Why cowardice and leadership do not mix.
Like most of us, I�ve been a bit concerned about this whole Iraq affair and its possible outcomes over the past few months. I remember that, in Part One in 1991, there was serious worry and talk about conscription in the UK. There was also a considerable amount of bollocks talked, too, of bragging boys slurring over their lager about how they�d be going to the Gulf to sort out Saddam. As everything started to roll, they were still to be found in the comfort of the pub. I, for one, didn�t want anything to do with it. Was I being a coward? I also know now that the commanders of the British forces then were all for pushing on to Baghdad and sorting out Saddam there and then, but were prevented from doing so by the American High Command. Was this just plain common sense, pragmatism, or cowardice?

I find the notions of courage and cowardice somewhat vexing. What passes for cowardice in some may be regarded as its precise opposite by others. When, however, I consider the actions of President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair and of Saddam Hussein, I can only conclude that they all exhibit, not strength, but fear, and all of subtly different kinds. Let me begin with the latter of this triumvirate. Be clear, above all else, that Saddam Hussein is nothing but an inflated bully. He has done monstrous things, but he is not a monster. He is human, and we have had plenty of experience of the banal, everyday kind of evil that even the most average of us can commit over the past century. Bullies, almost by definition, are cowards. His is the desire to be absolute master of all that he surveys. This need is based on deep insecurity, and would seem to be founded on his childhood experiences. Nor is he alone: History is littered with examples of just such men who rise to power and affect absolute despotism. This is my first example of cowardice, where the strength of force is mistaken for the capacity to govern. He will end with being largely forgotten. Others of his ilk will, however, continue to rise.
What about George W. Bush? Well, I for one cannot forget his utterly shameful actions on September 11th , 2001, when he more or less literally disappeared into the ether. The action may be seen as pragmatic (after all, there were rumours of an attack on the White House), but ultimately, there was a Leader-shaped hole where the president should have been. Sure, he turned up in New York after the dust had settled and made a moving speech on Ground Zero, but by then it was a largely empty gesture. A leader must always be seen to be in the right place at the right time. Someone like Clinton, for all his many faults, would have been right at the centre of things, and damn the security guy�s advice. Now, I do not know what was going through Dubya�s head at the moment of the attacks, nor do I affect to, but I suspect that he was being led through it by the motley crowd that surround any leader. And therein lies his kind of cowardice: The irresolute soul that is blown too easily by the whims of others. Why else does he not speak up about things like the Kyoto Treaty, or the International Criminal Court, both of which are surely beneficial to humanity? It is also saddening to note that he surrounds himself with his father�s advisors: Can�t he find any of his own peers?
Finally, our own Dear Leader, Tony Blair. He acts resolutely, even does a fine impression of Winston Churchill. Why would I call him a coward? He is, in many ways, the opposite of George W. He says his own mind, does not suffer fools gladly, and is not swayed by the myriad of voices of different hues and opinions that surround him. Yet for all his poise and ready answers, he constantly looks like a man wracked with fear. His is the third kind of cowardice: that of the man who�s been found out, yet bluffly denies the truth and keeps staggering on through the lies he�s almost, but not quite, convinced himself are true. He knows that the light at the end of the tunnel is probably a train, but he�ll go on walking towards it nonetheless. Yes, it looks brave, but it isn�t. Quite simply, he will use force because he�s too frightened to use his imagination in this horrid situation with Iraq. And there is the nub of the thing, this whole hideous mess. American and British policy regarding that country is one which is goverened by a complete failure of the imagination. Iraq has been under effective siege conditions for over a decade, yet the regime still hasn�t fallen. On to plan B: Bomb the bastards. Let�s just bomb them back to the condition of a medieval theocracy, then we can have someone we can really hate, and be certain that they hate us right back. Oh yes. Right now, there are three cowards gearing up for a ghastly war, and thousands will die because of their inability to imagine. Two last thoughts for you, noble sirs: firstly, I believe in the old maxim , the greatest warrior is the one with no need of killing: what about you? Lastly, Mr Bush and Mr Blair, you both profess to being devout Christians. Do this wrong, and the devil will be toasting your backsides for an awfully long time.

That which is an omission in others, becomes a sin in a leader.
pjgallantry@hotmail.com