Junius is writing about why he’s been
“veering in a pro-war direction”:
Over the past few weeks I’ve often found myself veering in a pro-war direction. As I mentioned the other day, there’s a real question whether war is worse than peace in the Iraqi case. And then there’s the rhetoric of the anti-war campaigners (“all about oil”, “Blair is Bush’s poodle”, and so on) and their hobnobbing with all kinds of distasteful characters (as documented by BritishSpin in his back-from-the dead post): all of which repels me. On the other hand, there are some powerful considerations holding me back from crossing the floor and central among these are two: that democracy in Iraq almost certainly won’t happen and that, whatever the merits of war with Iraq taken on its own, this is just phase one of something bigger, longer and nastier.
Which irritated me. Junius here falls into a trap I’ve seen more people fall into: arguing as if Bush and co have hoonourable reasons for this war. Yes, you could make the argument that liberating Iraq from Saddam’s grip and reintroducing democracy there is a good reason to wage war, but why on earth would you believe this is the reason Bush wants to go to war? This is a man who came to power after an jucidial coup himself and who has consistently behaved antidemocratic since then, who has used the September 11 attacks as an excuse to push through a repressive agenda and is now using it to wage a war he already wanted anyway.
Yet somehow, the Socialist Workers Party being part of the Stop the War coalition is reason for Junius to “veer in a pro-war direction”. Well, at least they have done something, instead of waiting for protests to be organised, like all those nice inoffensive liberals now bitching about them.
And how naive is it, at this stage to still believe it isn’t (partially) about oil? If it wasn’t about oil, why is North Korea treated differently? Sure, it’s not “all about oil”, but to deny it doesn’t play a big role in why this war now is just silly. When the
hawks themselves talk about appropriating part of Iraq’s oil supply to “pay for the war’s costs”….
Finally, if Blair isn’t Bush’s poodle, how else do you explain his continuing support of a war for which no good reason has been brought forward, for which every argument made has been a lie, which isn’t in the UK’s interests? Blair’s sudden fervor for human rights? Didn’t stop him letting British companies sell arms to countries like Indonesia…
