Having spent this morning shopping, it was nice to spend the rest of the afternoon reading the weekend papers that had been waiting patiently all week. I have just finished reading Eric Hobsbawm’s essay from The Guardian’s Review section. Hobsbawm discusses the lasting intellectual legacy of the Spanish Civil War, and how the rise of fascism in Europe shaped the left.
He touches on the ideological conflict between rightwing intellectuals (such as TS Elliot, Evelyn Waugh, and Ezra Pound) and those on the left (Auden, Orwell, etc), and continues to delve deeper into the schisms within the left (such as Trotskyism vs Stalinism and Marxism vs Bakunin’s anarchism). This analysis got me thinking about our current leftist schism: Iraq. I know you’re rolling your eyes as this blog yet again gets itself into a tiz over Iraq, but please bear with me.
Quite a few pro-war advocates (particularly on the left) have held up Nick Cohen’s recent book, What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way, as a seminal work which captures perfectly the feeling that the rump of the left is confused and injudicious in opposing the war in Iraq. In order to justify this claim, Cohen, like many writers on the right, seeks to justify his argument by lumping all anti-war leftists together, characterising them as inane pacifists, anti-American, and/or apologists of radical Islam. This is wrong.
Many who opposed the war in Iraq have always opposed the Wahhabist teaching of Islam – and continue to do so strenuously. Many, including this writer, also support and promote a benign Internationalist America. However I do concede that others on the left have indeed found themselves allied with an evil religious fascism that genuinely threatens the liberal society we hold dear; these men and women are fools who have taken the devil to bed. But opposing the war does not make us all Saddamists, nor does it make us all Islamists. It makes us complex.
The left has always been complex. The right is equally composite, being a fractious coalition of religious and traditional conservatives, capitalists, libertarians, and fascists. Cohen argues that we should support the liberation of Shia and Kurds from the fascist Sunni Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, and give support to the plight of the suppressed Iraqi trade unionists. In doing so, Cohen is asking us to forgo our natural revulsion for intervening in sovereign states, acting outside the UN, American economic imperialism, and war itself. Fair enough you may say; surely intervention in Bosnia was justified? Well yes, I supported action in the former Yugoslavia, and I was tempted to support action in Iraq. Liberal interventionism is not something I am ideologically opposed to, and I have sympathy for the intellectual convulsions of Francis Fukuyama.
My reasons for opposing the war, which I feel expose the folly of otherwise wise men such as Cohen, Peter Hitchens, and possibly even Tony Blair, was that this deal was reliant on accepting the hand of comradeship from a corporatist, militarist US administration. I never believed for an instant that intervention in Iraq, at least as far as Cheney and Bush were concerned, was about liberating the suppressed and helping the Trade Unions (one only has to see the way the oil unions have been screwed over). The war was fought for control of Iraq’s oil and to feed the Military Industrial Complex that is so closely linked with the White House hawks - simple as that. I could see it, many more could see it, so why couldn’t Cohen et al?
To side with Bush and his insidious cabal was the real folly of the left.
Sphere: Related Content
… our natural revulsion for intervening in sovereign states
I don’t feel that revulsion at all. To me, a state should be judged on the basis of the treatment of its people. Sovereignty doesn’t imply democracy, or commitment to human rights, and as human beings have equal worth wherever they live - and states no worth (I make no concessions for nationalism) - any state that oppresses should feel the international community (as best represented by a functional UN) breathing down its neck. That’s liberal interventionism in a nutshell.
B4L - perhaps Tyger meant ‘reluctance’ as opposed to ‘revulsion’? I certainly have a natural reluctance towards intervention but equally I am unhappy about the ‘Alan Clarke’ notion that we never intervene unless it is in the national interest.
“Intervening in sovereign states” (aka invasion and occupation)(aka violence and terror).
“Revulsion” ? You bet - and more.
Richard,
That’s the kind of comment I’d expect to hear from someone who still feels sentimental about “Uncle Joe”: usually cynics, nihilists, or fanatics. As if you haven’t seen enough examples: there’s no terror like the terror a government inflicts upon its own people. We should just accept that?
Mike,
Maybe that was what was meant, but I have to go by what was written, and presumably read-over before posting. The “reluctance”, I think, should be spent in checking what is the best (short- and long-term) way to intervene, exhausting all peaceful avenues - not in worrying about the constitution of a country starving/killing its own people.
I think the problem is the situation where it arises where we do the killing for them, perhaps at an even higher rate. That’s the reluctance part kicking in.
Andrew, I think that sovereignty does imply that a state treats it’s people well. Well, hang on, I think that the latter is a requirement of the former.
Aaron, my opinion on these things matches yours exactly. Great piece, says something that takes me ages to explain rather concisely.
Hi Aaron:
“Cohen, like many writers on the right, seeks to justify his argument by lumping all anti-war leftists together, characterising them as inane pacifists, anti-American, and/or apologists of radical Islam.”
This is not fair. I agree that Cohen might have gone farther in anticipating this criticism, although in retrospect I don’t think it would have made much difference. I was an “anti-war leftist” in 2003, and have no reason to believe I was wrong to have been so, but having reviewed Cohen’s book and having interviewed him about the hulabaloo it’s set off (this is not just a book about Iraq, remember), I’m fairly confident in saying that where Cohen is right, in important ways, is in his criticism of the way the anti-war left has conducted itself since the invasion. Cohen’s book is more fair than you suggest:
“If you oppose genuinely disastrous American policies, you most emphatically are not aiding and abetting totalitarianism, although far too many on the American right are now prepared to say that you are†(p 268).
“The protestors were right to feel that Bush and Blair were manipulating them into war†(p. 284).
“Fear of an upsurge in terrorism was as strong a force as anti-Americanism in motivating opponents of the war who knew next to nothing about Iraq†(p. 286).
“It is a generalization to say everyone refused to commit. The best of the old left in the trade unions and Parliamentary Labour Party supported an anti-fascist struggle regardless of whether they were for or against the war, and American democrats went to fight in Iraq and returned to fight the Republicans†(p. 288).
“They followed sober and responsible politicians such as Robin Cook and Gerhard Schroeder: leaders who were committed to multilateralism and conciliation, which were good principles to have. They opposed George W. Bush and Tony Blair because they didn’t believe that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat and they feared an upsurge in al-Qaeda violence when the fighting began – and these were undeniably good grounds for opposing the war†(p. 313).
And so on.
Cheers,
TG
I think the UN should take another kind of measures when dealing with a rogue leader. What it did at the behest of the US was embargo Iraq for a number of years that provoked hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. Punishing a whole population for what its leaders do is not the way.
It wasn’t necessary to go to war with Iraq, unless as it has so happened, the oil was the fundamental reason for that war. The dead, the wounded on both sides could have been avoided if an International Tribunal duly constituted had tried Saddam in absence.
Mechanisms should be set up for these cases permitting the UN to intervene physically, arrest the leader in question and take him away from his country.
But never should another country or group of countries attribute themselves this task.
By the way news is that the Iraqi Oil Law is about to be approved, a law that will sit in the new Federal Oil and Gas Council in Iraq representatives of Exxon, BP and Chevron and which will control the totality of Iraq’s oil reserves.
And there are still people who believe this war was made for humanitarian reasons.
I’d recommend you to check out on
http://michaellee.modernwriters.org/viewtopic.php?t=1592
B4L,
I’d be interested in what you think we should do about the 10,000+ political prisoners who are killed by the Chinese state every year?
Ok, I’m being facetious. As I have said, I do believe in liberal intervention when an ongoing human catastrophe occurs. This was not the case in Iraq. The gassing of the Kurds was in the past. We should have thrown political support and resources at those who opposed Saddam, but the war was foolish in the extreme.
In my opinion, the war is indefensible. The trial of Saddam was a joke. Sectarian violence is tearing the country apart. Hundreds of thousands of died. The oil has, as feared, been divvied up between coalition contractors. We have strengthened the regional power of Iran. And we have further fuelled hatred in the Islamic world. Bloodshed is everywhere.
Is that ‘liberal interventionism in a nutshell?’
TGlavin,
I think I do accept that Cohen is right to some extent. See here:
However I do concede that others on the left have indeed found themselves allied with an evil religious fascism that genuinely threatens the liberal society we hold dear; these men and women are fools who have taken the devil to bed.
And I have read the book. However although Cohen does include caveats, he still slips into that easy habit of generalisation too often to support his argument.
I like Cohen, I think he’s a genuine thinker among the thousands of liberal scribes who have written about Iraq. But his problems surely lie with those who screwed up the aftermath, not the bulk of the left who opposed it?
THE “left” has never been. At least without …..
Come on Tyger.
left-wing stuff has always been around as a decent alternative.
may I stick to that ?
BTW : Hobsbawn has been a damned good historian!!!!
I’d be interested in what you think we should do about the 10,000+ political prisoners who are killed by the Chinese state every year?
Same principle applies, doesn’t it? It wasn’t my intention to bring military force into this discussion at all.
As I have said, I do believe in liberal intervention when an ongoing human catastrophe occurs. This was not the case in Iraq. The gassing of the Kurds was in the past.
The violence didn’t stop, though - the gassing of the Kurds was merely attracted the most attention worldwide.
In my opinion, the war is indefensible.
Maybe there’ll come a time when I can take it as read that that refers to the conduct of the war and its aftermath, and (obviously) agree with you, but I can’t now because of the likelihood that the principled (for some weren’t) reasons for intervention - and the arguments of people like Cohen (et al.) - will not make the history books. Every Bush/Bliar reference, every half-baked Big Oil theory, and every denial of the real cause of the killings, just makes that whitewash more likely.
Yes, nuance seems to be sorely lacking in most debates on this. And the self-righteousness of the I-told-you-so-crowd does not provide any half-decent solutions to the quagmire we (yes: we) are in at the moment in Iraq.
Some German leftie had the gall the other day to seriously argue that the world would be better of with China and Russia reigning supreme. It’s this kind of nuttery you are in danger of finding yourself associated with, tyger. Just reiterating the oil-argument detracts from your intellectual and writerly abilities. Surely, you can do better than that?
Hullo Yellow,
Ah! You see? You are failing to add nuance yourself. How can you lump me in with the same Pro-China numbskulls and then cry nuance? How very Cohenesque (and I don’t mean the gravel-voiced crooner)?
I am, as regular readers will attest, passionately pro-American. I just loath this Neo-Nixonion aadministration and regret the damage they have done to the world.
Tyger,
I found little to disagree with in your post, apart from your conclusions - particularly about Cohen’s book which I think is the public culmination of a lot of positive thinking that has gone on - particularly on the left-blogs - over the last five years.
And near the end, I found out why.
You say…
“The war was fought for control of Iraq’s oil and to feed the Military Industrial Complex that is so closely linked with the White House hawks - simple as that.”
It really isn’t as simple as that though, is it?
Check your emails in which I wholeheartedly apologise.
It really is as simple as this :
The war was fought by terrorists against terrorists - and I define ‘terrorists’ as people who terrorize other people.
It’s very difficult for decent-minded people to accept that their governments are cold-blooded killers.
But this needs to be accepted if humanity is to wake up, wise up and grow up - and survive.
It isn’t only the self-righteous, self designated “Left” who wrestle with these moral dilemmas! When will you lot - by whom I mean all of you who yak interminably on about “Left this, Left that” take off your boring blinkers? The “Left” are not the only serious political thinkers around, you know! Some of us who don’t sport that label regard ourselves as not totally insignificant champions of democracy and foes of totalitarianism of whatever stripe, political or religious. The fractious, factious left - whose interminable knicker-twisting I find yawningly tedious - will never constitute a political majority, so you’d better concentrate on forming realistic alliances with others of goodwill. Yes, in the Centre and even on the Right!
Having got that off my chest: - While I don’t go along 100% with Alan Clark in saying “never”, I do strongly believe that this country’s national interests should always be the determining factor in UK foreign policy - especially where intervention in other countries’ affairs is concerned. Blair obviously sincerely believes that tying ourselves to America will-nilly, and invading Iraq regardless of the possible consequences, was the right thing to do. But anyone with more than the most superficial knowledge of the Middle East, and the way politics work [or don't] there, could see with half an eye that the whole project would land us in endless disaster and make things far worse, as it has done.
As for American [and not just neo-Con] disneyland fantasies about spreading American-style “democracy” [=plutocracy] around the globe, I’ll deal with that at greater length in anticant’s arena sometime soon.
anticant,
I don’t normally reply to people who use the word “neocon”, but some of us care that there are regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere (one less, thankfully) that are murdering and torturing their own people. That our own national interest is further up your list of priorities - just ahead of whether you’re embarrassed that we’re close to the Americans - isn’t surprising for someone of the Right, but it does show us why the Right has no part to play in this discussion. People who don’t believe in democracy, you might almost say, have sacrificed their own right to take part in any political discussion.
Richard,
The war was fought by terrorists against terrorists - and I define ‘terrorists’ as people who terrorize other people.
You’re seriously comparing a genocidal dictator and suicide bombers, with democratic governments? Best rest easy in your armchair and stay out of politics, if you ask me.
So called “democratic governments” have been actively participating in, and promoting, state terrorism for years - especially those of a “neocon” persuasion. Let modern history speak -maybe starting with the US bombing of South Vietnam.
If you are ‘in politics’, B4L, and you don’t see that obvious truth in front of your nose, then you are in ‘cloud cuckoo-land politics’ - and I for one will “stay out of politics” of such naive arrogant ignorance.
I can see why you “don’t normally reply to people who use the word ‘neocon’ ” - it would cause you serious psychological damage.
Best rest easy in your armchair and stay out of ‘real politik’, if you ask me.
In 1975, people were less naive than they are now - especially those who come out of a privatised NuLabor kindergarten’…
I’ve just finished watching Channel 5’s ‘afternoon movie’ in my armchair; a ‘real politik’ thriller “Three Days Of The Condor”, starring Robert Redford.
And what was it all about ?
Oil.
Sorry, couldn’t resist this…
CIA researcher Joe Turner (played by Robert Redford) in the 1975 film ‘Three Days Of The Condor’ :
“You know, you guys are amazing. You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth”.
Yes, the term ‘Neocon Bash and NuLabor Bliar’ does come to mind…and if using such terms upset the likes of B4L, to the absurd extent of them no longer replying…so be it.
Ignoring the unpalatable truth does not alter the unpalatable truth.
Unpalatable truths must be confronted - but no longer with lies.
Having checked out your site, B4L, I am none the wiser as to who you are, or where you’re coming from. Presumably someone “blogging for Labour” - which I suppose seems to you more meritorious than gunning for Labour, though I can’t think why.
You certainly make unwarranted assumptions, and you don’t pay sufficient attention to what someone actually says before pitching into them. There is NOTHING in my post implying, even remotely, that I don’t care that there are regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere that are murdering and torturing their own people. I do - but of course you lot never mention Mugabe; he isn’t sitting on any oil! There is NOTHING to imply that I am “of the Right” or “don’t believe in democracy”. Regular posters on this and other sites know me better. I don’t wear labels, anyway.
And if one is forbidden to utter taboo [to you] phrases such as “neo-Con” [shorthand for American extreme right-wing imperialist], how does one engage in meaningful discussion with such milksoppish PC nit-pickers who seek to dumb down debate in this puerile fashion?
By all means keep on “blogging for Labour”. Fewer and fewer people are listening to you any more, after ten years of increasingly mendacious spin. You’re past your sell-by date. New political alignments are overdue, and you will find yourselves in meltdown mode at the next election.
Richard,
What it boils down to is this: if you class things as terrorism which patently aren’t, you devalue the term, and make it harder to see it when it’s really happening. I don’t buy your conspiracy theories, even if Channel 5 would have us believe they are true.
*
anticant,
“There is NOTHING in my post implying, even remotely, that I don’t care that there are regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere that are murdering and torturing their own people.”
Are you sure about that? What about:
“I do strongly believe that this country’s national interests should always be the determining factor in UK foreign policy - especially where intervention in other countries’ affairs is concerned.”
You proceeded to go on about the UK’s relationship with USA, having seemingly finished with the rest of the world.
“I do - but of course you lot never mention Mugabe; he isn’t sitting on any oil!”
This is a diversionary tactic, but it’s also not true. You’d better believe that a liberal or socialist (myself included) with a conscience would do what he could to kick out Mugabe and return sanity to the country.
‘There is NOTHING to imply that I am “of the Right‒
No? When you said:
“It isn’t only the self-righteous, self designated “Left†who wrestle with these moral dilemmas! When will you lot…”
I thought I was on fairly safe ground.
.’.. taboo [to you] phrases such as “neo-Con‒
Once upon a time this term meant something, now it’s utterly devalued. So Tony Blair is a social conservative seeking to roll back the ’60s revolution? What about divisions within neo-Conservatism. No, I’ll stick to my belief that the term is almost solely a term of abuse.
“…how does one engage in meaningful discussion with such milksoppish PC nit-pickers who seek to dumb down debate in this puerile fashion?”
Simple: don’t use buzz-words, and cut down on the ad hominems. I’ll leave it for others to conclude who’s dumbing-down.
“Fewer and fewer people are listening to you any more, after ten years of increasingly mendacious spin.”
Playing the man, not the ball…. not even the right man, either. I’ve already had one person email me today addressing the message “Blair,” - if you have a problem with the Labour Party, talk to them, don’t use Labour-supporting bloggers as proxies.