The controversy United Kingdom's participation in the Iraq war in 2003 installed a deep distrust that still weighs heavily on British policy on military intervention, experts agree.
The decision to join the American invasion based on misleading information from the intelligence services, the bloody occupation and the fact that Iraq is sinking into a terrible sectarian war, was examined in an official investigation whose findings were published on Wednesday ( 6).
The death of 179 British soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have also left deep scars on both sides of the Atlantic.
The Iraq war "defined the British security policy," says Malcolm Chelmers, deputy director general of RUSI analysis institute. "You can follow the experience in Iraq and the current reluctance of the British government to send troops to Libya or Syria," he added.
In 2011, the UK led with France the initiative of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) to establish a no-fly zone during the revolt against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, but the mission was limited.
The country also participates in the bombing of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but only after the House of Commons to give their approval. "The debate took place in Parliament was dominated by Iraq," remembers Jane Kinninmont, deputy director of the Middle East program and North Africa in another analysis institute Chatham House.
"In 2005, when he was going ethnic cleansing in Darfur, it was much more difficult (than before the Iraq war) to defend a humanitarian intervention."
The initial justification for going to war was that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But when they were not found, it resorted to the argument that the world would be rid of a bloody dictator.
"There was a profound impact on skepticism about the effectiveness of military intervention and, in particular, humanitarian interventions called" Kinninmont said.
"In the United States can see some parallels. An important point of the election campaign of President Barack Obama was the US withdrawal of its military commitments in the Middle East," indicates.
"Empty" in foreign policy
Kinninmont notes that the UK has to cooperate with military forces in the region, such as Jordan or the Emirates, but without acting directly.
"The problem is that those forces are still very strong," he says.
But John Bew, Professor of History and Foreign Policy at King's College London, believes that Iraq had a paralyzing effect, and complains that the United Kingdom does not have enough strategy on Syria in recent years.
"We fail to think seriously about how to reduce violence, balancing area, to undertake actions such as the establishment of a humanitarian corridor, and diplomatically press the regime of Bashar al-Assad," he laments.
"There is a void in Western foreign policy," says AFP.
The neo-conservative association, Henry Jackson Society, also warned of the possibility of the Chilcot report cause a western distance further.
"One of the lessons we have to draw is that the intervention is a mistake, or that are responsible for all the current turmoil in the Middle East," says the association.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário