"Liberal interventionism"? Isn't that what conservative Tories wanted to do when they proposed war, rather than appeasement, with Hitler after 1936? What do these political labels really mean? It means war when we want it is good, war when we don't want it is bad.

Nell, New York,

In answer to Paul Katz from Austria:

Yes, Mr Aaronovitch did give concrete ideas on how to make liberal interventionism work: Don't do it in half measures and be prepared to have the backbone to see it through, i.e. more troops and material, more long term commitment, get in early etc.

He certainly gives more concrete ideas as to how liberal interventionism works than you give onwhat the alternative looks like. It seems to me that the alternative ends up with what we had in Bosnia (until we got round to liberal interventionism) and what we now have in Darfur.

No-one says rush to war but there does come a point when talking has to stop. This will always be a balance between moral case and national interest (a reasonable filter for deciding which world problem to sort out first).

I'd always prefer a Blair to some Chamberlain waiving pieces of paper and talking peace whilst Slavs, Jews, & Gypsies are butchered before intevention is forced on you at even higher cost

Patrick Callaghan, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Would not expect much else from a left wing Blair loving Mr. Aaronovitch, but this spineless attack on Cameron. Balir's foreign policy has truely been a great success. Iraq, a country in civil war the consequences of which can not be predicted. An illegal war as well, Saddam Hussein presented a threat ti nobody. Afghanistan, a war without end. Kosavo is still with us. The 7/7 bombers were radicalised in the UK through the Government turning a blind eye to islamic fundamentalism, not through contact with Kasmiri militants. As for getting a grip on immigrants, its not the Telegraphs business to tell the Government how to achive this. But a few border controls might help with a willness to deport people. The fact is this Government has thrown open the doors over the past ten years and has not got a clue who in this country. Oh, and I thought it was Brown who is trying to turn these islands in fortress Britain with his latest schemes. Very poor article and criticism of Cameron.

chris, woodbridge, suffolk

Solve the world's problems?

Tony Blair's policy?

Oh please, Blair helped create more problems than he solved.

And in Iraq he assisted in creating a human disaster, solving nothing.

Blair is disliked everywhere except in parts of the United States where there are still people who think Bush is something more than a reformed drunk.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO, Canada

Mr Aaronovitch writes an interesting and far reaching article.
Europe lacks the will for any kind of conflict, they are like the
French were in 1940, war weary appeasers. Britain faces a
choice, become like Europe and face defeat of our way of life
and freedom, or stick with America which is a robust nation
with courage. The current American army is one of the best
to leave the states. Blair wanted this for Britain but was not
prepared to fund it. A nations Army is their shield and all that
can protect them from harm. Blair's interventions were
against some pretty evil people and l believe History will
judge blair to be a man of courage.

Austin, Berkshire, England

When I was a boy, after hearing about some foreign attrocity on the news, I would then hear something along the lines of "the British Government has expressed profound regret..." and always thought, "nevermind that, why don't they DO something?". Tony Blair's foreighn policy did result in the British government actually DOing something and, in the case of Sierra Leone and Kosovo, with some success. Now we seem to be going back to the bad old days of not DOing something and just "expressing profound regret..." and I think the world will be poorer for it.

Matthew, Ringwood, UK

Mr Aaronvitch, what we really need is less hatred in the middle east.

Robert, London, UK

Cameron doesn't have to worry about ditching Blairite policy on foreign affairs, or any other, Brown is doing it for him. Unfortunately, by the time Brown is replaced the country will be in such a poor state that it will take many years to get back on track, so foreign policy will have to take a back seat anyway.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Dear Paul Katz: "It remains a disturbing thought: bringing in democracy and human rights by tanks and bayonets. Thinking to be able to democratize a warring society by killing those we consider the bad guys although we often do not understand that society and do not know what individual people there stand for. " Do you mena as in the liberation of Austria from the Nazi's (by the Anglo-Saxon powers)? Or its continuing freedom from Commuinism because of the NATO? Or indeed from Islamic fundamentalism?

Jammy, Coventry,

Trying to impose democracy on any nation is a fool's errand and in Blair, Bush had a fully qualified, enthusiastic partner. Iraq was, and is a disaster. Afghanistan will follow the same route and the slaughter of more innocent civilians there will only encourage more extreme responses from impressionable young Muslims in Britain and elsewhere. We need to stop interfering and concentrate more on domestic problems – Lord knows we have enough of them.

Don Smith, Oxford, UK

Sorry, David - the less Blairite the foreign policy the better, please. I agree that there is no guarantee we would be terror-free if we disengaged in Middle Eastern affairs (the apparent motives seem to transcend our interventionism - they don't like our way of doing things and they are going to decree a different culture when they take over - they hope), but trying to impress others in the playground that we are bigger than we are has got us precisely nowhere. The Dutch, the French, the Germans, the Swedes all had an empire once, and have largely abandoned their pretentions. Why can't we? Who in the Middle East is going to listen to us prate on about democracy when we can't even practise it properly ourselves with spin, lies and subterfuge? The Americans are deluded because they think they can call all the shots - why should we join them? What did 'shock and awe' do for the Iraqis? About as much good as Al-Qaeda and their followers. A new approach is now needed, based on humility.

Eric Boson, Tewkesbury Glos, UK

Why should a small to medium sized country like Britain be trying to involve itself in the political decisions of other nation's far away? No-one is listening and Britain has no Stick of either the "Carrott on a String" kind or the "Beating" kind to influence the actions of other countries.

People in government, and the common British man or woman really need to stop deluding themselves. This is 2007, the days of Empire are long long gone! Wouldn't it just be nicer to leave history where it is and accept the reality that Britain is about as influential in global politics today as it was in say 1507? The world has changed, let's all just get on with trying to pay off our debt's (moral and financial!) and be glad we don't have to put up with the pains of driving human progress further forward, we'll have to leave that now to the Americans, the Indians, and the Chinese.

If we look at global history , we should be more acutely aware of the small place in history we hold as a nation,

Paul Burke, Norwich, England

If Gordon's the statesman then its about time he had some hard headed realism. As he sends young men and women to their deaths waging war on two battlefields, perhaps he might like to revise our defence spending upwards from its current paltry levels. On current trends, army morale risks collapse with insufficient rest between active tours, shoddy housing when back in Britain, and a public lack of understanding of what they're fighting for.

Meanwhile important procurement projects are shoved into the long grass as expenditure is refocussed on the present crisis, meaning in 15-20 years time we won't have a navy to speak of, or an RAF, and the army will still be trying to make do and fix the stuff that they're using and wearing out now. Call that statesmanship? I call it betrayal. Either reduce military commitments, or preferably, radically increase spending so we can do the job being asked now, and have an armed forces able to do the job in the future.

G, London,

"Liberal Interventionism"? A fine sounding slogan entirely devoid of reality, if indeed you care to judge by the results of such a program. Take Iraq for exqmple. Or to take it a different way, how about liberal interventionism on behalf of the Palestinians? David Aaronovitch would find little to praise there. That would not be evenhanded between conquerors and the oppressed, that would be critical of Israel, and an obvious non-starter. So it is void either way.

tarquinis, Seattle, USA

It is good to read an amusing column. David's spoof idea that Gordon means what he says is enough fun for me today - I'm saving the idea of Brown doing what he says for tomorrow

Ali Murray, Solihull, UK

David, that is a load of rubbish.

Blair got nearly everything wrong in his foreign policy. The first thing that had to be tackled was obviously the Israel/Palestine problem. Middle East peace and quiet depended on a rapid settlement of that problem. Blair not only did nothing, but his anti-Palestance stance proved a recruiting ground for anti-west extremism.

When a country has been invaded and illegally occupied for 40 years (in contravention of UN Resolution 242) something has to be done because inertia inflames feeling in those with a legitimate grievance.

The invasion of Iraq was a disaster with a total absence of forward planning. Forces needed in Afghanistan were drawn off to help in an Iraq disaster. Then he got everything wrong in Lebanon purely because he had never sorted out Israel/Palestine. Hezbollah came into the conflict to support Hamas, who had been attacked by Israel.

Wrong policies fomented Moslem extremism in the UK . We are now paying the price.

Bertram C. Johnston, Overijse, Belgium

How many of David Aaronovitch's friends and relatives are going to be putting their lives on the line during his wars of "liberal interventionalism"? Somewhere approximately in the region of absolutely none, I'd guess. Still, it's much easier to be objective about these things when you don't expect to suffer yourself.

Sue Cole, London,

"But I wonder whether the problem was not our interventionism, but our unwillingness to pay the full price for it"

I think this is the one Dave. This is the one they're going to remember you by. You are the KING of columnists! The KING!

john motor, london, england

Political cosmetics aside, western tyranny is our greater threat. Sinisterity is the modern air.

Stanley, Sutton-in-Ashfield, England

In response to Dave Robins , it is not true at all that we are losing in Afghanistan, nor is it true that we are beating a retreat in Basra. The boys in Helmand are facing a difficult and determined enemy, and anyone who thought we would be facing otherwise was seriously misinformed. Despite this, they are doing a fantastic job, as are the troops in Basra, and to say they are beating a retreat is doing them a great disservice; it was never the aim to stay permanently in Basra and they are handing over to the Iraqi's a relatively peaceful city.

With regards to environmental policy, if we are not going to lead the way then who will? Just because other countries are not facing up to their responsibilities doesn't mean we should also bury our heads in the sand. That is not the British way.

David Robinson, London,

The biggest threat to us all, as Tony Blair said, is the potential conjunction of WMD material and Islamic terrorists. Intervention (liberal or otherwise) to prevent this possibility is in all of our interests.
Some, apparently, would rather bury their heads in the sand and let it happen.

arnoldo, Coventry,

Calling Blairite interventionsim "liberal" does the name a disservice. Blairite intervention, as with most, was categorically realist.
Whoever invokes humanity is trying to cheat: Zolo; Proudhon

Mark Dearn, Chatham,

This is an excellent article. Well written Mr Aaronovitch. The idea that we should wait for catastrophes to happen before we act is ridiculous. I agree fully with the thrust of it but I'm not confident that Mr Brown will orchestrate foreign policy to our advantage.

Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,

For all that Aaronovitch is right - that Britain has to intervene abroad, if not to save people from evil so much as a form of "forward defence" (an old notion) - Brown has no credibility as the promoter of such a policy. As Chancellor he systematically failed to give the necessary resource backing to the Armed Forces, he intervened excessively in MoD business on an unprecedented scale, and he exhibits only apparent distaste for the officer corps, still without question the best-educated, most humane and most subtle-minded in the world. Cameron's remarks (too ill thought through to be considered "thoughts") WERE too conservative, and bore the regrettable imprint of the sort of cynical and tentative thinking embodied by Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind; but only a break with Labour will give the armed forces the chance to rebuild themselves to carry out Aaronovitch's suggested course of policy.

Guy Rowlands, Anstruther, UK

Agreed - the conservative ideologies are always too deeply rooted in the notion of Britain as being purely a geographical landmass with a cohesive monoracial populace.

But then, that's what their voters also believe.

Mark, London, UK

Cameron is a "Little Englander". David you have to accept his World revolves around the Home Counties and the Costwolds.Should Cameron ever become Prime Minister the UK will not continue to be a World Power.Unfortunately he will never make the rank as a World Statesman.

Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall

One reason for abandoning Blairite foreign policy is because it isn't working.We are bogged down in Afghanistan in a war we are losing and we are beating a retreat in Basra.We are no longer a Great Power and the world isn't waiting for our "leadership".Brown can bang on as much as he likes about global warming,for instance,but neither China nor India are listening.Perhaps he could turn his attention to solving this country's problems instead.We might in any case be less vulnerable to terrorism if we stopped getting involved in America's wars.

Dave Robins, West Drayton,

I have the gravest reservations about interventionist policies; they should happen extremely rarely. The idea that the control freak Gordon Brown should throw our weight(do we have much?) about fills me with foreboding. it is bad enough that he sees himself as a latter-day David Livingston with money (taxpayers' money) to fling about as he chooses is bad enough: backed by our overstretched boys' blood and bone I don't think so.

Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,

Like most British politicians he has failed to confront Saudi issues but on the question of security his policy is sound.

Tony Reynolds, BRIGHTON, UK

The 7/7 bombers were born and spent their entire lives in the UK. The reasons for their becoming suicide bombers are to be found in the environment where they spent almost all of their lives. Claiming that they were somehow forcibly made into terrorists during a short visit to Pakistan is denial of the highest order.

Shehryar, Karachi, Pakistan

It remains a disturbing thought: bringing in democracy and human rights by tanks and bayonets. Thinking to be able to democratize a warring society by killing those we consider the bad guys although we often do not understand that society and do not know what individual people there stand for. Thus, to be on the safe side, we kill rather more to safeguard that there willl be some bad guys among them.

And did Mr. Aaronovitch give any concrete idea on how to actually make liberal interventionism succeed?

Paul Katz, Vienna, Austria