Paperjam

Nick Rants About... The War

Rant // Nick // 1st May 2005

OK, I know it's been going on for a while and it's a bit embarrassing. It's one of those things like an embarrassing uncle you try to push into the snooker room at a family wedding, or the spod at school who tries to hang around with you and laughs too loudly at a joke. Sooner or later we are going to have to admit it. Sorry, but...

We had a war.

Sorry. I said it. I know it's far more fashionable to call it an 'intervention' or an 'enforcement of a UN resolution' or a 'limited skirmish'. But it was a war. Men and women representing you and I went to another country to kill people on our behalf. And get killed on our behalf. To quote Clint Eastwood (or at least one of his scripts) - 'It's a terrible thing killing a man. You don't just take away what he is, you take away anything he could ever have been.'

The current arguments bandied by the political heavyweights fly like phantom flan flingers weapons, hitting a vague target but just making a mess rather than clearing the issue. Much like the 'Allies' airstrikes. The current one goes something like -
You said "yeah but no but yeah but no but maybe, but then, durhh..., ok"
"Yeah, but I said that in the end didn't I? And anyway he's a slag and he was nickin my sweets"
But you said "he could've thrown them sweets at us, and johnny said like he was at this other school before he got thrown out for setting fire to the chemistry lab, except that wasn't him coz it was so obviously Sara, and they never proved nuffin but they still thrown him out, but anyway someone who he knew threw some sweets at a dog and the dog went blind and he got sued by the caretaker coz it was his mums dog and his mum needs it coz she's blind and the stick aint no good for crossing the dual carriage way next to where she lives really is it? So it's obvious really?"

Let's ignore that in a democracy of 60 odd million people 2 million turned out on one day in one place for an anti-war demonstration in a country where such is the apathy you're lucky to get 50 people to turn out for a demonstration against using melted down babies for candle wax. Let's ignore that Hans Blick reported an improved level of co-operation and increasing doubt as to the existence of WMDs at the same time. Let's ignore the difference between what was presented to the Prime Minister, Cabinet, Parliament and public in diminishing levels of detail.

War: good for?, nothing (say it again) huh

This argument is NOT about whether is was right to go to war. We did. A political decision was taken, and that is what we employ politicians to do. This is also not strictly about the legal argument. There were no UN resolutions to support the intervention in Kosovo. This is about honesty and respect to the electorate.

The legal advice given to the government by the attorney general was filled with caveats. That is not surprising in a difficult situation. Ultimately it is a judgement call, right or wrong, and someone has to take it. What is worrying is that apparently the lawyers of the UK foreign office, who have expertise in the area of international law (unlike the AG who is a commercial lawyer) came down firmly on the side that a war would be illegal without a further UN resolution. This was also the view of the legal representatives of pretty much every country apart form the United States.
This was not accurately conveyed to either the Cabinet, Parliament or the electorate.

It is estimated now that somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 innocents were killed by Saddam's regime in Iraq. More mass graves are discovered on a depressingly regular basis.
This is only now being used as a justification.
It was not used reported during the 70's and 80's when Saddam was being supported by the UK and US as a buffer to the other 'threats' in the middle east. These sort of figures don't seem to make much difference for Zimbabwe, or China, or many other countries; but who is next on the Bush world tour?

This argument should have massive weight in justifying intervention, but has been belittled by its use in the context of this war and the general attitude of the G8. If there is a belief that there is a regime that is causing death, torture and suffering on this level then there is a moral justification to intervention, regardless of what a moribund and politically tied UN says. However in this case it is being used as a 'get out of jail free' card in the rounds of diplomacy.

The most worrying aspect of this whole affair is not that we went to war, this may or may not have been justified, but that in the way the information and reasons for it were presented. The issue is that next time around we will not believe whatever we are told, and so may dismiss calls for intervention when it is really needed. This is the archetypal boy who cried wolf.

The links...

Donald Rumsfield: Kung Fu Master

Check out the evil overlord's 1000 fighting styles

The Stop The War Coalition

They want peace, and er, some of your money too.

Pro war message board

In the interests of balance a message board for people who think the war is great. They encourage lively debate by stating "If you don't like what we're doing in Iraq, you will be removed" free speech, yeah.