Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Aaronovitch: The Good War

It's as if his incapacity to concede that the Iraq war was a spectacular error of judgement was due to a subconsciously macho approach to humility.

Human nature is amazing. And one of our most amazing features is, in many cases, our absolute incapacity of admitting our wrong.

On Iraq, I can see why Tony Blair would sooner chuck an egg at Prescott's face than admit he fucked up. It's quite obvious why it's in his own interest not to concede an inch on what led to the war and its aftermath. And the same applies to his former subordinates in the Labour Cabinet.

What's puzzling, however, is the way "commentators" a-la David Aaronovitch or Nick Cohen are perversely keeping their blinkers on. Like kids sitting at the back of the classroom sulkingly announcing that, no, they didn't snatch their classmates' packed lunch, even if they were caught red handed.

It's almost as if their incapacity to concede that they made a huge error of judgement was due to a subconsciously macho approach to humility. Like a blow to their male ego. Which in turn, is transforming their pro-war devotion into a possessed hosepipe spraying bullshit at random.

Aaronovitch is no longer just advocating that the war was a good idea. His piece in yesterday's Times marked a shift in his pig-headedness: "We're seven years after Saddam" , he wrote and the debate has not "shifted a millimetre".

His target? The continuing boring criticism of the way Blair went about it, the dubious legality, the botched preparations, the bad planning, the non-WMDs, the lies. The £5bn (and counting) cost, the international instability, the 4.5 million orphans. In his view, it's just "the same stock phrases, the same conventional wisdoms that now pass from brain to lip without encountering thought along the way".

Not only that. Aaronovitch thinks we're actively enjoying all that. Each time the evening news announces another car bomb going off in Baghdad we're popping champagne bottles and grin with delight.

In his view, those who dare question The Good War do so because "they want [the war scars] to stay wounded — they enjoy their wounds".

And then, the icing on the cake, he laments the fact that no-one talks about the Iraqis anymore. "They have become ghosts", he grieves.

Funny choice of phrase, "ghosts". Because while he snipes at the pedantic "seven years of Shortism" and praises The Many Outstanding Benefits of The Good War, Aaronovitch himself fails to mention the war casualties once.

Like ghosts, exactly. Because whether the war resulted in 150,000, 600,000 or one million dead, according to Aaronovitch, we should just stop going on about them.


the patriot said...

What do you care about the dead in Iraq?

I disapprove of Aaronovitch, he's the archeotype pro-immigration Nu Labourite. But at least he's not havin our boys as the fall guy for the Iraqi's own mess.

The other thread proves that liberal lefties don't mind a dead or two if produced by their own political heroes.

This article is a sad joke. You mention bombs going off. But it's not the American troops who are planting those explosives.

It's the local Iraqis. I wish the liberal lefites called it a day with their self hatred that blames every ill upon the Yanks and ourselves.

claude said...

OK patriot.
You're a troll.
If you've got to pop here just to insult people or talk bollocks, I'll block you.
Also, how old are you? Shouldn't your mum and dad monitor your internet crap?
You're a proper loser and you're full of shite.
We could do without morons like you spamming.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

You are a sad, pathetic joke of a human troll, your ideas are off the back of cereal boxes.

You ignore the fact that no one here actually believes the things you ascribe, you ignore evidence, facts and knowledge and replace this with hyperbole, ignorance and anger.

I am surprised Claude is letting your brainless comments through moderation, they add nothing but merely reflect a fossilised way of thought that will soon, hopefully, be dead.

claude said...

I'm in two minds.

Shall we ban the sad troll or shall we just let his vomitous drivel be aired in public as the maggot-friendly shit that it actually is?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I'd leave him out of it here, threads will descend into name calling and he offers no insight, it is not if he represents the right, he just represents idiots and we have no need do them round these parts.

And he supports Aston Villa, which is a serious crime.

Paul said...

Patriot, I spent a lot of time in Iraq and it is true that the Americans were not the big killers. That dubious honour went to Al Qaeda and the Iranian sponsored Shia death squads. I don't know where you get Liberal lefties not minding a death or two from? But anyway I'm not a liberal leftie. I do however quite like debating with the guys on this blog.

I'm in two minds on this article. Sure Al Qaeda did most of the killing. Then again it was a pressure cooker, the pressure inside consisting of generations of Shia/Sunni/Kurd tensions. Some idiot went and unscrewed the lid without a clue how to put the subsequent mess back together.

True enough had Saddam eventually handed over power to his charming sons, then a massacre would have resulted anyway. Only that way the finger could not be pointed at the US when it happened.