The only war, for Marxists at least, is the class war. But this is the unreal world and in that world, there are the more traditional forms of war that pitch working class people against other working class people from different socio-economic geographical units in the pursuit of economic resources, strategic advantage or plain kudos. But when is such a war ever 'legitimate'. I tried to explain below the new 'decent' thinking on this issue - the idea seems to be that since there is no ultimate authority, either spiritual or earthly, then the strongest will attack the weakest if there is any hint of a threat.
It's an appalling argument but once all the 'reasons' for the attack on Iraq evaporated, iot's the only ones the 'decents' have left. One thing for it, though, is that it clarifies things. Once all the waffle about human rights, freedom and democracy have been jettisoned all there is left for them to talk about is brute real politik. The debate, in future, can only be understood in these harsher but clearer terms. Equally, it's no use those on the left invoking legal or moral arguments against the wars to come. Our opponents have transcended that type of consideration. True, to win over supporters to either cause (war or anti-war) ethical and juridicial arguments might be effective, but it's no use when arguing face to face with these people. It's just fact and strategy.
So it is with the likes of Melanie Phillips who has written an extraordinary piece in the Jewish Chronicle, called 'Now is the time to attack Iran'. It is a terrible piece of journalism. Worse, it is a terrible piece of writing. There always was a streak of absolutism in her style, even when Philips used to write for the Observer but here she is so convinced about the need to attack Iran that not a moment's scepticism or doubt is allowed in. Indeed the first word of her piece is "Everyon". Everyone is waiting in Israel for the end of the birthday party there, everyone is waiting for the US election to be over - this sets the tone for the sweeping certainty and generalisations that follow.
For it is the waiting that is the problem. The longer bombs aren't falling on Iran "[i]t provides alibis for putting off what needs to be done quickly; it results in the slaughter of yet more innocents." There is the absolutism there again, but also the subtle insinuation that the 'innocents' aren't the people of Gaza or the million or so dead in Iraq, but those unlucky enough to get hit by Palestinian rockets in Southern Israel.
And who is behind this slaughter of the innocents. None other than Iran. Iran is funding these 'terror' groups, is encircling Israel and is the centre of strategic gravity in the war against the free world. (Again, there is the absolutism - the simple vision of 'free' world against 'evil'). She clearly finds this unconvincing aswell as me. If you're going to surround a nuclear power with a massively funded army, you're going to have to do a damned sight better than a few local kids from inner city Beruit and a lorry load of AK-47's. So the frighteners have to be dredged up. Only not even that works anymore, if it ever did. She writes that Iran has a "working arrangement" with Al Qieda despite the obvious theological differences that exist between them. True to 'decent' form, not a glimmer of evidence is put forward for this but no matter, by this point in her quite brief article, she is on a roll. (I say 'quite brief' because if you're on side for sparking off Armageddon, you'd better have a longer more convincing set of things to say, I'd have thought). So, noticing that her AQ waving sounds comical rather than weighty, she plunges on hallucinating that Iran's embassies in the west are explosive stores that will serve the unleashing of terror once war is declared. But if that were true, it would be a good argument against any kind of atttack on Iran, you could be forgiven for thinking. However that would exhibit appeasement which only makes war more likely (which, considering Philip's appetite for bloodshed, would make it a good idea on her terms, one might think). Her argument staggers towards its close held up by our old friend the 1930's analogy. Philips here though, puts the anal into analogy. Philosophically, anaologies are ruses disguised as arguments. There practically useless as real debating points and this one in particular is merely the thinest of tissuey rhetoric. Iran = Nazi Germany? The country hasn't attacked anyone for a thousand years at least. But facts like this are of no importance to someone in the grip of such dread certainties as Philips. But soft, she is not urging the carpet bombing of Iran - just those good old fashioned precision strikes that have worked so well in the psat. No one will get hurt! But war is inevitable and it's best done when we're ready and not when Iran is ready. (Yes - what's all this "we" shit?).
I remember Jack Straw saying war with Iran is the 'talk of nutters', back in 2005. It still is, but the nutters are still in power and given the airtime this rancid pile of words is getting in the media - there's an appetite for it alas.
At least we've been warned.
On a critical level - there's so much wrong with her argument that the war if it does come can have no other rationale other than blind madness, demonic celebration of death, addiction to destruction and religious hatred. Fortunately, time is running out for the US chap who embodies these attributes. Hopefully Philips is just pissing in the wind as usual.
|