I was somewhat taken aback when I saw Jay Garner arriving to the new dictator - Sorry, new interim leader of Iraq. That is, of course, nothing like being a colonial overlord governor-general (although he is indeed a general), because America does not and never has believed in colonialism (except for the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii and countless spots of military of commercial significance around the world, many borrowed from the former British Empire). This is certainly a good way for us to show the Iraqi people who we fought a war to liberate them and give them our wonderful gifts of liberal democracy for the people, by the people and of the people. Just not those people.



Up until now, however, I thought this might be okay - that this J. Garner might be good in the short term. Then I realised today I had misheard Jay Garner for J. Garner. I thought we were talking about the esteemed actor James Garner. I thought the man who shone in The Great Escape, the man who was Maverick would be able to sort things out. Jim Rockford would know what to do and would always sort out the bad guys. Then I discovered that it wasn’t James Garner at all and some bloody retired general. That is a particularly sensitive move - pick not a diplomat or a UN representative but a US general.



Great. Couldnt we at least have some advisory council to work with him composed of actual Iraqi people from a cross-section of their society? Then we may at least have a fig-leaf of pretence that we are not imposing rule at the force of a gun on that shattered country. That sort of thing is not only immoral and illegal (much like the war itself) but makes an utter mockery of the supposed (and rather belatedly voiced) reason for the damned war.