the Constitution is explicit that one of the primary responsibilities of the US federal govt is to wage war to protect the American people. This in fact occurred several times quite early in American history, and even against radical Muslims (see the Barbary Wars). Facts and history always seem to get in the way of leftists - how inconvenient!

Matthew Friendly, Westchester, NY

Good article, thanks. However, it is still important we continue to look back and to keep the dodgy dossier in the public eye. Bliar must be bought to justice for the war crimes he has committed, until that happens the country can't move forward. It will happen, its just a matter of time & opportunity.

Bev White, Luton,

England's lack of courage in dealing with evil dictators lead directly to the deaths of 10's of millions during WWII. Your opinion is irrelevent. God bless Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush.

hoss, new york, new york

I am mortified at the actions this President has taken throughout his term. I'm also ashamed to be lumped in with the "American Crazies." My greatest fear is that Bush, et al, will so badly harm the reputation of the USA that I won't see it recover in my lifetime.

Shannon, Boise, Idaho, USA

Bravo!All you have to do is mobilize the diplomatic finesse of the UE (see the success with Iran ) and solve the outstanding problems of the world.
Quite a number of americans would be happy to retreat to
North America and leave you alone.
GM

g. massobrio, montreal, qc,canada

The "American crazies" are on the left, the same people that look the other way as Hamas executes it's opposition. The palestinians are killing each other and all the lefties ca say is "we need to talk" ! The Iraqi's did not elect terrorists to government and yet the lefties want to pull out and leave the Iraqi's to certain death. This is the wrong-headedness of leftist thought. Where's your stomach, Mr. Kaletsky? Do you want us to go into Darfur? The foreign policy views of liberals make no sense. They would sacrifice lives in forgeign wars that are not a threat to national security but when our freedom is at stake they will llie down gladly and allow their countries to be over-run with violence from foreign threats. Bush knows more and is more grounded in reality than the idiots on the left that demand we immediately withdraw. When public opinion changes he does not stick his finger in the air to check the temperature. "oops" is not an option!

clubdittocom, highland, ca

It comes down to whether Armageddon is better than hoping Iran won't obliterate Israel.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

As always an excellent article but it leaves unanswered the issue of Iran getting nuclear weapons, are we really prepared to let them do this?

Shaun O'Byrne, Bridgwater, UK

The same chaos will reign when President Hillary Clinton invades Canada because the problem is that Americans (left and right) have been brainwashed into believing that we have a unique ability to do everything perfectly. Anything that contradicts this idea is suppressed by a media dependent on "feel good about your country" news that helps sell advertising.

Dave, Los Altos, CA, USA

I challenge you to find one single military historian who will say in public that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was bungled, and or executed incompetently compared to any other military campaign. I challenge anyone to name any other military campaign in British or American history that was run better and provide fact to back up that statement. American losses in Iraq last year (2006) were between 800 and 900. That is about 45% of the number of deaths of American servicemen in 1982 when we were at peace. American deaths in Iraq is only marginally higher than deaths of American servicemen due to work related accidents in 2006.

Doug Forbes, Wheeling, USA

Tom Slattery, Paisley, Scotland said....
"Never could work out why Muslims kill Muslims in the middle east and blame the west for it!"

The thing that kills me, Tom, is when the West then APOLOGIZES for the Muslims killin Muslims!

Michael, Philadelphia, USA

Since the main purpose of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is to control oil supplies, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if chaos in Iraq, Iran, and (potentially) Saudi Arabia might actually serve U.S./corporate goals. Oil profits are high, Sunni-Shiite conflict weakens OPEC, the U.S. has a rationale for permanent bases throughout the region (“to bring democracy and peace”/guard the oil/fight WW3), and of course war is always good for Lockheed, Halliburton, Bechtel.... Domestically, billions for the Superpower State will eventually make it impossible to fund Medicare, Social Security, etc. And, since the U.S. is rapidly becoming a banana republic, why rule out the thought that another big terrorist attack might bring on martial law, suspension of elections, and King George forever? (Check out ‘Hijacking Catastrophe.’) Kaletsky thinks Cheney, Bush, etc. are ‘crazy’–and they are if one is thinking about the rational, long-term interest of sentient beings on this planet – but corporate fascism has its own logic.

Carol, Ithaca, USA/New York

Bush is crazy yet people who strap bombs to their own children and demand we submit to their sky-god or die are not crazies.

Things will get really crazy when Iran gets nukes. Count on it.

Evan, Virginia, USA

The United States is the one true guarantor of freedom for the world. And yes, freedom does come at the point of a gun, as does its counterpoint, tyranny.

Here's an assignment for pacifist Europe: talk Sudan out of slaughtering and raping in Darfur. We'll do the heavy lifting in Iraq and Europe can have wine and cheese parties with the Sudanese.

Let me know how it goes, and kindly please save Darfur before they are completely slaughtered.

Peter, San Diego, CA

Sometimes a little crazy is the right way. What if the UK and France went crazy on the Nazi's pre-1939? Sometimes the slow and easy is best too, most recently with Saddam. Slow and easy worked on him, he gave up all of his WMD's and made the crazies look, well, crazy.

Seems to me somewhere in the middle is where we should be. Since the US and Europe are at the extremes of Crazy/Not Crazy maybe we are best stuck together.

Jack, Lisle, USA/Illinois

Mr. Kaletsky needs to provide that "strong evidence" that Pres. Bush did not know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims before moving on Iraq. That is pretty far-fetched. My guess is that his only citation would be a left winger quoting another left winger, ad nauseum.
I would expect Europe to have a different policy than the U.S. if for no other reason than their large, and growing, Muslim population. However Europe cannot begrudge the U.S. from having its own policy based on our no nonsense culture. I doubt Bush will leave office without forcefully addressing the Iran nuclear problem.

Bill S., Scottsdale, Arizona, USA

Dear American friends, to tell you guys the truth, it seems you are judging the American - European relationship through the lenses of the cold-war history (or even that one of the WW II),only. Strong , resolute US- coward Europeans. In a certain extent, you are right if we consider for instance the conflict around Kosovo. Yes, we Europeans needed the Clinton administration to take the lead when intervening against Serbia. Richard Holbrooke wrote history on the Balkan. Hopefully, times of endless hesitation and debate on the European continent are gone - forever. Hopefully, times of America striving for predominance in Europe will be gone one day. That super-foolish debate revolving around missiles to be installed in Poland and Czech Republik should fade away a.s.a.p.. For European defence issues are none of the US businesses at all. The bottom line is: Don't stick your nose in other nations affairs - be it in Europe or Iraq,etc. Start learning that central lesson now!

Rolf Joachim Siegen, Kiev,

Excellent analysis Mr Kaletsky. I just hope that sensible voices in the Administration and Congress prevail, and that the first sign of a different attitude in a Brown Government will be a refusal to let the US use RAF Fairford as a stepping stone for a B-52 raid on Iran.

Timothy I Mullen, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Power to your elbow, Anatole. Good to see someone talking sense!

Paul Clark, Eastbourne, UK

You can follow us (if there is an us at this point) or go it alone - there is still Iran! We are tired. Lead on!?

George Lippencott, Lawrence, KS

Maybe you should partner with Russia, Putin has been acting like a great leader lately.

The British presence in Iraq is minimal, get out and stop bitching.

Your troops can sell their stories to the press.

bill, seattle, usa

Indeed, mistakes were made in prosecuting the war in Iraq. Perhaps the author thinks otherwise, but an opponent determined to persist in its opposition will adapt, and adopt the methods most likely to disrupt, and least amenable to suppression by a nominal victor. The object of war is to employ force such that opposing forces can no longer support hostilities. Vietnam taught the current generation of those who stand against the US that this goal is as well achieved by convincing the US congress to abandon an effort as to convince the US armed forces that they're beaten. To this end, the means most likely to disrupt are those that the US public will not abide. The US public, apparently, hasn't the stomach to abide very much. The Taliban, al Qaeda and their ilk are poised to claim victory. The question is, is theirs a victory that any in the West can afford to hand them?

Enoch Wisner, Neshanic Station, New Jersey, USA

Saddam had rape rooms and torture chambers, waged wars of conquest or attempted conquest against his neighbors (costing litterally millions of lives), and used chemical weapons against his own people multiple times. The coallition failed to correctly predict the desire of the Sunni and Shia to kill eachother....and we are the bad guys?
Ahmadinejad's regiem uses death squads, 'morality' police, and slow hanging by crane to suppress it's people. Women in Iran are stoned to death for having the audacity of being a rape VICTIMS. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the extermination of an entire people (very much like Hitler), yet our foreign policy of trying to keep this regiem from aquiring Nuclear weapons is the problem?
When comparing a desire for a free, liberal, peaceful world to State sanctioned rape, murder, torture, and calls for genocide, please, Mr. Kaletsky, try and keep at least a little perspective.

Michael, Philadelphia, USA

This "anti" from the ol US of A would like to remind Colin of London that some of that "freedom bought at the point of a gun" in the last 100 years was the freedom of your own people and most of the free world, at a very high price I might add. Amazingly, we will probably have to buy back in blood once again what you are prepared to give away.

Kevin, Atlanta, GA, USA

I take all of the criticisms of the performance of the Bush administration to heart - very few wide of the mark.

However, the United States will correct the Bush error in time and return to a less-agressive foreign policy. Will that lessen violence in the middle-east? Not one whit. Will reducing its involvement in the Arab countries lower the threat of another terrorist attack on United States' territory? No, it will increase it - as the terrorist organisations are left 'in peace' to plot another 9/11.

However, to the point of your article: Will Brown divorce himself from the current US administration's foreign policy? If it could be guaranteed to increase his majority by one vote or to increase the exchequer's cash flow by one pound then he would. Otherwise the oily Brown will prevaricate, promise and posture until the current US administration fizzles and sputters to its welcome end.

John A Blackley, Austin, TX, USA

If you want to get a feel for what America is going to do then don't go to Washington, go to Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Their voters make presidents. The fact that they have consistently surprised the elite in Washington ought to warn you about the projections of the elite.

Mike Hudkins, Akron, Ohio

Another anti-semitic article in the British media.
Jews have already suffered in the holocuast.
Jews have been victims throught out history.
Jews are gods chosen people
Jews were promised the land of Israel by god
lastly, Israel can do no wrong.

Mr Zionist, Gaza, Israel

It's embarrassing to see how thoroughly the American public is brainwashed! Most of us are too lazy to think for ourselves. The people no longer have any say-so in the running of this country. We have given up our precious form of government to the greedy corporations and power hungry neocons that are now bringing the world to the brink of disaster. Honor is no longer admired, and ethics has been removed from our dictionaries.

The last line of Abe Lincoln's address is no longer valid.

Government "of the people, by the people and for the people " is a thing of the past.

Without" humility" government is not worth a "warm bucket of spit"!

Our present administration has absolutely no humility!!

Robert Egan, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Ca.

Unfortunately, what you who are against the American effort all fail to realize is that the approach President Bush is taking toward Islamic fundamentalism is the generous, moderate course. Once a large bomb goes off in Paris or London, the quislings among you will be the first to call for wholesale massacres of Muslims, and the incineration of Middle Eastern countries.

Please get over yourselves. You don't lead the world in anything except moral posturing.

Tim C, Columbia,MD,

Do you suggest that Mr. Brown follow in the footsteps of another English Statesman, Chamberlin. It seems that many in Europe hide behind lofty ideals yet they fail to offer workable solutions. They say "let George do it" and then gang up on him when he pulls their bacon out of the fire. Are we to let history repeat itself?

Bill, Edmond, Oklahoma USA

It's truly amazing how many Americans Read the English Press. I must say to our cousins across the pond that much of the Anti American criticism and literature stems from a rather parochial, narrow minded, and intellectually challenged president and is not against America Per Se. Consider all of the problems of former presidents of different political persuasions, from Clinton To Dubya's Dad and there was no such antagonism towards America. The Brits love America, but we hate what the current Government stands for. Therefore don't take this article to heart, It essentially is not Anti-American as it may appear on the service.

Britain has also suffered a number of fools in Government albeit better educated fools with greater intelligence.

Gary, London, UK, United Kingdom

I take Mr Bush, the average American and particular the Israeli people as wise and intelligent, but still, there are always a small group of big mouths, that have dreams and forget the reality, as some of the neocons that write in established newspapers. If there is any country in the world that is secure from a nuclear attack, that country is Israel. There might be a lot of crazy and insane people in Iran and a lot more in other Arab countries, but to nuke Jerusalem, and millions of Palestinians that leave in the middle of all the Israeli Jews, that is unthinkable. The right think to do is to engage with Iran and let the IAEA do its job as it does with all(same) countries with nuke technology, because a nuclear accident in Bushir is an immense bigger danger and real to the world, than any threat that might arise from a nuclear bomb in Iran, off course unless that bomb is American.

Miguel Santos, Lisbon, Portugal

US policy is destroying the Middle East and it will take us all with it. A shame more people can't see what is right in front of them. Thank you for this article.

Diana, Paris, France

This article nails it. What is particularly disturbing is the lack of an understanding in the US public that Iraq was not just a localized management issue. This is the way it is being spun by the GOP candidates who are showing early signs of real strength against potential Dem rivals, using this argument, and the leading Dem candidates do not try to deal with the larger issue head on. A great ship adrift. 2008 will not necessarily resolve these problems.

Peter, Eau Claire, WI, US

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Sir Winston Churchill

I believe that quote relates to dealing with a country that was systematically attacking sovereign states in an attempt to establish economic and military power over all other nations. I can see your point!

Richard, Sydney,

"...This is to positively forestall further disasters by breaking publicly with the Bush Administration and trying to develop a genuine European alternative to the suicidal American-led policies, not only in Iraq, but also in Israel, Palestine and Iran."

Wow!, absolutely superb article, well written and straight to the facts. I just hope and prey that British politicians/people will thoroughly absorb what's written. I couldn't agree more Mr Kaletsky, well done!

m.s, London, UK

Why is it so difficult for the Americans to understand that when Sunnis blow up Shiites and Shiites blow up Sunnis it is President' Bush's fault?.....also when my toast fell on the floor butter-side-down this morning and the traffic lights changed to red just as I got near them and the crack that's appearing in the tiles on my bathroom floor...all Bush's fault. That Saddam.......such a sweetie.

James, Monteria, Colombia

A couple of points:

The terrorists have not struck us on our soil for over 2100 days. They would be foolish to do so, since that seems to set America off and next time we might not play as nice.

Second, our military is more powerful than all the rest of the countries in the world COMBINED. Should we decide that instead of breaking and fixing things, that we will just break them and move on to break the next thing - each little war would last a week or two.

Bob, Rexford,

I see shades of the great British 20th Century tradition of capitulation and appeasement that Chamberlain so eloquently summarized reborn in this alarmist nonsense. Tell us, Anatole, will you still call the Americans the crazies when the mullahs use the bomb against Tel Aviv? No, most likely you'll blame the US for letting it happen and complain we didn't do anything about.

If we have learned one thing as Americans, I hope that it is not to listen to Europeans, but rather to do what we think as right and, where we make mistakes, fix them.

Joseph Nemec, New York, New York

This article is typical of Kaletsky's myopic & one sided view of the World.Whilst the Bush Administration is far from perfect,at least they are prepared to stand up for what they believe is right,rather than appease those who are determined to destroy our democracy & way of life.
We still don't appear to have learnt the lessons of history !!!!

elvin, manchester, england

I usually agree with most of what Anatole Kaletsky says, but I can't quite see how a policy of breaking with the US - that's what it would be, since Americans don't like even a President they don't agree with being insulted - and trying to create a policy in an EU that can't agree on anything, could be said to be "genuinely courageous". "Genuinely foolhardy" seems more like it.

We may not like US policy, but at least the US has the power to do something in the world. The EU has no power to do anything except pass resolutions.

To put this another way, if Iran or Hamas heard that the UK was breaking with the US to create a "European" policy, would they be pleased or dismayed? I think they would be delighted. They would have succeeded in dividing the West at no cost to themselves.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US

The Bush-Cheney regime and their misguided policy in Iraq has let an evil genie out of the bottle in the Middle East. Iraq is in chaos. The Islamists are emboldened and exporting their destabilizing violence throughout the area. Bush wanted to change the Middle East and he has but it is not what he imagined. He thought he could sprinkle some democracy seeds and a new order would bloom. He was and is delusional. The fallout from America's arrogant foreign policy will haunt the west for decades. Thank goodness in nineteen months we will at last get a regime change here that we so desperately need!!
Europe would do well to band together and create a comprehensive
alternative. Toi continue to follow America would be the ultimate in
stupidity.

Bruce Northwood, Washington, D.C.,

Thank you for bringing the truth to print. And thank you for speaking the minds of 1/2 or more of the people of the United States. As average citizens we are held prisoner to the decisions of this present administration and are condemmned to suffer extreme emotional angst at the present situation and events leading up to it, as well as to somehow endure an economy that must pay for this disgusting disaster in the near future. As sad as the truth is to hear, only the truth can avert further insanity from occurring.

E. Winburn Potter, Harrington, Maine, USA

An accurate depiction of a disastrous state of affairs. When such a bunch of people at the highest level of power create such disasters, it makes you wonder what their motivation was and how did they manage to get to such a level of power which gave them the means to cause such destruction.

Gordon Brown now has to rectify a state of affairs of his criminal predecessor's making. Blair's total and uncritical compliance with the American foul-up has bloodied the British government's hands.

Gervas Douglas, Andorra la Vella,

Your view is typically British, typically weak and typicallty wrong. There was no other choice than to go in to Iraq.
The mess it is was not avoidable. But it's a better mess than it would be keeping Saddam in power. Britain is a 2nd tier world power today because of too much negotiating and too much wrong decision making when
the times and events called for more fight and less flight.
Free democracies only remain free through war as that is how they gained their freedoms in the first place. Sadly, the West is not willing to fight the enemies of 2007 on their terms. You know what Arabs and Iranians respect?
Power and decisive action, NOT talk! A preemptive strike against Iran is in the making and Britain had better grow up to the fact that it's culture and society is on the brink of extinction unless they are willing to fight for their freedom. The radical Islamic factions believe in war, especially against weak nations who don't!

David Fowler, Memphis, TN

Right now, Americans are leading the way in the most ignorant and deluded nation in the world contest. Bravo! Stick to watching NASCAR, America, and leave it to other people to think.

John, London, UK

How nice to have the luxury to sit under America's protection globally, and chat on about how horrible America is.

If nothing else, America has proven itself to be highly tuned to trends, highly adaptive, and highly practical, unlike most of Europe. If America sees a strategic threat on the horizon, are you willing to bet against it?

Yet in this Europe seems more willing to criticize America's action, perhaps to give excuse for Europe’s inaction. And the result will likely be what it has always been – at some future time America will once again have to rescue Europe from its own folly.

Chip, Dallas, TX

Soon enough Britan will become Britianasburg with muslims at the helm. The Americans will elect a President not a fool who would turn a blind eye to whats happening in the world, just like the author of this article. War with Iran is imminent and it's Irans fault. It's amazing how people are appoligist for a truly crazy regime.

bernard, newark, delaware

Break with is administration? OK.
But on no account make this a beak with the USA.
The last thing the UK needs is to put itself further into the EU camp.

Minnie Ovens, LA, USA

Mr K is way off base, his view is bereft of an essential perspective, and perhaps he just does not like us, Thats fine but where is his clear statement that such is his bias ?

wpo, warsaw, n.y.

Exactly so. I note the article's antis are from the good old US of A - the country that has believed for at least a century that 'Freedom' can be obtained at the point of a gun. My experience of these times leads unswervingly to the view put forward by Anatole.

Colin Downes-Grainger, London, UK

brilliant as always.

Yuri, Moscow, Russia

"trying to develop a genuine European alternative to the suicidal American-led policies, not only in Iraq, but also in Israel, Palestine and Iran."

Good luck. Say what you want about us, but the US will get something done when we see a problem. Europe couldn't even handle the first Kosovo crisis on their own. A genunine European alternative is keepting quiet so the russians don't cut off your natural gas or the iranians your oil before global warming makes the winters nicer.

Incompetent in warfare? I haven't seen any better military campaign of that size and objective. 20/20 is nice to have from london today, but doesn't exist in the real world.

Danger Ranger, Washington, USA

Mr Kaletsky, you ignore or gloss over one point. Iran is in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons (Mr El Baradei acknowledges as much), it has declard war on Israel and the West and its adherents "love death more than life". "Looking forward", Mr Kaletsky, what do you suggest we do about that? Perhaps put your head in the sand until it one sunny day it along with millions of others, is blown up???

Jon Caineto, Sydney, Australia

Sir, how would you go about dealing with terrorists? It is so easy to be critical and so difficult to lead. I

Mary Knight, Pittsburgh, Pa/USA

History will compare Mr. Bush in his competence against the last Kaiser Wilheim and find the Kaiser more competent as he took Germany and Europe into a caldren that would last another half century. History will compare the American Joint Staff against the Kaiser's and likewise find their opening strategic decisions to be tha fatal moves to lose a war with defeat to occur years hense. History will evaluate the neocons as having advanced a policy of pillage on behalf of Israeli security which enriched and empowered its most deadly enemies. UK well a good side show partner practicing what used to be American jackel diplomacy.

Bill Keller, BASKING RIDGE, USA/New Jersey

Good article. America has the appearance of being a democracy; but in fact is run by a hidden clique, who use democracy as a front for their own agenda. They are not crocodiles, of course; simply alligators. They have been in there for a hundred years, and who knows how to unmask them?

H. Grattan, Johannesburg, South Africa

Well done. A public break with the USA and Iran faces a much weakened opposition to its programme to develop nuclear weapons.

A genuinely European alternative? I can hear the laughing in Tehran from here. What precisely would this involve?Some studied finger wagging followed by well reasoned inactivity and then surrender. Just like the softly-softly European approach of the last ten years which has achieved precisely nothing.

Hugh, London,

And it isn't only Iraq and Iran. Much of the present problem in Palestine stems from the US decision to back Israel in withholding money rightfully due to the Hamas government, one of the few relatively freely elected governments in the Middle East, which now amounts, I believe, to $750 million - but then the USA doesn't believe in democracy if it doesn't produce the right answer, does it?

Edward , London, UK

Mike from Missouri:

It would indeed be nice if we in the UK would stop our policies of appeasement. Despite all our concessions, all our silences in the face of one outrage after another, neither Washington nor Tel Aviv seem to be inclined to behave acceptably.

Time to put an end to any self-deceiving ideas of moral equivalence and act on the recognition that the US and Israel are dangerous, paranoid aggressors who will never actually believe they are safe until everyone else is fully under their control.

Randal, Yorkshire,

We will see how crazy Bush gets when the Iranian Mullahs finally achieve weapons-grade Uranium and a Western city gets vaporized.....

Tom, Reston, USA

Yes, Blair, Bush and Cheney are crazies. Clearly, Ahmadinejad, Al Queda, the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbolah share our values, are our friends, and bear us no ill will. How can this not be clear to any sane person? Who wouldn't rather live under one of their regimes rather than in facist America?

R M, London, UK

Until countries such as Great Britain, Australia, Canada etc; finally with the debacle which is Iraq today and the turmoil in the Middle East decide that an Independent foreign policy is paramount and that the national interests of America( Neo con driven) will not decide an International response also America should not assume that traditional allies should respond accordingly! Unfortunately what has been unleashed in the Middle East seems to be leaves little optimism for the present future until democracy actually acts accordingly.

Milan, Brisbane, Australia

What has got into America? I am reminded of an old Not The 9 O'clock News sketch, the gist of which is:- The Americans are making up for being late for the past 2 world wars, by being extra prompt for WW3!

Chris, Winchenstein,

Never could work out why Muslims kill Muslims in the middle east and blame the west for it!

Tom Slattery, Paisley, Scotland

Of course, everything is America's fault. The ideology of the islamocrazies now slaughtering each other in Iraq, and in Gaza has nothing to do with it. Make sure we keep focussed on using that retrospectoscope to go after Bush!

One small point though: maybe we could hear what the European alternative is before we break with the Americans? Hopefully it will be better than the European plan for former Yugoslavia (before the Americans stepped in), or the European plan for Darfur, or the European plan for containment of Iran. Or maybe it won't be...

Nick Beard, Rotherham, UK

I suspect that Mr. Kaletsky's visit to America was to New York and Washington. Yes, they are in America but they certainly do not have the pulse of the rest of the country.

The "genuine European alternative" sounds like more of the same. A great deal of talk without action. If I were a Iran, I would continue with my nuclear efforts knowing that Europe would dither and spout and, in the end, do nothing at all. Time would be on my side and I would accomplish my goals.

Thanks for Churchill, Thatcher and Blair.

Bob Kohn, landenberg,

Typical, Palestinians are descending into Civil War because of their own extremism and the insightful Times journalist is writing about how all the ills of the Middle East are down to American "crazies." Talk about lazy journalism.

Andrew, Sheffield,

In the recent New Hampshire Republican presidential debate, all the candidates advocated pre-emptive first strikes against Iran, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons......except for one man.

One man of true integrity, honesty, who believes America should go back to the Constitution and adopt a more non-interventionist foreign policy of peace

That man is Congressman Ron Paul.

Search him out on the web. He is an enigma. A beacon of light in a sea of fools

Matt Myers, Redhill, UK

I have good reason to believe that the purpose of a strong British presence in southern Afghanistan is in anticipation of an impending military conflict with Iran. You are on to something here !

A Johnson, Southampton, England

The message is clear.
1) Make war only on self defense (not for acquiring access to resources).
2) Stop interfering with other countries - let them clear their own mess.
3) If you do not like a regime ISOLATE it - do not spend money in war instead of taking care your own people

Basil, Cambridge,

Well, a week or two ago, columns in The Times were suggesting that we react to that other bunch of crazies left over from the Cold War by engaging with them.

The problem I see with the Bush administration is that they are so divorced from reality that they probably haven't noticed how many or how few abroad support them, or whether that number is increasing or decreasing. The neoconservatives' nation myth may even be fuelled when people start publicly deserting them. (That's certainly the impression the WSJ's editorial board give....)

Mr Brown's problem - the problem of every other leader - is that it's well-nigh impossible to engage with a brick wall.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Oh dear, Anatole! This contains a nugget of truth, but is one-sided and sensationalist. Are you considering moving to the Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror?

Ian Brook, Esher, UK

The biggest disaster in Iraq was perpetrated by L. Paul Bremer former State Department official appinted as Proconsul to replace General Jay Garner who had well-established contacts with the Kurds. Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army using Order No. 2......Kerensky had done this in 1917 using Order No.1.......and ensured Bolshevik victory.

Closing down State factories, abolishing customs duties, giving foreign security contractors immunity from Iraqi laws, banning farming practices, A man described as "a voracious opportunist" had control of oil revenues which seem to have lined a limited number of pockets, and created a complete Zone of Chaos in the space of just 12 months. General Lucius Clay he was not.

Europe wanted The State Department to run Iraq, Bremer ruined it.

TomTom, Leeds, England

May I join you in breaking with the crazies?

Robin, Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Of course you are right. A diplomatic break with our developing, or say rather drifting policy toward Iran and the horror of pre-emptive bombing is exactly what Mr Brown should do -- it would help us in America greatly. Bush is too weak to do this alone.

Ernest Werner, Trumansburg NY , New York USA

As an American who has been totally aghast at what we have done in Iraq, I heartily concur with the author. Perhaps if Great Britain had refused to "help their allies" in this misadventure, this war would not have begun, for the shroud of decency England brought with it, would have fallen and the bare bones of the attack would have been more readily seen. We so appreciate the special bond between the two countries, good friends however must say no.at times, and this definately was one of them. Cheney and Bush would have probably gone in anyway, but their "righteousness" would have been exposed as a sham.- public opinion would have been at best lukewarm. I do hope Mr. Brown maintains a cordial relationship with this country, however, maintaining the intregrity of the "Mother Country"
J. Scherer

Joan Scherer, Longmont, Colorado,USA

I can only hope that Mr Brown is capable of making such significant decisions with regard to our 'special relationship' with the US.

As a nation that prides itself on a successful, diplomatic history we should lead the way in providing an alternative to the offensive foreign policy the Bush Administration insists on using.

I think they need to get their house in order and this can only be done by ousting the current government from power during the forthcoming elections. Let's hope the American public possess the intelligence to redeem themselves in their world image.

Nilesh Lad, Bradford, UK

Well said Anatole - but what took you so long?

oldasiahand, Manila, Philippines

I have felt for the last few months that the U.S. is trying to provoke Iran into a war, and I am afraid they may succeed.Not just because of the possibility of nuclear weapons, they will not find this easy, but I am afraid that Cheney who is the eminence grise behind Bush's throne, will go blindly ahead and as Bush has said he would not rule out using nuclear weapons, I think they may well be used - and bang! goes the world. If I believed in a God, I would say God help us!

Peggy Podmore, Haliburton, Ontario, Canada

Anatoly Kaletsky is an extremely "realistic" human being to write such an article...If we all become astute like him, this planet will become heaven...

Saj Rafique, sugar land, tx.usa.

Hog Wash!

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Sir Winston Churchill

Mike, Imperial, Missouri, USA

Your being hysterical.

Lipo Davis, Pensacola, FL

Also in Anatole Kaletsky

Brown is in denial. The public expect cuts

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

Anatole Kaletsky

Anatole Kaletsky writes for The Times Comment pages on Thursdays. One of the country's leading commentators on economics, he was formerly Economics Editor and is now Editor-at-large of The Times. He has won many awards for his financial and political journalism. Before joining The Times, he worked for 12 years on the Financial Times

Read more from Anatole Kaletsky

Focus Zone

Northern Lights:

Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here

Business Solutions:

Risk, resilience and embracing new technology

Need to Know:

Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast

Business Wisdom:

Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System

Social Entrepreneurs:

The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors

Business Travel:

Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip

Great British Summer :

Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday

Corsica Travel:

Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination

More reports:

Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more

Classifieds

Cars

Skip Cars of the Week

Car leasing

The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™

New Audi A5 Coupe from £399.99 inc VAT

2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)

BMW 6 Series Convertible 650i Sport 2dr Auto

2008
42850

Great car insurance deals online

Car Insurance

Search for more cars and bikes

Jobs

Skip Jobs of the Week

Intelligence Analyst

£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London

Finance & Corporate Services Manager

£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol

Programme Manager

Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands

Sales Professionals

OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities

Search more Jobs

Properties

Looking to Buy? Looking to Sell? Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward

Completely London

Rushmore Condo's

Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views

Diadem Homes

The best new homes in Wimbledon?

Times Online Property Search

Nationwide

Search for more properties

Holidays

Skip Travel of the Week

Virgin Atlantic 2009 Cruise Deals

Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!

Amazing Cruise Deals With Virgin Holidays Cruises

Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!

5 * Moscow break from £499 pp inc flights

5 star quality at a 3 star price.

Canada for Less.. fly from £129 one way inc taxes

8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper

Search for more holidays

Place your advert now

Where am I?

Home

Comment Columnists Anatole Kaletsky

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.

News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround

This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

Let Biggs stay where he is

Why we must break with the American crazies

Multimedia

Related Internet Links

Have your say

Also in Anatole Kaletsky

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

Cartoon

Most Read

Today

MOST COMMENTED

Today

MOST CURIOUS

Today

Focus Zone

Simplify Digital

Popular Searches on Times Online

Cars

Jobs

Properties

Holidays