According to the BCC, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, told the UK's Iraq Inquiry that the war in Iraq was "right" and that Iraq "had to be dealt with." He supported his statement on two conclusions, one I agree with and one I do not. Mr. Brown stated that the war in Iraq is justified because rogue states cannot be allowed to flout international law without consequence. Second, the "new world order we were trying to create would be put at risk" if countries like Iraq are not dealt with.
I agree with Mr. Brown's first assertion that rogue states cannot be left to act without consequence. Europe has suffered through many wars and attrocities because madmen were allowed to do as they pleased. In this regard, Europeans have a sensitivity that we may not given our geographic blessing of two oceans and relatively friendly neighbors.
I cannot agree with Mr. Brown's second assertion concerning a new world order. The new world order he mentions sounds like a UN-centric collection of politically interdependent nation-states engaging in collective security. I reject "collectivism" and believe that the Westphalian model of internationalism, or sovereign independent Nation-States, is still the best way for nations to ensure their own security and that of their neighbors.
Either way, Mr. Brown arrives at the conclusion that Iraq was a threat. But I think he also makes the case that international dithering on what to do about Iraq could have proven more dangerous in the long run. I commend him for this stance. I also commend him for having the courage not to engage in the all to familiar political game of blame shifting that we see in Washington. Brown could have taken this opportunity to smear Tony Blair but he did not.
I do not have a lot of common ground with Gordon Brown, but I applaud him on his stance concerning the threat posed by rogue states and for understanding that there comes a time when words are no longer effective.