Guardian-Observer on the War
Published January 20, 2003
I have little doubt that the vast majority of those who demonstrated yesterday against possible war with Iraq, did so for commendable reasons of conscience and principle. I think they are wrong, but that is not the point at the moment: no one who is opposed to war with Iraq gives a fig what I think anyway.
BUT, since the vast majority of anti-war activists come from the left, and there are few publications on earth more closely identified with the principled left than the Guardian, I would hope that they would care what their editors have to say on the matter:
- The moral and political advantages of holding to the current course of action are overwhelming. Legitimacy is fundamental to the values of Western powers. Wherever possible, we make law, not war, and where war is unavoidable, we observe the law in its conduct. The prospects for any successor Iraqi regime will be much rosier if it is seen to have come into being through a UN mandate derived from a very substantial majority of members, rather than bilateral Anglo-American action.
Those who demanded a multilateral route have responsibilities, too. They must recognise that the much-maligned Bush administration has dutifully pursued a multilateral approach over both Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. The world asked America to work through the UN. The UN and its members must now show that its decisions and resolutions can be effective.
Some will still argue that because the world contains other unpleasant dictators, it would be wrong to get rid of this one. We disagree. The recent past contains several examples of military intervention against sovereign states where the outcome, if not ideal, has certainly been much better in humanitarian terms than what went before: Vietnam's removal of Pol Pot from Cambodia; Nato's Kosovo campaign, with the subsequent indictment of Slobodan Milosevic; the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan.
War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force. That is not because we have not agonised, as have so many of our readers and those who demonstrated across the country yesterday, about what is right. It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world.
- Guardian-Observer on the War
- Published: January 20, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I'm just watching The National, the CBC's news teevee show, and a couple things strike me about 'murricans (and please don't drop a bomb on me and claim it was cause you were all hopped up on goofballs).
One was a fighter pilot who wants to win the War on Terror by bombing Baghdad. Since when did Bin Laden take up residence in Iraq? Shouldn't you be bombing Saudi Arabia?
Second, if you want to fight weapons of mass destruction, where is the campaign to confiscate machetes in Central Africa, and mobilize PETA to stop cannibalism of Pygmies (ok, my bad, they're people, not fuzzy little bunnies, but couldn't we just pretend for this one time, honest humanitarian concerns from 'murrican stewdents won't be asked of again).
And thirdly does the news India is leasing submarine and missle carriers which are nuclear capable scare anybody? Anybody?
Thinking about it (why is there no centre in 'murrican politics? It seems the "left" starts at Vichy France) if the Bush junta (1 : a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power) has a hankerin' for frontier justice (why is it Shrub isn't a stupid man, he just plays one on teevee?) to nuke Baghdad, don't they just go ahead and do it?
Nuke Iraq, and then armoured by their convictions and that justice will out, turn themselves in to the Hague and triumph in trial. After all, if they are as right as they say, it won't be a war crime or crime against humanity, but a police action. After all isn't that what Milosvic is claiming?
They could get David E. Kelley to write the script for them. Rumsfeld could get some botox, Shrub could get some dialogue coaching, and then get a fair trial.
Or do they not have the guts?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/2733)
I'm just watching The National, the CBC's news teevee show, and a couple things strike me about 'murricans (and please don't drop a bomb on me and claim it was cause you were all hopped up on goofballs).
One was a fighter pilot who wants to win the War on Terror by bombing Baghdad. Since when did Bin Laden take up residence in Iraq? Shouldn't you be bombing Saudi Arabia?
Second, if you want to fight weapons of mass destruction, where is the campaign to confiscate machetes in Central Africa, and mobilize PETA to stop cannibalism of Pygmies (ok, my bad, they're people, not fuzzy little bunnies, but couldn't we just pretend for this one time, honest humanitarian concerns from 'murrican stewdents won't be asked of again).
And thirdly does the news India is leasing submarine and missle carriers which are nuclear capable scare anybody? Anybody?