The meaning of ‘pro-war’
The splendidly named, and generally pretty interesting blog,
has a great article about just how far ‘pro-war’ liberals take their
approval of war. In particular, the post quotes something Blair is
supposed to have said off the record, “They (critics of the war) ask
why we don’t get rid of Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot? Yes, let’s
get rid of them all. I don’t because I can’t, but when you can, you
should.� First of all, this has the logical consequence that pro-war
liberals don’t see war as an ocassional unpleasant necessity, but as
an integral tool of an ethical foreign policy. In other words, they
subscribe to the medieval idea of the just war or, to put it more
crudely, the crusades (and I do like the idea of telling Nick Cohen
that his oh-so-‘humanitarian’ support for war in Iraq is
medieval). The pro-war ‘left’ is pro-war in the full-blooded (no pun
intended) sense that it is in favour of a continuing, endless war to
impose moral perfection on the world.
Further, though, the idea that, when you can intervene, you should
do so, quite absurdly ignores the way in which prevailing political
conditions structure when interventions are possible. Tony Blair’s
high-sounding idea doing whatever good he can do actually means doing
whatever ‘good works’ support US interests, because it’s certain
that those are the only ones he will be allowed to do. So fuck the
pro-war left; it’s odd to remember that there was a period just
before the war when I thought their imperial ravings might be a
critique for the anti-war movement to take seriously. Anyway, the
anti-war left has enough to worry about on its own, such as
what the hell our response to the occupation of Iraq should be (I’m linking to this because it poses the questions well, not because I
agree with its conclusions).
Original article (including comments)
No comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.