Washington’s priority is the war let others occupy themselves with the peace

Washington’s priority is the war; let others occupy themselves with the peace.Yet Afghanistan is straightforward compared with Somalia, perhaps the most failed of the world’s sad array of failed states. In Afghanistan there was a recognisable government, however objectionable, whose writ ran over most of the country, and which beyond any doubt supported (and was to a large degree supported by) Osama bin Laden and his organisation. As the war unfolded, the West helped to put together a new government, which cannot but be an improvement on its predecessor.These conditions do not apply in Somalia. Government in any meaningful definition of the term does not exist there. Little proof has yet been offered that al-Qa’ida has a significant presence there.A quick “in-and-out” military operation might make America feel good. It would ensure only more misery for ordinary Somalis, who have already suffered enough..

Even by the ponderous standards of major British “prestige” projects, the gestation of the new national stadium for England has been a leisurely one. It is now five years since the original decision was taken to build a new national football stadium with an athletics track; and it is two years since the specification was changed to a stadium without an athletics track. The Football Association may have confirmed that Wembley is its preferred site, but the Government insists that a final decision has yet to be made. Even after the further delay of some months announced to the Commons yesterday by Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, there is no guarantee that a national stadium will actually be built.Coming in the wake of the failure of the Picketts Lock scheme, which lost the UK the chance to host the World Athletics Championship in 2005, and the long living death of the Millennium Dome, we should ask ourselves some questions about why we as a nation are uniquely unable to get our act together.

Other nations seem to possess the national drive, determination and self-confidence to create the world-class venues for sport that attract major events such as the Olympics or the World Cup.The example closest to home and that comes most readily to mind is the Stade de France in Paris, with its 80,000 covered seats and rugby, football and athletics and music facilities, open 365 days a year, a pre-eminent example of the triumph of chauvinism and will. The venues for the 2000 Olympics in Australia also demonstrate what can be done. It seems strange that a sport now so rich as football has to rely on public funding on such a scale.But while we should continue to ask searching questions about this project, we should also consider the advantages of living without “a new Wembley”.For one of the few things that can be said for the further delay announced by Ms Jowell yesterday is that it offers us another opportunity to think about the radical option of living without such a national symbol of sporting prowess.For a symbol is all it would be. Apart from a brief glorious moment in 1966, England has not found having the iconic Wembley an automatic talisman of success. The reality is more important and the recent breakthroughs by the Beckham-Eriksson team were accomplished without the benefit of a national stadium proves the point.

The vast amounts of money that have been channelled into football since the launch of the Premiership have ensured that virtually every major city in the country has a high-quality, renovated stadium. Quite a few clubs, such as Arsenal and Aston Villa, are building completely new stadiums Germany play in Dusseldorf and Stuttgart, not just Munich. Italy play in Turin and Milan, and not just at the Olympic stadium in Rome. If the England team is to belong to England as a whole, that sense of ownership might even be improved by the team playing in all corners of the country.The proponents of Wembley were right to say that the name carries a good deal of magic. Those who favoured siting the new stadium in Birmingham also had much to be said for their case, with the advantage in cost, access and congestion. But the reality may be slowly dawning on us that we cannot realistically hope to build a stadium at either location. After so many years and so many false starts, the time has surely come to face reality and to make the best of what we have got, to let the England side play across the land, and for our football to enter a new era..