What did it take to oppose the war in 03? Oh, I don't know, a heightened sense of cause and effect maybe?
As a wise man once said "I got a bad feelin' about this!"
I got a bad feelin' about this
Well, we were led to believe that Iraq was a mad cross between Nazi Germany and the Death Star, so it's a fair comparison...
I was thinking of Bollo from The Mighty Boosh, but since nobody watches that and the phrase was used in Star Wars, then yeah, cool...........
Good post FR. I am ashamed and angry everytime any of my "leaders" open their mouths. And it just gets worse and worse every day. The moron in the Whitehouse and his co-horts keep on saying the dumbest and most outragious shite. Meanwhile my soldiers and the Iragi people are dying.grrrrrrrrrrrrrr111111
This isn't rocket science.
Having done some research (i.e. a couple of Wikipedia searches), I can vouch for the fact that if this were rocket science, you would be ranting about aerospike engines and Hohmann orbits.
No matter how noble Blair's motivations were, however, this was not his war - it was George Bush's, and anybody backing it was signing up to a war led by a belligerent, hard right-wing moron and his cohort of insane ideologues.
Blair would be braver and more convincing with his claims that invading Iraq and toppling the Hussein regime was a moral imperative, if he had made them before Bush got his hard-on for war, rather than tagging along afterwards like a hanger-on to the playground bully, keen to put the boot in as long as someone else inflicted the first kick. Now for all I know, many members of the Decent Left spent decades of Churchill-style Years in the Wilderness by stubbornly harping on about the threat posed by Hussein to world peace, at a time when it was neither popular nor profitable*, but there is little evidence of Blair sacrificing his political career for his principles in this way.
I suspect that Blair had perfectly good opportunistic / pragmatic reasons for supporting the Bush war. My guess at the time was that he saw the War on Terror as a chance to put the squeeze on the IRA, and cut off the flow of donations from the US (now that the US was officially against all terrorist campaigns). Thereby focussing the IRA's attention upon the negotiating table, and ensuring his own place in history as the PM Who Brought Peace to Northern Ireland.
But the trouble with Blair --
-- Is it OK if I turn this into a Trouble-with-Blair thread? I realise that it is completely unprofessional of me to be analysing someone's personality defects on the basis of so little accurate information. It only becomes professional if they are paying me $150 / hour for the privilege.
The trouble with Blair is that he's not a shamelessly opportunistic pragmatist. He wants to combine his opportunistic pragmatism with a sense of moral superiority. As far as I can tell, the guy's entire career consists of a series of 180° turns, each time insisting that the people who missed the turn have all been Weighed in the Balance of History and found lacking. So in no time at all, his enthusiasm for Gulf War II became an ethical doctrine, a crusade which all right-thinking citizens must join.
Why, yes, since you ask… we do have politicians like that in New Zealand.
* © Flann O’Brien
Is it OK if I turn this into a Trouble-with-Blair thread?
Hell, it's been a Trouble-with-Blair blog for most of its existence...
...the guy's entire career consists of a series of 180° turns, each time insisting that the people who missed the turn have all been Weighed in the Balance of History and found lacking.
Amen, brother Bimler. The relentless denunciation of anyone who didn't sign up to every Blairite project was, without doubt, the most tiresome and infuriating aspect of British politics during his tenure.
I don't know about the IRA question, but the British ambassador in Washington was told to "Get up the arse of the White House and stay there".
I propose that this "Arse-getting-up" tactic, allied to Blair's righteous moral grandstanding and attention seeking on the world stage, is Blairite foreign policy in a nutshell.
...we do have politicians like that in New Zealand.
You obviously keep them on a tighter leash than we do. Mind you, I don't imagine that New Zealand spends the kind of cash we do on snazzy military whizz-bang.
*Obviously, this depends on whether you think the Russians could've fought off the Nazis without Stalin's ruthlessness, inhumanity and propaganda.
Without him, Germany wouldn't have been induced so early.
Herr Doktor - is the fact that your link leads to a blank page a demonstration of the total nullity of the New Zealand politician you mention? Or is it just a technical screw up on your part?
Despite the fact we disagree about this, I very much appreciate your blog for its humour, its humanity and your impressive control over the English language. I might get round to doing something of my own - or perhaps not, because as you said, 'it's not about us' and I sometimes think there's something unseemly about us all posting our reflections as if what we have to say about it matters a damn. But for now, if I could make the following observation? In the first post I ever wrote about Iraq I said that while I found myself adopting a position similar to that of the 'prowar left' I wasn't sure I could claim membership because while theirs is a politics of faith, mine is one of scepticism. The thing is, I feel the following remark from you belongs to the faith category:
The sooner we're out, the better for us and them...
Possibly, but then again perhaps not. I don't quite follow what you mean about an 'artificial state'. I hold to the Weberian definition where what gives this most modern of institutions its special character is that it claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. In this respect, I hold to what Hitchens dismissed as the conventional wisdom that the single biggest mistake the coalition made was the whole 'de-Ba'athification' thing - specifically the dissolution of the army. I don't see that there's any particular reason to suppose that a re-forming of a state in this sense would be any easier to achieve - or could be done so without more bloodletting than we have at present - if there was a speedy withdrawl. This doesn't preclude criticism either of the invasion nor of the conduct of the occupation - but we have the example of India as what can happen in the event of an over-hasty withdrawl.
is the fact that your link leads to a blank page a demonstration of the total nullity of the New Zealand politician you mention? Or is it just a technical screw up on your part?
Definitely the former. Plus Haloscan hates me.
Try this one once you've had enough of the White Light of the blank page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Goff
Wiki page clearly written by Goff or one of his staffers -- someone capable of writing about an alternative universe where "Goff is a strong advocate of putting ethical issues before national interests". The self-proclaimed emphasis on ethics is the giveaway.
Cheers Shuggy, I'm always interested to hear your thoughts on these things.
...the following remark from you belongs to the faith category...
I think that's fair enough, and pretty inevitable given the magnitude of the question.
I'll be blunt about this - whatever the Americans decide to do, it's going to be pretty horrible for the Iraqis. The problem is that the occupation is time limited. The American people are already losing patience, and the continued occupation is more and more being seen as a Neo-conservative vanity project, whether that's true or not. Given the staggering cost of continuing military presence and a potentially brutal economic outlook, the next President could find the carpet ripped out from under his feet more quickly than you'd think.
So, the Americans are withdrawing sooner or later. I think it's pretty obvious that a planned withdrawal, publicised in advance, will be preferable to a slapdash, last-minute disappearance.
Further, I'm being serious about the Iraqis having to do this themselves. When I said the Americans had created an artificial state, I meant that the government in the Green Zone would not last two days if the Americans disappeared. The recent relative calm (which has still been bloody violent) has been achieved by putting local militias on the American payroll. That might give the Iraqis the space to reconcile their differences, but I have my doubts. Given the current US government's habit of viewing every militia and extremist group as Al Qaeda, I can't see them accepting the compromises that the Iraqi government is going to have to make. Nor can I see John McCain, for instance, sitting down with the Iranians or the Syrians, which is surely a pre-condition for normalising Iraq.
Basically, it all boils down to whether you think another five years or so of occupation will result in a political accommodation. If you do, then continued occupation is the obvious course.
If not, then the logical conclusion is that the Iraqis are going to have to go their own way at some point, and continued occupation and insurgency is merely an expensive and wasteful postponement of the inevitable.
Obviously, I'm a glorified paper-shuffler and not a foreign policy expert, so my opinion on this doesn't count for much... But what else are blogs for if not idle speculation?
Incidentally, on de-Baathification etc., I really can't recommend Imperial Life in the Emerald City enough...
http://www.rajivc.com/
The author was present in the Green Zone for most of the life of the CPA and he details most of the major fuck-ups. He's surprisingly charitable to the Republican operatives who made such a hash of it.
The recent relative calm (which has still been bloody violent) has been achieved by putting local militias on the American payroll.
That point really deserves a post and a comment thread in its own right. Is the Bush kleptocracy really the right crowd to administer this strategy? I mean, the whole point of buying the loyalty of the local militias is that money has to reach them, which in turn means that various mid-level functionaries would first have to part with untraceable wads of banknotes.
The whole strategy might have been dreamed up by the Onion.
...Is the Bush kleptocracy really the right crowd to administer (x) is a question that should always be answered with an emphatic No, of course not, are you fucking nuts?
With the possible exception of aid to Africa and stuffing the pockets of their political allies, I really can't think of a single policy initiative the Bush admin has undertaken that hasn't gone wrong in at least one major way. Surely there's no debate any longer that the Republicans are such crazed fantasists that they can't be trusted at all on any issue.
On the other hand, buying off the militias is a far smarter move than trying to bomb them into submission. What's being missed is that the whole point of the escalation was to give the Iraqis room to reach a political reconciliation. That has obviously not happened, and I see no reason to believe that the necessary compromises will be made while the occupation persists.
Again, I may well be wrong, but I see no reason to trust the opinions of the self-same genius minds that got us into this situation in the first place.
"ordinary bloke just trying to make sense of stuff", a description of yourself which you appear to accept as you imply your own forensic approach to an intricate problem. Well, thank goodness for that, at last, a cool, detached piece of careful analysis as can be seen from the following:
"swivel-eyed ideologues"
"I've spent taking the piss out of pro-war types"
"a belligerent, hard right-wing moron and his cohort of insane ideologues"
"anything the Republicans have to say, because they're liars and assholes"
"historical example of a nation rife with naked xenophobia, patriotic grovelling and wilful ignorance"
As I say, thank goodness you're not a big, hysterical, girl's blouse with a shed full of axes to grind!
Er, by the way, your excoriation of Republicans and your belief that only with "grown ups in charge" (I assume you mean Democrats) would you be able to support an "American-led campaign for Freedom" seems rather eccentric given that the big surge (to quote a phrase) in Vietnam was led by a Democratic president, continued by another and it took a rather sinister Republican to get them out of it.
Incidentally, would your statement concerning "freedom-loving death squads in central America" refer to Nicaragua which is now a democracy in which the previous leader of the dictatorial Marxist regime lives and works quite peacefully?
Finally, your geo-historical statement to the effect that "The Americans have created an artificial state" is just a teensy-weensy bit wrong, like, er, totally wrong. Modern Iraq was part of the detritus from the disintergrated Ottoman empire and its current composition was confirmed by a League of Nations mandate.
Apart from that, a really, really, er, well thought-out and carefully reasoned essay and anyone who 'disses' it as one long belch of hot air will have to deal with me!
I assume you mean Democrats
I'll say this once, David - I mean people capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy, regardless of affiliation.
As for your other points, I'll respond to them if you can give me a single reason to believe you won't a)instantly move the goalposts, like you often do b)start babbling about unrelated matters, or c)launch into another tedious barrage of your usual snark about liberal nazis etc.
Given that I've wasted hours watching you engage in these tactics, you're going to have to work pretty damn hard.
"people capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy".
Judging from your intemperate remarks above that would mean people with whose opinions you agree, I assume.
And by the way, I have never called anyone a Nazi who wasn't one; that is, a member of the '20s to '40s German National, er, Socialist Party.
What was that you said about "moving the goalposts" and "unrelated matters" ...?
National, er, Socialist Party
Yes, hilarious, just like the other twenty times. Not good enough - cheers for dropping by.
Well... I thought about saying something interesting here, but you know how I far prefer to snigger than discuss or entertain.
So, I decided to continue annoying this site's owner until he finally started deleting my comments and replacing them with made-up statements. I imagine that if I continue posting on this thread, I'll soon be confessing to enthusiastic participation in all manner of depraved and unhygenic sexual activities that can only be performed in a rural setting.
Yes, barnyard style.
On the other hand, buying off the militias is a far smarter move than trying to bomb them into submission.
It's smarter, yes. But if the Guardian story is to trusted, one crucial aspect of the "buying-off-militias" plan is not being implemented, i.e. the actual payments. In contrast, the "bombing into submission" strategy has the advantage that bombs do indeed get dropped (somewhere), on account of the income stream produced when the Pentagon buys replacement bombs.
Obviously, my comments are being deleted because I disagree with the siteowner, and not because I have a long history of wasting everyone's time by making snarky, condescending noises whenever anyone responds to my posts.
Don't believe me? Well, here's a hilarious insult mocking the siteowner's nationality. Ha ha ha!
Now, about those goats...
Given that I've probably been banned from more websites than any other British blogger, you'd think I'd have realised by now that there's something about my manners and habits that just rub people up the wrong way.
Sadly, I remain utterly convinced that my many, many bannings resulted from other people's inability to deal with my blinding insights and cutting home truths.
Now, when preparing to penetrate the common goat, you must realise that it is a wilful beast and it must be dominated from the outset. Show no fear, and grasp it by the horns - firmly and suddenly as you would a nettle, rather than gently and lovingly, as you would a sheep. Tolerate no impertinence - remember, you are in control, and you should use your superior intellect to outwit the animal if it attempts to use its base cunning to trick you into letting it escape unmolested.
Please return to your irreverent original style. All this chat of wars and reality is most depressing.
Yeah, and I've got a nice off-topic something that'll amuse you...
Go on then Justin, I doubt this sorry car-crash of a thread could get any more off-topic...
Now, geese are another matter. Given their habit of alerting their owners to any unwelcome intrusions (if you take my meaning), one must skilfully blindside the animal and grasp it firmly by the bill, which should then be bound with strong tape.
After that, the bird is fit for roasting... in the Premiership footballer sense, of course.
Aren't you worried, FR, when you find yourself writing in the Duff style? If you stare into the Shallow long enough the Shallow stares back at you.
Yeah, I know, joke stolen from someone over at Alicublog.
...the Shallow stares back at you.
Very good... You should've kept that quiet Herr Doktor, I would've assumed it was yours.
If it had been my joke, FR, it would have gone like this:
if you stare into the Abyssinian long enough, the Abyssinian gets annoyed and throws up in your boots.
What A Concerned Student said.
Plus a few factual correction-thingies :
a) Welfare reform. I think you'll find Bill Clinton's already reformed it. Google PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act). The US poverty lobby likened it to the burning of Vietnamese villages, legislative child abuse, and asked 'What next ? Castration ?'
b) "after backing and arming Saddam for so long, didn't we have a duty to the Iraqis to depose him"
Backing during the First Gulf War (Iraq/Iran), yes. Arming, no. Unless the Yanks make T72s. Russians and French armed Saddam.
c) "a historical example of a nation rife with naked xenophobia, patriotic grovelling and wilful ignorance"
Are you looking out of the window ?
You're very honest about the fact that nobody thought the Sunnis would slaughter the Shiites and vice-versa - instead the Arab Street would rise, Baghdad = Stalingrad, whole region would ignite etc etc. But doesn't that rather detract from the whole post ?
"I thought it would be a disaster because of X, turns out it's a disaster because of Y" - unless Y and X are fairly closely related, the fact that you thought it would be a disaster is neither here nor there. I don't think "a large number of Iraqis would hate the Americans on sight" can necessarily explain the fact that quite a few seem to hate their countrymen (of the wrong faith) more.
But I agree, sort of, with your final bit : "I believe that self-determination is the key. Peoples have to struggle for their own freedom, and the hardships they have to endure to achieve it is what makes their chosen political system endure"
Parachuting in a new system at bayonet point is not necessarily a sensible thing. I've written about the idiocy of trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy. But there have been examples, from Napoleon to post-WW2 Germany and Japan, where democracy of one kind or other HAS been carried abroad at bayonet point, and has been succesful. It's not as if the neocons were trying something that no-one had ever achieved.
"the hardships they have to endure to achieve it is what makes their chosen political system endure"
That's the worrying thing for thee and me, living where we do. We've had it soft for 60 years. What makes OUR chosen political system endure ?
I confess to feeling very uncomfortable when our leaders praise our soldiers for bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan - when commitment and turnout back home is falling, contempt for politicians is widespread, and our democracy looks much, much weaker to me than it looked in 1945.
PS - not good form, that Duff stuff. I'm sure you realise that.
Laban,
Cheers. Before I even start, I have significant problems with the Democratic Party and hold them in only slightly higher esteem than the Republicans. They may well haul out whiffy characters like Brzinski for policy advice, but they're not going to invite the entire cast of Iran-Contra - The Musical onto the world stage for one last encore in the middle east.
a) I know, I remember it at the time. The point was meant to be - look at how it's received by the base, and you know what's really going on.
b) The US gave plenty of material and intelligence backing to Saddam, whether or not anyone else did. The question after backing and arming Saddam for so long is not mine, but is frequently asked by Christopher Hitchens, who pretends nobody ever answers him.
c) Yes, nothing's happening at all - dead calm. I have to read the major papers in my job, so no doubt tomorrow I'll find the country is in meltdown - thankfully, however, we're not about to invade Poland.
...instead the Arab Street would rise, Baghdad = Stalingrad, whole region would ignite etc etc
If that's what it looks like, it's not what I meant. I expected an insurgency in some form, just enough to tie the Americans down. That's why I put so much stress on the Vietnam analogy, especially the fact that many South Vietnamese fought against the Americans despite the fact their lives probably would've been better under the Yanks. Nor did I say that the Arab street would rise - I thought that neighbouring states would interfere, as in fact has happened. If I'm being honest, I thought they'd do it more overtly, and I also thought they'd go for Israel even more nastily than they have.
I'll continue this, Haloscan is character limited...
...a large number of Iraqis would hate the Americans on sight is rather more accurate than the Bushies' predictions of sweets and flowers. Unfortunately, it's also absolutely true.
I'm not asking anyone to kiss my backside for believing these things. They were just extrapolated from previous historical events, and could as easily have been wildly wrong - in fact, I wish they had been.
...It's not as if the neocons were trying something that no-one had ever achieved.
I'm afraid they were. The reconstruction of Japan and Germany, for instance, was not carried out by morons who had spent decades telling anyone who would listen how it was essential that the Americans fight wars against most of the planet. This is why Google was very useful in the run-up to the war - you could find out all kinds of interesting things about Michael Ledeen, John Poindexter, Donald Rumsfeld etc.
I use the term "morons" advisedly - I'm sure they're very smart indeed, but if you can't recognise reality in front of your nose, then you can't be trusted to use the world's most terrifying military machine. To my knowledge, few enterprises that involve shoving a square shape through a circular hole can be accomplished without significant effort.
That's why I mentioned Cheney losing sleep. You had to believe that the neo-cons genuinely gave a shit about the Iraqi people, and that they'd be prepared to sacrifice the decade-long daydreams if required. I don't even believe that they give a shit about the American people, let alone the Iraqis.
our democracy looks much, much weaker to me than it looked in 1945.
There, at least, I'm in full agreement.
...not good form, that Duff stuff. I'm sure you realise that.
I do indeed, but I'm afraid my comments threads are not his cyberspace playground.
Anyway, I hope that's clarified things - it's a massive post, and I was trying to be as blunt as possible.
In fact, this post concentrates too fully on accurate predictions, and doesn't concede nearly enough errors. For the record -
- I thought there was a real chance of serious Islamic militancy in Saudi, and had the occasional paranoid fear about an Islamic revolution in Pakistan meaning you-know-who getting their hands on nuclear weapons. That would certainly reflect the "Arab street rising up" you mentioned.
- I thought the Americans would move instantly to control the oilfields and start privatising a hell of a lot quicker. Frankly, I thought a lot of the "Freedom" stuff was utter, lying bullshit rather than half-true, self-deceiving bullshit.
- I thought an invasion of Iran or Syria within a couple of years was a real possibility. Ooops.
- I thought there was reasonably likely there would be a pretty devastating sneak-attack on Israel. In hindsight, this was idiotic, since the Israelis would've obliterated any suspects and its neighbours know that.
Basically, I thought the neo-cons were far more evil than they were stupid, that the consequences for the entire region would be worse, and I thought that Iraq would be much more peaceful.
So, there's some honking great errors to be going on with.
I can feel - not smug cos there are too many dead people - but my third ever post (I started blogging because of the war, or to be exact because of the opposition to it), when the statue fell, was full of concern that anarchy would follow and that the coalition's hard work had only just begun. Alas too many people seemed to think the hard work was over.
In fact looking back my second post was about the Brit forces not stopping the looting, and pointing out that the very people needed to rebuild Iraq were being alienated ...
A pity. I don't think it was doomed to failure, but the execution was worse than I feared. I'm not sure what the outlook is now - if the currently improved situation is down to the US using local militias as enforcers, that's not a path to long term democracy.
"Recently, I was accused of projecting an "ordinary bloke just trying to make sense of stuff whilst being genuinely shocked by these swivel-eyed ideologues" schtick."
Indeed. And, as I think I pointed out at HP when first making the comment, your baiting approach seems more that of the enthusiastic blood sports professional, rather than that of the occasional hunt follower. At least you seem to be quite open about your obsession - this, I am given to understand, is the first step on the road to recovery.
I refer you, by the way, to TB's 1999 Chicago speech. Probably his first significant exposition of the case for an interventionist foreign policy from a progressive perspective. So that would be four years prior to Iraq, then. Misrepresenting your opponents whilst accusing them of doing all the misrepresentation is a bit limited as a tactic, FR. But seemingly a regular one. In your painting of the "Decent" tendency in the least charitable of political, moral and psychological lights possible you are in fact shadow boxing rather than engaging with real positions.
When HP becomes charitable, let us know, eh?
But there have been examples, from Napoleon to post-WW2 Germany and Japan, where democracy of one kind or other HAS been carried abroad at bayonet point
Napoleon? Napoleon was a democrat?
Google PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act).
How I love these titles. This one is even worse than "the Patriot Act".
What I find objectionable about them, and about the contemporary use of the term "personal responsibility", is - well, first, that it comes from people with no obvious sense of personal responsbility themselves (Bill Clinton?) and secondly that it comes from people who seem to think that having succeeded in life economically is both an indicator of personal responsibility and an entitlement to throw moral stones at people who have not. But thirdly because very often it comes from people who have access to all sorts of help and assistance themselves, in the form of expensive educations, inheritances, partnal aid in setting oneself up and buying property, etcetctec. The people who benefit from this assistance than look round at people who do not and scream "dependency! personal responsibility!" at them. It is a nauseous process.
So I wonder who I least prefer. The dependency hypocrites? The Decent pro-war hypocrites? Or the hypocrites who are both pro-war and anti-welfare?
So I wonder who I least prefer.
Choice - agonising, isn't it?
Ah, Ben. Time for another day out from Groupthink Grove is it? Excellent, I'm in a bit of a poetic, act-like-a-complete-wanker mood, so let's you and I take another stroll down Empirical Fact Avenue together, eh?
...your baiting approach seems more that of the enthusiastic blood sports professional...
That's because Harry's Place is a bear pit, not a debating society. You can't just tap the commenters on the shoulder and inform them that they are rabid nationalists and partisans in the Orwellian sense, nor can you politely point out the logical inconsistencies in their arguments. You have to put it in blunt, unambiguous language that they can't possibly interpret as I worship at the shrine of Yassir Arafat and pray for the nuclear destruction of London. They far prefer that kind of argument, and they'll do anything to turn it in that direction.
...At least you seem to be quite open about your obsession...
Aha, so I'm mental! That must be it.
...I refer you, by the way, to TB's 1999 Chicago speech...
Read it, very pretty. I'll now refer you to Reality, a rather unpleasant place where well-intended ideological concepts are generally flattened by the oncoming truck of political necessity and kicked burning into the gutter by the cruel teenagers of self-interest.
I believe I've already referred to this anyway, saying I think Blair was genuine. Additionally, I've indicated that Blair's firm belief that British interests require us to stick by the Americans through thick and thin was as least as likely a driver of his policies. A fair point, I think.
Since you're keen for me to engage with your ideas, feel free to engage with this one - Blair. Was. Not. In. Charge. Bush and his Born-in-the-National-Review-Boobyhatch brethren were.
I said this in the main body of the post, and it seems to be commonly accepted by now. Blair showed Britain the prize pig, Bush provided the poke, and the rest is history. If you feel misrepresented by that, there are many other metaphors I could employ. I could also point you to certain webpages whose authors were well aware that the Marine Corps were going to be doing the smiting, rather than... What was it? The Nelson Mandela Brigades? Something like that.
And finally, I don't recall ever accusing the pro-war left of moral deficiency. I've been pretty clear that I regard the majority of leading pro-war leftists as being driven by an entrenched ideology that looks mighty fertile in the orchards of academia but bears little fruit in the harsh desert of reality.
An apt image, I think. I'll cheerfully engage with any objections you have to it.
Groupthink Grove eh? Quite good. Unfortunately, the nice alliteration falls to be considered alongside the fact that the authors of the site hold nothing much more in common than a general commitment to centre-left politics. I believe Brett even opposed the war.
Some of the commenters are indeed nuts, I am happy to admit. The majority are perfectly sensible, ordinary, progressive types. In any case, a bearpit which attracts the number of national commentators as readers that HP does is doing rather well for itself. But that is really neither here nor there. None of the authors are rabid nationalists. If you can't see that, then I fear your grasp on the politics you want to critique may just be a tad limited.
Sadly it is the nature of your oft-quoted reality, that sometimes you just have to make decisions based on imperfect options. Mother Theresa was never going to be leading the divisions, so the UK could either back the Americans, or not. That was the choice. A poor decision? You obviously think so. I actually did oppose the war at the time, for pat student lefty reasons. I realised the deficiency of this position on examining what parts of the anti-war Left wanted to happen in Iraq after the war.
But you say that liberal interventionism doesn't work in practice. Well, the argument for that sort of international jurisprudence was and is largely unanswerable. The horrors of Rwanda and Bosnia followed by the successes of Sierra Leone and Kosovo indicate a changing tide of debate. The desire to stop the bloodshed in Darfur is part of this approach. Iraq is a big problem, it is true. The situation there is dire (if improving) and the removal of British troops from Basra is not helping any. But the arguments for a less Westphalian approach to international relations are very strong and the argument is moving in that direction, irrespective of shouty sloganeering of a rather reactionary bent amongst some anti-war types.
Your Decentpedia certainly accuses the "Decents" of moral deficiency. I don't think that needs elaborating upon.
It is perfectly possible to disagree on the rights and wrongs of Iraq whilst agreeing that "anti-imperialism" of the Left and Westphalianism of the Right are not unanswerable devastating arguments. This seems, however, to correlate in your view to wanting to turn the Middle East into glass. I do not want to do this, and nor do any real life "Decents" I know want to do this either, inside the Labour Party or not, Blairite or otherwise.
Ben,
I'll give your post a reasonable and less sarky answer later. For now, note that when I said Nationalists... in the Orwellian sense, I didn't mean little Englanders or flag-waving gung-ho Americans. I meant this.
http://www.orwell.ru/library/ess...m/english/
e_nat
It's one of my favourites, and it's also a good guide to where I was coming from when I put up the Encyclopedia blog.
Ben,
"I actually did oppose the war at the time, for pat student lefty reasons. I realised the deficiency of this position on examining what parts of the anti-war Left wanted to happen in Iraq after the war."
Why is supporting the war because of the perceived attitued of some people on the anti-war left any more mature than opposing it for 'pat student lefty reasons'? Either way your opinion is not based on what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people, which is surely the only valid criterion.
Hi!
I'm working my through all my blogroll to let you know that, due to the useless of both blogger and my server, the url http://www.freelanceguru.co.uk no longer works.
For some reason the only address that's working is http://Freelanceguru.co.uk
I realised the deficiency of this [anti-war] position on examining what parts of the anti-war Left wanted to happen in Iraq after the war.
Staggering.
And this from the bloke demanding unlimited amounts of political, moral and psychological charity be extended in his direction.
Mr Rodent, this person really doesn't deserve a "reasonable and less sarky answer".
Right. First - this thread is about the war, and is only tangentially related to Decency. You would do well to read the post and the thread, rather than complain about beliefs that I don't hold.
To be clear, an open-ended commitment to on-the-hoof restructuring of the mechanisms of international law to enforce a Pax Americana is not centre left politics. Agitation for pre-emptive war and the use of revolutionary violence to cleanse the world of evil is not Centre left politics.
These are not sensible, ordinary or progressive arguments. These are extreme, radical and irresponsible positions, made without adequate reflection upon the likely consequences ... and the pro-war left were warned at very great and tedious length about the dangers inherent in creating such precedents - dangers which have resulted in an actual, real-life humanitarian disaster.
A sane centre-left would have taken that opportunity to audit their theories, and to ask what had gone wrong with the attempt to put into practice strategies which were intended to bring democracy and the rule of law to the Iraqis. What did the pro-war left do?
Why, it issued the Euston Manifesto, a document which explicitly forbade its signatories from questioning what had gone wrong, and exempted the war's cheerleaders - i.e. themselves and the politicians they support - from any responsibility for the catastrophe they had helped create.
No picking over the rubble of the Iraq intervention! And if you don't sign, you're not a democrat at all!
First analogy that comes to mind - a man walks into a bar, craps in the corner then demands everybody sign an affadavit swearing it never happened, even while the flies buzz round their heads. This is before we even get to the point where Nick Cohen releases a book accusing everyone who opposed crapping in the corner of supporting fascism.
All of this would be bad enough were it not for the manias, double-standards, hypocrisies and outright contradictions of Decency. Arbitrary detention, torture and state disappearances by western powers? Departures from universal principles, thank you very much, and won't you sign this Manifesto saying that we should be grateful to those violating basic human rights because they invented them in the first place?
And then, they still have the sheer brass balls to quote George Orwell, while their sentences drip with euphemisms and apology for state violence, and they tell us that Palestinian terror springs from near-genetic fascism, but we must understand Israeli violence in its proper context.
You get the point - these aren't the actions of a moderate, centrist crowd of pragmatists. They're the actions of humourless ideologues who refuse to allow reality to intrude on their considerations. They're not progressives - they're a menace.
Jesus, Larry's right - that had better count as "engaging."
Actually, on closer reading...
I realised the deficiency of this position on examining what parts of the anti-war Left wanted to happen in Iraq after the war.
Jesus. Just... what?
But you say that liberal interventionism doesn't work in practice.
I said that academia and reality are different things. I'm waiting to find out how many Kosovo's it's going to take to make up for an Iraq.... Hell, for one week in Iraq.
Iraq is a big problem, it is true.
A big problem! You seem to be struggling - here, use this.
www.thesaurus.com
Your Decentpedia certainly accuses the "Decents" of moral deficiency.
Er, no, it doesn't. Here, use this.
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Co...s/dp/
1576854949
This seems, however, to correlate in your view to wanting to turn the Middle East into glass.
Nuking the middle east into glass would have at least two advantages over the current situation - Exxon Mobil contractors could prospect for oil without being shot at, and they could find it by walking about looking down.
Well, Larry, I did change my view on the matter in part as a result of listening to the arguments on both sides. I came to a view of what I considered the more progressive approach. I did in fact give my retrospective blessing to the war (not that that matters for shit, of course). I suppose it would be easier to deny this, whilst making "Decent" points, but it would be untrue. Whether I deserve a reasonable and less sarky response is neither here nor there. I don't matter at all. Nor do any of you. None of us "matters". I do not deserve unlimited political, moral or psychological charity, and nor do I demand it. I am happy for you to accuse me of being a swivel-eyed ideologue, a bloodthirsty moral bankrupt or a weird nutter. That's all fine. I simply suggest that efforts to paint me as such will fail basic tests of reality. I thought you were all keen on those?
You can all get as excited as you want, but I am not trying to be a troll here.
You are right, FR, that this post is only tangentially related to "Decency". I apologise if you feel I have stepped out of bounds. It is unintentional. I came to it via Don Paskini's blog, citing yours as why he opposed the war. These are serious matters, and in any case, I was operating on your use of my quote. I apologise for focussing too heavily on the context of the comment I made, and which you have (niftily!) appropriated as rhetorical fodder. Now, it is fine for those who opposed the war to smugly reference each other (what on earth would I do if were a blogger other than smugly reference people who agreed with me?), but this issue is more than tangentially related to the arguments, the morality, the forecasting of those who both opposed and supported such. I am genuinely sorry (really!) if you feel this is OT, but I can't see really how it is in any real sense.
Liberal interventionism (or social democratic interventionism, as some prefer) is not the creed of Trot loons. I think you will find more of that sort on your side. One's ideological friends should not intrinsically render unpalatable one's own political positions, of course.
The swaggering moral denunciation here is equivalent to that you accuse the "Decents" of.
Many, most "Decents" oppose "Arbitrary detention, torture and state disappearances by western powers". I don't necessarily, depending on what is meant by the above terms. (I am in favour of more than 28 days detention if necessary, for example. You will, rightly, question what is "necessary", of course.) I suspect I am on the Right of what is thought of as "Decency".
Clearly, the bastard Republicans fucked it all up. (Cue comments about "if it wasn't for those pesky kids" etc etc.) This is true. I hold no brief for the Republican Party; in fact, of course, I regard them as the worst sort of antediluvian scum.
All I suggest is that the *prospect* that the Republicans would be such muppetish shits was not clearly obvious, or even likely.
(But this is a fruitless argument, of course. I simply offer it so you can peer deep into my psychology and find me wanting as regards "reality".)
Let us talk about sensible, ordinary or progressive arguments. You know you are right. And that's fine. I know I'm right.
But I'm not a post-modernist fool. And that fact leads me to ask how you can possibly describe large tracts of the moderate wing of the Labour Party as "extreme, radical and irresponsible". These people run the country. Are many of the most dynamic Council leaders. Provide much of the (inadequate) bulwark against Tory resurgence through their activism in local parties.
Is it really the case that you succesfully attack a political position which is fundamentally reasonable, moderate, pragmatic? Or is it in fact the case that your shrill comments appeal to nothing more than the siren wastelands of far-left rhetorical purity? (And those are certainly powerful places to be.)
We know what has happened to politics in this country in the last 30 years.
"Decent" views are, not synonymous, but heavily overlapping, with the established moderate perspective within the governing party.
I know you think that I'm a mouthy smart-alec amoral twat with a base disregard for human life. You know that I think you're a cretinous and amoral apologist for totalitarianism. (I guess that neither are true, sadly, for both of our rhetorical positions.)
But in the end, you have to explain why so many ordinary members of the Labour Party are apparently blood-thirsty and radical ideologues. It doesn't really work, does it?
Do you think it is so worthwhile to pursue your vendetta that you end up with a reactionary Tory government, which supports the same foreign policy from rather more limited perspectives? That, certainly, is a matter for you.
Can I just observe that Do you think it is so worthwhile to pursue your vendetta that you end up with a reactionary Tory government, which supports the same foreign policy from rather more limited perspectives? is equivalent to saying Hey, that's a nice NHS! Looks a bit flammable, mind, one carelessly dropped match, you know what I'm saying?
Surely this isn't difficult to grasp - there are yawning chasms seperating Centre left politics and Tony Blair's policy initiatives. Policies don't become leftish positions because the Labour Party says they are. Blair derogated Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights arbitrary detention clauses, but that doesn't make ignoring the ECHR a left wing position. Had he abolished trial-by-Jury or invaded Portugal, that wouldn't have suddenly made those desirable progressive causes either.
As for the rest of it, I'm not going to restate my points until they penetrate your skull. Read the post, read the comments, and if you still think that my main objection to the pro-war left is that they are "bloodthirsty", or "immoral", then we don't have much to talk about.
the siren wastelands of far-left rhetorical purity?
This is a rhetorical construction, is it not?
the removal of British troops from Basra is not helping any
It may be worth observing that the British troops left Basra because:
(a) they did not want to be there ;
(b) the locals did not want them to be there.
This being so, the argument for them being there rather escapes me.
Incidentally, it's becoming common for HP people to say something to the effect of "yes, we know some of the comments box is beyond the pale, but the rest is OK". No it isn't. It's the posters who are the problem: obsessive, hysterical, permanently engaged in the business of making people say what they have not said and claiming they think what they do not think. The reason the comments boxes are as they are is that this posting style attracts that sort of comments.
Oh, I liked the bit about dynamic Council leaders. Heh.
'Ratty' wrote: "nor can you politely point out the logical inconsistencies in their arguments. You have to put it in blunt, unambiguous language that they can't possibly interpret"
But, Ben, don't try that on him, he bursts into tears and then alters the text of your comment before going off to read some Orwell ... Orwell?! Oh my giddy aunt, has the man no sense of irony?
Is it really the case that you succesfully attack a political position which is fundamentally reasonable, moderate, pragmatic?
Would this be the political position summed up by Paul Mandelson as "we are all Thatcherites now" ?
Ben,
All I suggest is that the *prospect* that the Republicans would be such muppetish shits was not clearly obvious, or even likely.
Do you really think so? I mean notwithstanding the distaste we obviously share for the Republicans in general surely it was obvious that GWB and his cronies were an exceptionally noxious bunch whose primary concerns were furthering the interests of their idealogical and material/financial allies.
OK, the sheer overwhelming scale of their incompetence came as a shock to all of us but their mendacity, arrogance, belligerence and self-interest was always clear. My opposition to the war was always to a large extent based on the view that GWB's motives for invading Iraq were quite clearly almost entirely self-serving and that any exercise, especially one as serious and dangerous as this one, carried out in bad faith was almost certain to have bad outcome.
Do you think it is so worthwhile to pursue your vendetta that you end up with a reactionary Tory government
If you're right that a labour defeat is on the cards, and foreign policy is a major factor, personally I'm inclined to blame the current government and its cheerleaders for their colossal, bloody, catastrophe and subsequent refusal to honestly acknowledge it as such. But if you prefer you can focus on frightening into silence everyone who points out their fuck-up, or tires of being painted as a Saddam-fellating appeaser.
After all, shooting the messenger is standard practice these days.
I suggest we return to the good old days when we could also shoot the piano player.
The reason the comments boxes are as they are is that this posting style attracts that sort of comments.
Does this mean that we can blame FR for the sort of comments he attracts? If so, then Arse! Feck! Bollocks!
And, now that I come to think of it, We know what has happened to politics in this country in the last 30 years...
We do indeed - this is now a country where almost half the population's opposition to massive expansions of American power and elective war-making is deemed by "established, moderate centre left" Labour to be the "shrill... rhetorical purity" of the "far left."
Clearly, somebody's made a massive shift to the ideological fringe, but is it the party or the people?
Does this mean that we can blame FR for the sort of comments he attracts?
Can, will and should.
FR, I'm not asking you to agree with my politics. I'm merely asking you to give it a hearing in good faith. I think you are prepared to offer that.
You suggest that I have failed to understand your point. In fact, that I have suggested that your understanding of "the pro-war left is that they are "bloodthirsty", or "immoral"".
That is my understanding. But I really am not trying to be silly here. This *is* how I considered your position.
You say that the pro-war left is wrong. Wrong-headed. You say things about "us" which are frankly wrong.
Now, I can't split out those comments of yours which are made on this site, and which are made in the Decentpedia. (Because I am not prepared or able to split my unuderstanding of your politics in the way which you may(?) wish me to. I am not aware of the distinctions between your public face, and your general commentary. And, in the nicest possible way, nor is that my responsibiity.
I know why you think *I* am wrong, but, indeed, "we don't have much to talk about" if I don't understand your general animosity towards Decency.
If my colleagues are not bloodthirsty or immoral, is it simply that they are unrealistic and overly ideological? Is that the case against?
I am genuinely interested in your view on this matter. I would like to know what you think.
'the siren wastelands of far-left rhetorical purity?'
"This is a rhetorical construction, is it not?"
Of course it was. What did you think it was? Are the Dark Side suddenly prevented from employing rhetorical devices because we're Just That Bad?
"Incidentally, it's becoming common for HP people to say something to the effect of "yes, we know some of the comments box is beyond the pale, but the rest is OK". No it isn't. It's the posters who are the problem: obsessive, hysterical, permanently engaged in the business of making people say what they have not said and claiming they think what they do not think. The reason the comments boxes are as they are is that this posting style attracts that sort of comments."
Yeah, you're right. That some of the commenters are a problem. I have these conversations with fellow party members (not that you would want to sully yourself with that impurity, Justin).
The authors are in no way the problem, and you could judge any website unfairly in terms of the filth commenters that are attracted. Allowing people to say what they want outside Stalinopia isn't that problematic.
But I won't take any disagreement off you, Justin. Because, unlike the authors of HP, you are a contributor author of a Socalist Workers Party blog - Lenin's Tomb. That makes you at least an associate of a totalitarian, if not a totalitarian.
You allow yourself to be associated with Very Bad Politics.
Unlike me. Even if I am a colossal fool (which I would obviously dispute!), I do not give my imprimatur to totalitarians.
You do. You lose.
you are a contributor (to).... Lenin's Tomb. That makes you at least an associate of a totalitarian, if not a totalitarian.
Bzzzt, wrong answer, would you like another question from our Guilt-by-association deck?
Really, you couldn't have summed it up better yourself. Would you like to provide an example of Justin apologising for totalitarians, or is it enough simply to say Lenin's Tombola>>SWP>>Genocidal fascism?
is it simply that they are unrealistic and overly ideological? Is that the case against?
Bingo, although this puts it rather mildly - you forgot the childish petulance, the sectarian hysteria, the one-eyed partisanship, the double-standards, the outright, fuck-you hypocrisy or the brutal fragging of all who dissent.
I don't see why this is difficult to grasp. HP, for instance, is one of the few political sites I can access at work, so I've spent more time arsing around there than I like to think, and this is how it goes every time...
Genebot: Report begins... Greetings Comrades. Empirical data - the death-toll caused by the bombardment of Beirut has risen to 1000. Analysing... Loss of civilian lives = regrettable. Calculating blame... Calculated. All blame = Fascist terrorists. Report ends.
FR: Er, wait a minute. You can't just say "Our enemies are bad" and assume that justifies massive body counts. In fact, that looks uncomfortably like the apologism you vocferously denounce when others do it.
HP Attack Drones: Why must you march in support of Hezbollah? George Galloway!
FR: I think Hezbollah are lunatics, and wouldn't weep if they all dropped dead. That's not the same as "Tally ho, bombs away, you can't make a freedom omlette without breaking some eggs!"
HP Drones: Does not compute... Does not compute... Bzzz... You are an immoral realist like Henry Kissinger... No, you are a Jew-hating fascist... Analysing.... Diagnostics indicate cold-hearted indifference to Israeli suffering... Will you not condemn?"
FR: Sure, I'll condemn. How about you?
HP Drones: Oh look, Iranian bus drivers! Won't you give them your support? etc. etc."
I would really have far more respect for the Decents if they would drop the bullshit and simply say All actions of western nations are justified because we are civilised and theirs are immoral because they are evil.
Not Justin, though. He's going to go shithouse crazy when he clocks this thread.
Ooooo, get you.
That makes [Justin] at least an associate of a totalitarian, if not a totalitarian.
You allow yourself to be associated with Very Bad Politics.
And even worse, he's fond of cats.
I can't split out those comments of yours which are made on this site, and which are made in the Decentpedia.
You mean FR and Malky Muscular are the same person?
I believe that a Spoiler Alert is in order before any revelations as disillusioning as that. I cried myself to sleep last night, and it's all Ben's fault.
Well, mainly Ben's fault. The Frau Doktorin's enthusiasm with her newly-acquired strap-on may also have contributed.
You mean FR and Malky Muscular are the same person?
I know, it's like being told there's no Santa. I was once cursed out for sock-puppetry for using a different name, as if my passport says Mr. F. Rodent Esq. on it, rather than blogger demanding a different identity.
The Frau Doktorin's enthusiasm with her newly-acquired strap-on may also have contributed.
Tsk, women eh? Always with the daft fads and impliments of sexual torture.
I have to disagree with your characterisation of the Vietnam War.
Thing is, the Americans were right - the Viet Cong really were horrible people, and likely the lives of the South Vietnamese would have been better in a US client state. Sadly, large numbers of South Vietnamese disagreed and fought covertly for the Viet Cong, because the Yanks were foreigners and the Cong were Viets.
Firstly, the regime the South Vietnamese would have lived under, had the NLF (I don't see any need to use the US propaganda name for them) not fought them, was the Diem government, famously symbolised by Thich Quang Duc, the monk who incinerated himself rather than tolerate it. It was utterly unrepresentative, brutal, and dictatorial. Because Diem was deemed ineffective at fighting the NLF, the Kennedy administration instigated his removal, whereupon a stream of other brutal dictators took over one after the other.
Secondly, the implication in the quoted paragraph is that the South Vietnamese were somehow separate from the NLF. They weren't. To say otherwise is to accept propagandistic claims of total North Vietnamese control. The fundamental reason why the NLF weren't defeated was that they had widespread support in South Vietnam. They had this support not because South Vietnamese villagers were idiots who couldn't see they'd be better off under Diem et al., but because the US client regimes were appalling and the NLF offered something more appealing.
Commenting by HaloScan
