Babyish Straw Men and the Women who Devour Them
You know the anti-war "movement" is in trouble when someone like Julie Burchill, socialist, Guardian columnist and proud anti-American (is there any other kind?) comes out against Saddam and effectively in favor of "Bush's war."
It may not be much more than rote straw man demolition, but it is at least a little striking that the "befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists" that she subjects to such ridicule tends to make up much of the contents of her own paper. Here's straw man #4:
"Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier.
This radio-scape was an idiotarian's wonderland, replete with a Robert Fisk interview and several generous helpings of Scott Ritter and Ramsay Clark, and a dash of Michael Moore thrown in for good measure. The constant refrain: "they say it's not about oil. No way! It's totally about oil." Of all the anti-anti-war people I have known and read, from war-mongering neo-con to timid liberal internationalist, I can't think of any who have ever denied that petro-politics plays a significant role in the whole Iraq question. How could it be otherwise in the Middle East? I suppose I lack the imagination to fathom how the empty "no blood for oil" slogan retains such enduring appeal in view of its manifest vacuousness and poor track record at persuading anyone who isn't already in the club. But it has now been taken on board by an enthusiastic new generation of numbskulls nonetheless, if Wednesday's Pacifica broadcast is any indication. The various hosts, hostesses and guests on KPFA that night brandished it as an unanswerable trump card, a self-contained iron-clad case that leaving Saddam alone was the only sane course of action. It didn't work last time, even with the benefit of the vital element of surprise; it has no chance of working this time either, I'd wager. They really need to come up with some new material. The observation has been made before, of course; but now we can quote our newest, and perhaps strangest, bedfellow Julie Burchill in response: "the fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it!" Go, Julie.
The diligent, painstaking effort to vilify Bush's speech as "propaganda" is yet another case of strict accuracy undermining rather than enforcing the intended point. Like the "it's about the oil" line, its faults are so obvious that they can leave you stumped as to a response: how can you enter into such a discussion with people who haven't managed to grasp the meaning of the words comprising their own rhetoric? I'm sure a fair few, probably all of them, were merely feigning this inability-- that's show biz. I had the distinct impression, nonetheless, that by and large their hearts were not really in it. You've got to figure that these folks would be used to a bit of futility by now-- but perhaps they have at last reached a kind of futility tipping point. That's the danger zone where leftists can turn into neo-conservatives, so they'd better watch out.
(via Rick Heller.)
Posted by Dr. Frank at February 3, 2003 01:06 PM | TrackBack