George Bush refused, accepting the sound advice of his experts that to do so would ignite a conflagration, and almost certainly strangle the supply of oil at this troubled times.

If it had gone ahead it would have resulted in more terrorism, a massive hike in fuel prices, our troops in Southern Iraq would have been endangered, and it would have created decades of instability and bloodshed.

It goes to show that even George Bush can read the signs of the times.
Number Two: alas he does not always get the signs right. The Americans have adopted a policy of using hostile force within Pakistan without the Pakistani Government's permission. They say it is in hot pursuit of Taliban and al-Q'aida, and they only use precision weapons. Tell that to the wedding party that was just about wiped out, whole villages that have been decimated, or the families of the children slaughtered from the air.

Understandably, the Pakistani people are furious, and it destabilises its new civilian Government. There are over a million Britons of Pakistani descent, and polls and reports indicate that they share the fury.

So why be cheerful? Gordon Brown has refused to back the policy of attacks in Pakistan. It is a rare example of our Government having the guts to stand up to the Americans in the 'war on terror'. Condemning Guantanamo is the only other one I can think of. Our national experts have warned that this policy risks radicalising some young British Pakistanis, leading to more terrorism.

It may well be that Gordon Brown listened to these experts and decided he could not take the risk with British lives. Whatever the reason, it was the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, in another part of the political jungle the two Davids, Cameron and Milliband, have been letting us have their wisdom (or lack of it) on what to do about the crisis in Georgia. Cameron was the first to plough in, but Milliband, with a fine display of Blairite belligerence, was not far behind. They both want Georgia to join NATO as a full member as soon as possible, if not immediately.

Russia has behaved abominably in the Caucasus in recent years. They have butchered Chechnya and showed no regard for human life when they let loose the Ossetian and Chechnyan militia after the war with Georgia.

But it is wrong to whitewash the Georgian government. This particular spat started when the Georgians attacked the South Ossetian capital. At one stage there were 300 pieces of heavy artillery firing into the civilian areas. That was a clear war crime. Fourteen
Russian 'peacekeepers' were killed. How could you expect them not to respond?

Is this a country we want as a close ally, one whose side we would be obliged to support in a war if it was a full member of NATO? Tell me, where do the two Davids think we will get the troops from to face the Russian army in the hills of the Caucasus? Or are we supposed to threaten nuclear weapons?

The problem is that, from the Kosovan intervention onwards, both America and Britain have torn up international rules for military intervention. The urgent task now is to rebuild them, better and fairer.

Alas, both the Davids, from recent speeches (Milliband's at the Labour Party Conference), seem wedded to the bad ways of supporting American 'liberal interventionism'. On these performances I would be worried if either of them became our Prime Minister.

PADDY COSGROVE
Marine Avenue, Whitley Bay.

All correspondence should be e-mailed to Your Say
It should also include a full name, address and daytime telephone number