The Times (UK) repeated what the (Anglican) Archbishop said in a Emel magazine. Muslim magazine, that is.
"It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did – in India, for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together – Iraq, for example."
I think I've got that.
- British colonization of India was a good thing, because England occupied India for generations.
- American efforts to help Iraqis weed terrorists out of their country and set up an independent government is bad
It's true that England poured resources into India. It's also true that, from the founding of the East India Company in 1600 to 1947, when Mahatma Gandhi convinced England to get out of his country, the British Empire brought law, order, and guidance to India - and all they asked for in return was tons of tea the the Kohinoor. "Asked" might not be quite the right word.
Back to the archbishop: He's certainly got the right, and responsibility, to point out evil where he sees it. He also has the right to be wrong.