I think I'd spent the whole week prior to this being patronised by those on the political left for suggesting that America was fully justified in retaliating against Afghanistan. As such, this rant is rather...prickly. Not to mention full of absolute bullshit.
Okay, so it's been two whole weeks since I really ranted about anything in particular and I should really exorcise my demons again before I end up becoming one of those rather tragic gentlemen who stand at Grey's Monument in Newcastle every weekend shouting randomly at passers by about how Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed/Barrymore will save them. I was incredibly gratified to see the reaction to my last set of acidic musings and I shall definitely be making more of an effort in future to rant more about more universal social issues such as dating. If nothing else, it's a hell of a lot easier to write that stuff than it is to try and present world and domestic politics in an amusing and readable manner.
That said however, I'm now going to try and talk about world politics in an amusing and readable manner. Sorry. These days it's difficult for me to talk about any other subject (although not in Dublin, where a taxi driver gave me the friendly advice about what to do if the subject of politics arose whilst in a Dublin bar; "Keep you fuckin' mouth shut son"). After all, we are seeing the first examples of biological and chemical warfare since I last farted and shoved Joanne's head under the duvet, so this is a fairly serious and worrying time for the world. But I think what I'd like to talk about is not so much the war itself, nor the anthrax attack on America, but the way that both of these events have been and are being reported on.
I don't think I'm revealing any great secret when I say that I am of a liberal mindset. Nor should it shock you to find that I am a critic of many principles of right-wing thought (having been guilty of thinking them for about 8 years...). So therefore, according to stereotyping I should be firmly opposed to the war, bitterly complaining about the civilian casualties, and generally soul searching about the motivations of the West in prosecuting this conflict. What I should not be doing is getting irritated beyond all belief about the hand-wringing and good-intentioned bleating about the civilian casualties of the war, becoming annoyed by constant attempts by certain sections of the media to lead us to believe that the war is as good as lost and that we should cease all hostilities before anyone else gets killed, and finding myself being in favour of the war.
Let's deal with that last point first of all, as it's one that needs clarifying. I believe that the war is a just one. The US was the victim of a terrorist attack that was planned by men in Afghanistan. The (not-quite-legitimate) government of Afghanistan 1: Refused to hand over the suspect for the bombings and 2: Refused to close down the training camps where the men who committed the atrocities received some of their training. No amount of diplomacy was going to persuade the Taliban to hand them over. War is being waged to try and achieve those 2 aims. Any of the whining about how the US should go through the UN, or the West is bullying a 3rd world nation, or how America was to blame for being attacked in the first place is nothing more than sophistry. The fact is that the US (and it's allies; I'll not bore you with the details of the NATO treaty that provides for this) is fully justified in fighting this war.
That's not to say that I agree with how it's being fought. My contempt for Dubya knows no bounds, and it doesn't surprise me that he is providing America with a level of leadership last shown when Mad Jock "Madman" McMad selected Culloden Moor as a surefire place to beat the English in battle. He has made a balls up of handling the anthrax crisis (Postal workers dying? No problem. What's that? It might be affecting politicians and spreading to the White House? OH MY GOD!! CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD!!! AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!) and the tactics of his military show something to be desired. America is going to have to realise at some point that it is going to have to take its soldiers out of the their boxes and play with them. And some of them will get broken. This is not a nice thing, but it is a necessary thing.
Of course, it could be said that the tactics that are being used have been chosen to assuage the criticisms of liberal thinkers. I am of the opinion that it is a very bad idea to let liberal thinkers (and I include myself in this statement) decide courses of action during a war. In wartime, right wing thinking with its clarity of purpose and ability to ride roughshod over semantics and nit picking should flourish. It is the job of liberal thinkers to take over after the war is concluded. It is the job of liberal thinkers to ensure that nothing like that *ever* happens again. All we do in wartime is complain that the world no longer follows the nice, civilised rules that it (sometimes) does in peacetime. This is a distraction. Had it been this way in WWII then chances are the media would have made vehement demands that we pull out of the war by 1942 due to the unpleasant nature of David Stirling's new SAS regiment in Africa, not to mention the large number of civilian casualties on both sides. Frankly, after the war I would like the freedom to continue to make the left wing observations that I currently make. I'm not likely to be allowed this luxury if we back down and allow terrorism and extremism to continue to flourish. So can we forget all of the secondary observations about how the West is not doing what it should and doing things it shouldn't? Good.
Now, the thorny issue of civilian casualties (or "collateral damage" as it is euphemistically called). Obviously I believe that this is a bad thing. I think you'd have to be something of a sociopath not to think this. However...well, this is a war isn't it? It certainly looks very much to me like one. And, as war is not conducted in some hermetically sealed environment where one can only find soldiers and no civilians, there is always a chance of civilian deaths. Again I'll make it clear; this is deplorable and every conceivable effort should be made to avoid it.
Now here's a thing; the West has developed weapons that are far more accurate than anything that has gone before. They are not as pinpoint accurate as we were led to believe in the Gulf War but they are not as indiscriminate as the bombs that dropped in any previous wars. Research is constantly ongoing to try and make these bombs more accurate still. I would say that we've discharged our moral responsibility to avoid the death of innocents. Now how about the Taliban and the Al-Quaida terrorist network? Well, the Taliban have butchered hundreds (if not thousands) of their own civilians in Kabul. In their war against the Northern Alliance (who, it must be conceded, are probably as bad as the Taliban) they have shown scant regard for the welfare of the non-combatants who live in or near the battlegrounds. As for Al-Quaida...well, I hardly need remind you that the reason that this war started in the first place was because they deliberately planned and carried out an attack that killed 5,000 civilians.
Current reports from the left wing press and media provide us with a barrage of images of civilian deaths. The Taliban and the more media savvy Al-Quaida know that this will cause consternation in the west and so allow journalists access to sites where innocents have dies. We should not let this deter us. We should certainly acknowledge that it is a tragedy, but we are basically allowing our conscience to hold us to ransom if we join the clamour for the war to stop based on this. Surely the best way to minimise civilian casualties would be for the West to stop pussyfooting around and go in hard; by which I mean fight a ground war with air cover. Remember the shambles caused in the Balkans because the west hummed and hah-ed about committing troops? Remember the *huge* number of civilian casualties that were a direct result of that reluctance to fight (Jesus, they're *still* finding mass graves from that unpleasant period, and they'll probably be finding them for years to come)? The quicker that ground troops are used to 1. Capture or kill Bin Laden and his lieutenants and 2. Destroy the Al-Quaida training camps in Afghanistan (and hopefully 3. Get rid of those inhuman, misogynist, hateful bastards running Afghanistan) then the sooner the war in that particular region will be over, and the civilian casualties will stop. Well...assuming that we can get enough food to the poor hungry people they will anyway....
It's disingenuous of the left wing media to try and derail the war effort (such as it is) for no other reason than it will sell papers or increase their audience share. War is a very bad thing. Their posturing only ensures that this war lasts longer. If one wishes to be critical of the war, then limit criticism to the fact that it is being fought poorly by all means, but don't doubt that it should be fought in the first place.
Tuesday 30 October 2001
Monday 15 October 2001
The Dating Game
Dating was a nightmare for me to return to after 9 years with one woman. And oh, how I complained...
I'm rather bored with the war for now. Not that the fear induced sleeplessness shows any signs of relenting of course, but I do challenge anyone to find a news story that shows a new angle on events. I have a rant formulating which I believe will give a different take on the coverage of Afghanistan but I need to let it percolate it's way through my sub-conscious for a little longer. No, today I feel the need to indulge myself and examine something utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I'm going to have a look at dating.
Dating is something that I am a relative newcomer to. Having met my former fiancee at age 15 and stayed with her for over 9 years, it is also something that I felt sure I had avoided and I was grateful in extremis for that. But we live in an uncertain world and so it was that I found myself stranded in a game whose rules I had a vague understanding and whose formalities and etiquette seemed alien in their complexity. Now, I don't intend to make this a rundown of my love life since splitting with my other half, so you may be asking yourself "Yeah? So what?". And that line of thought would be entirely acceptable if I were to mire myself in self-pity at my rather poor showing in the dating game. But I don't intend to do that, no not one bit of it. What I do intend to do is vent my spleen about one aspect of it; an element that one seemingly *must* understand if one wants to get anywhere (and I mean that in every sense of the phrase). I'm talking about the idea of "Not Seeming Too Keen".
Okay, before I get started I should declare an interest in attacking this particular little bugbear. After my relationship with my fiancee had ended, I met a few people whom I liked enough to want to date again. Being rather naïve with regard to dating, I was guilty of trying "Not to seem too keen". What it in fact achieved was to make me "Not seem too bright" as well as "Not capable of doing something without dithering like a prat". So in that respect perhaps my extraordinary supply of bile that I have reserved for this dating practice is a little biased.
Now if it were just me who had managed to snatch despair from the jaws of happiness then I would write it off as a personal error to be learnt from and *never* to be repeated again. But I am by no means the only one to make such a complete tit of myself in the name of making a juvenile effort at looking cool at all costs. No, not at all. In the last few months I have seen numerous friends meet somebody who they liked and could see themselves getting involved in a relationship with. In particular, I've seen one very close friend manage to consign countless potential relationships to the grave for absolutely no other reason that this bizarre idea that one shouldn't seem to keen about someone else. The routine ran something like this;
Friend goes out for a weekend's worth of merriment; friend meets up with Someone; friend is attracted to this Someone; this Someone is attracted to friend; friend and Someone spend entire evening together; friend get's back and fizzes around with excitement at having met Someone whom they really like; friend makes enquiries of mutual friends to find out what Someone thought of friend (don't ask - this friend of mine seems to know every other human being on the face of the planet...), friend invariably finds out that Someone was equally as besotted; friend forces self not to ring,text,email, or contact Someone in any way ; Someone sends non-committal message via text/email (because friend won't answer the phone in case it's Someone, and Someone has to be non-committal as Someone must also be sure "Not To Seem Too Keen"); friend get's utterly disheartened at non-committal nature of message and writes off all hope of relationship with Someone; friend does not reply to Someone; Someone assumes friend is not interested; Repeat from start.
Did I miss something? Are we still a nation of Victorian era prudes for whom showing emotion is a faux pas on the same level as paedophilia?! What happened to the idea of the UK being full of vibrant and trendy young things? The pattern that my friend seems to follow is by no means unique and I'm sure that you'll recognise it to a greater or lesser degree. And who in the name of blistering piss decided that the most surefire way to attract a potential partner was to not contact them for about a week after meeting them, and then being cool and distant when one eventually deigns to get in touch? I mean, I know that love and lust don't exactly operate logically but this strikes me as an obscene repression of ones natural feelings upon meeting someone whom one likes.
I'm sure things are different in the wonderful world of adulthood, but when I first met my fiancee I was no more capable of playing it cool and distant than I was of not having a crafty one off the wrist at least every other day (hey c'mon; I *was* 15...). Any pretence at measured and logical thought perished in the fiery inferno of the unfettered passion and unbridled lust that I felt at the mere thought of her. As such, I rang her within a few days of first meeting her, she rang back the following day and the rest (like our engagement) is history.
So what exactly changes between being a teenager and being an adult. One would think that things would be a lot more cut and dried as an adult. After all, the hormones no longer rampage round our bodies like a viagra tainted flu virus (by the time our mid twenties are upon us they are more like a mild case of the sniffles) and we don't have to endure the horrendous coyness and gangly awkwardness that is the sole preserve of the teenager in love. And yet rather than being relieved beyond words to see the back of that godawful time, we seem to be doing our very best to artificially recreate it. And we do this by obsessively "Not Seeming Very Keen".
It's not as if this could be misconstrued as an attempt to retain some of the sense of wonder that permeates every new experience of our teenage years. Christ knows, I felt as stupidly in lust with my first post-fiancee dalliance when we met as I ever had done as a teenager so what the hell possessed me (and possesses pretty much all young adults) to try and "Not Seem Too Keen"? I suppose the most obvious answer is that we are afraid of facing the ridicule of our peers. And so it seems that we are happy to think less of ourselves, to be unable to live with ourselves and the decisions that we've made, just as long as our friends don't mock us or think less of us. Perhaps we are so egotistical as to believe that every single potential partner (or even just potential shag if you want me to be cynically truthful) also doubles up as "Potential Stalker". If so then that is a pretty sad indictment of ourselves; we'd prefer to live in perpetual fear rather than let our guard down and grasp the possibility of living in happiness.
Can I really be the only single person who thinks that this Law of Dating is one of the worst ideas in the history of human nature? Or am I just an embittered and sad git who is angry at his own self-inflicted lack of success with the opposite sex? Either way, please do enlighten me as I've given up trying to make sense of the whole damn thing!
I'm rather bored with the war for now. Not that the fear induced sleeplessness shows any signs of relenting of course, but I do challenge anyone to find a news story that shows a new angle on events. I have a rant formulating which I believe will give a different take on the coverage of Afghanistan but I need to let it percolate it's way through my sub-conscious for a little longer. No, today I feel the need to indulge myself and examine something utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I'm going to have a look at dating.
Dating is something that I am a relative newcomer to. Having met my former fiancee at age 15 and stayed with her for over 9 years, it is also something that I felt sure I had avoided and I was grateful in extremis for that. But we live in an uncertain world and so it was that I found myself stranded in a game whose rules I had a vague understanding and whose formalities and etiquette seemed alien in their complexity. Now, I don't intend to make this a rundown of my love life since splitting with my other half, so you may be asking yourself "Yeah? So what?". And that line of thought would be entirely acceptable if I were to mire myself in self-pity at my rather poor showing in the dating game. But I don't intend to do that, no not one bit of it. What I do intend to do is vent my spleen about one aspect of it; an element that one seemingly *must* understand if one wants to get anywhere (and I mean that in every sense of the phrase). I'm talking about the idea of "Not Seeming Too Keen".
Okay, before I get started I should declare an interest in attacking this particular little bugbear. After my relationship with my fiancee had ended, I met a few people whom I liked enough to want to date again. Being rather naïve with regard to dating, I was guilty of trying "Not to seem too keen". What it in fact achieved was to make me "Not seem too bright" as well as "Not capable of doing something without dithering like a prat". So in that respect perhaps my extraordinary supply of bile that I have reserved for this dating practice is a little biased.
Now if it were just me who had managed to snatch despair from the jaws of happiness then I would write it off as a personal error to be learnt from and *never* to be repeated again. But I am by no means the only one to make such a complete tit of myself in the name of making a juvenile effort at looking cool at all costs. No, not at all. In the last few months I have seen numerous friends meet somebody who they liked and could see themselves getting involved in a relationship with. In particular, I've seen one very close friend manage to consign countless potential relationships to the grave for absolutely no other reason that this bizarre idea that one shouldn't seem to keen about someone else. The routine ran something like this;
Friend goes out for a weekend's worth of merriment; friend meets up with Someone; friend is attracted to this Someone; this Someone is attracted to friend; friend and Someone spend entire evening together; friend get's back and fizzes around with excitement at having met Someone whom they really like; friend makes enquiries of mutual friends to find out what Someone thought of friend (don't ask - this friend of mine seems to know every other human being on the face of the planet...), friend invariably finds out that Someone was equally as besotted; friend forces self not to ring,text,email, or contact Someone in any way ; Someone sends non-committal message via text/email (because friend won't answer the phone in case it's Someone, and Someone has to be non-committal as Someone must also be sure "Not To Seem Too Keen"); friend get's utterly disheartened at non-committal nature of message and writes off all hope of relationship with Someone; friend does not reply to Someone; Someone assumes friend is not interested; Repeat from start.
Did I miss something? Are we still a nation of Victorian era prudes for whom showing emotion is a faux pas on the same level as paedophilia?! What happened to the idea of the UK being full of vibrant and trendy young things? The pattern that my friend seems to follow is by no means unique and I'm sure that you'll recognise it to a greater or lesser degree. And who in the name of blistering piss decided that the most surefire way to attract a potential partner was to not contact them for about a week after meeting them, and then being cool and distant when one eventually deigns to get in touch? I mean, I know that love and lust don't exactly operate logically but this strikes me as an obscene repression of ones natural feelings upon meeting someone whom one likes.
I'm sure things are different in the wonderful world of adulthood, but when I first met my fiancee I was no more capable of playing it cool and distant than I was of not having a crafty one off the wrist at least every other day (hey c'mon; I *was* 15...). Any pretence at measured and logical thought perished in the fiery inferno of the unfettered passion and unbridled lust that I felt at the mere thought of her. As such, I rang her within a few days of first meeting her, she rang back the following day and the rest (like our engagement) is history.
So what exactly changes between being a teenager and being an adult. One would think that things would be a lot more cut and dried as an adult. After all, the hormones no longer rampage round our bodies like a viagra tainted flu virus (by the time our mid twenties are upon us they are more like a mild case of the sniffles) and we don't have to endure the horrendous coyness and gangly awkwardness that is the sole preserve of the teenager in love. And yet rather than being relieved beyond words to see the back of that godawful time, we seem to be doing our very best to artificially recreate it. And we do this by obsessively "Not Seeming Very Keen".
It's not as if this could be misconstrued as an attempt to retain some of the sense of wonder that permeates every new experience of our teenage years. Christ knows, I felt as stupidly in lust with my first post-fiancee dalliance when we met as I ever had done as a teenager so what the hell possessed me (and possesses pretty much all young adults) to try and "Not Seem Too Keen"? I suppose the most obvious answer is that we are afraid of facing the ridicule of our peers. And so it seems that we are happy to think less of ourselves, to be unable to live with ourselves and the decisions that we've made, just as long as our friends don't mock us or think less of us. Perhaps we are so egotistical as to believe that every single potential partner (or even just potential shag if you want me to be cynically truthful) also doubles up as "Potential Stalker". If so then that is a pretty sad indictment of ourselves; we'd prefer to live in perpetual fear rather than let our guard down and grasp the possibility of living in happiness.
Can I really be the only single person who thinks that this Law of Dating is one of the worst ideas in the history of human nature? Or am I just an embittered and sad git who is angry at his own self-inflicted lack of success with the opposite sex? Either way, please do enlighten me as I've given up trying to make sense of the whole damn thing!
Monday 8 October 2001
The Eve of the War
Although too alarmist in parts, I think I was pretty much on the money when I talked of how one side wanted this war to polarise the world into 2 camps. Unfortunately, I wasn't pessimistic enough in saying that only one side wanted that outcome.
So, the war has started. We all looked forward to it with an increasingly resigned sense of dread and so it is no big surprise. There remains only one main question to be answered; will this war be televised?
Jesus, am I really that jaded about the onset of what may develop into WWIII? Well, pretty much so if I'm honest. America is rather less comfortable with being at war since Sept. 11th as they now have to face the very real prospect of terrorist retaliation at any time and in any place. We as their foremost allies must face that same prospect. However, at the risk of sounding smug, we've had to live with the prospect of terrorism for 30 years and so it has caused fewer ripples here. After all, the IRA were (and still probably are to a lesser extent) funded by America for years (The terrorist group ETA must be kicking themselves for not having more Basque's in America than there are in the whole of Spain; it certainly worked a treat for the IRA). Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, as were many of the Mujahadin groups in Afghanistan. In effect we've simply swapped one US created problem for another. At least this time we know that we're not the only country who will have to push that fear of terrorism to the back of our minds in order to get on with our day. (Incidentally, what exactly is "State Sponsored Terrorism"? Does a man knock on the door of a country's embassy with an sponsorship form asking for money for little Achmed's sponsored suicide bombing?)
Anyway, after the 4 weeks of hype and building up of tension the air assaults were launched and were met with a reaction of...well, I think it was best summed up when somebody said that "...it's not as good as the Gulf War is it? I mean, there's hardly anything about it on the TV and the pictures aren't very good." All in all the effect thus far has been of a public who, having had the onset of hostilities hyped up as much as Titanic, have found that what is on their screens is more like Battlefield: Earth. Besides, the US and UK airforce's regularly drop bombs all over Iraq and those events form little more than a footnote on page 12 of the newspaper. Isn't this just a case of "Same shit, different country"?
No. No it damn well isn't. This little war-ette has the potential to become something quite remarkably frightening. Granted, it also has the possibility of fizzling out and sweeping the board at the Razzie Awards (perhaps winning the coveted titles of "Most Unjustifiably Hyped War", "War least likely to lead to Nuclear Holocaust", and "Most Welcome distraction from the Recession"). But this conflict could be the spark that polarises the world into two opposing camps, and that is something that the Gulf War never realistically threatened to do.
Seeing as I've started out with the Gulf War comparison, I may as well continue with the theme. Firstly I'll deal with my most frivolous point; the Televised War. Pretty much everybody remembers the TV coverage of the Gulf War. Entertaining wasn't it? It was like being an observer to the world's biggest video game! Coupled with the extraordinarily low amount of Allied casualties over the course of the war (the US army killed more allied soldiers than the Iraqi's...) the TV helped to reassure the West that we were still the big kids in the playground. We knew that we were winning because we could see exactly where the missiles were landing. All the missile-mounted camera's failed to do was flash up the address of the target in the corner of the screen! The TV was our friend.
I don't think it will be this time round. Afghanistan has no infrastructure worth speaking of, nor does it have much in the way of industry. Therefore, our fireworks display will be a lot less spectacular this time round (who wants to see footage of a cruise missile destroying a 4x4 with mounted machine gun when we've already seen one blowing up a Baghdad airfield?). Secondly, the ground war is not the foregone conclusion that it was in the Gulf. The Iraqi army was bombed and carpet-bombed for weeks, and they weren't exactly a credible threat to allied ground forces in the first place. The Taliban have scattered to an extent anyway and so are less vulnerable to bombing, and they will almost certainly do what they did when the USSR rolled in; disperse to the mountains and cause mayhem from there. So this time the US will have competition in the contest to see who can kill the most allied soldiers. I doubt that the TV will show the undoubtedly bloody and ferocious fighting that will be the norm after the ground war commences. It's one thing to watch a war that one has little danger of losing. It's quite another to watch, say, the aftermath of a massacre in a valley which would see almost 100 allied soldiers lying butchered whilst the Taliban guerrillas whoop victoriously in their village.
Then we have the religious angle to consider. Bin Laden claims to be acting in the best interests of Islam when he urges Moslems everywhere to rise up against the Great Satan. He's not of course, but that is by the by. He wants to see the world split into two camps; believers and infidels. There is no half way house here. You are either with him or against him (a phrase which I shall come back to later). He has also built up large-scale international support amongst the people of the Middle East simply because he opposes America. Saddam Hussein was an altogether different prospect; here was a nationalist dictator who had little or no time for religion. He didn't much care for what one's religious background, just as long as his orders were carried out. When he may a brief and desperate call for a Jihad against America and the UK he was pretty much universally ignored despite the fact that he had launched missiles against Israel (normally a pretty safe bet if one wishes to gain the support of fanatics who claim to be Moslem). Unlike Hussein, Bin Laden has a proven record for fighting in the name of Islam so who is to say that he will not become a rallying point for all of those who despise America (and there are a lot of them, make no mistake)?
When the Gulf War began, the world was pretty much united in it's support of the liberation of Kuwait (although perhaps we should ignore the fact that the only reason that they did it was to safeguard the flow of oil from the region). The same cannot be said today. Iran is schizophrenic in it's approach as it has a Prime Minister who seems to support the action against the Taliban and a Supreme Leader who wants to keep it firmly mired in it's USA-hating past (it's probably best to think of it in terms of what would happen in the UK if Blair was still PM and Thatcher was Queen; not a very pretty picture really so let us move on...). Malaysia has come out in opposition to the attacks, and the Moslems of Indonesia seem less than happy. The remaining Moslem nations who support the bombing are all lead by autocratic governments. What they say and what the people of those nations say is not necessarily the same thing. Bin Laden is doing his best to encourage support among the fanatical Islamic groups in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. It may well turn out that those nations have to start denouncing the US and UK in order to keep their own people happy (and save their own skin of course).
Do we think that the US, UK, and whomever else have joined the party by then will simply stop? Can anyone see Bush or Blair making a broadly cheered speech where they make it clear that "...due to the opposition to this war that has sprung up among our allies, we shall withdraw from Afghanistan and rely on the UN to bring Bin Laden to justice"? Especially if they haven't captured or killed Bin Laden? It's not going to happen really, is it? And as has been said by numerous American politicians, "If you're not with us, you're against us!" (Told you I'd come back to it). So it's not beyond the realms of possibility to find a large portion of the Middle East withdrawing support from the US, which could in turn lead to them being cast in the same light as the Taliban. In other words, we could find ourselves facing a war between the Western and Moslem worlds. This is what Bin Laden wants in the first place, so you can bet he won't miss the chance to try and make it happen.
So, the war has started. We all looked forward to it with an increasingly resigned sense of dread and so it is no big surprise. There remains only one main question to be answered; will this war be televised?
Jesus, am I really that jaded about the onset of what may develop into WWIII? Well, pretty much so if I'm honest. America is rather less comfortable with being at war since Sept. 11th as they now have to face the very real prospect of terrorist retaliation at any time and in any place. We as their foremost allies must face that same prospect. However, at the risk of sounding smug, we've had to live with the prospect of terrorism for 30 years and so it has caused fewer ripples here. After all, the IRA were (and still probably are to a lesser extent) funded by America for years (The terrorist group ETA must be kicking themselves for not having more Basque's in America than there are in the whole of Spain; it certainly worked a treat for the IRA). Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, as were many of the Mujahadin groups in Afghanistan. In effect we've simply swapped one US created problem for another. At least this time we know that we're not the only country who will have to push that fear of terrorism to the back of our minds in order to get on with our day. (Incidentally, what exactly is "State Sponsored Terrorism"? Does a man knock on the door of a country's embassy with an sponsorship form asking for money for little Achmed's sponsored suicide bombing?)
Anyway, after the 4 weeks of hype and building up of tension the air assaults were launched and were met with a reaction of...well, I think it was best summed up when somebody said that "...it's not as good as the Gulf War is it? I mean, there's hardly anything about it on the TV and the pictures aren't very good." All in all the effect thus far has been of a public who, having had the onset of hostilities hyped up as much as Titanic, have found that what is on their screens is more like Battlefield: Earth. Besides, the US and UK airforce's regularly drop bombs all over Iraq and those events form little more than a footnote on page 12 of the newspaper. Isn't this just a case of "Same shit, different country"?
No. No it damn well isn't. This little war-ette has the potential to become something quite remarkably frightening. Granted, it also has the possibility of fizzling out and sweeping the board at the Razzie Awards (perhaps winning the coveted titles of "Most Unjustifiably Hyped War", "War least likely to lead to Nuclear Holocaust", and "Most Welcome distraction from the Recession"). But this conflict could be the spark that polarises the world into two opposing camps, and that is something that the Gulf War never realistically threatened to do.
Seeing as I've started out with the Gulf War comparison, I may as well continue with the theme. Firstly I'll deal with my most frivolous point; the Televised War. Pretty much everybody remembers the TV coverage of the Gulf War. Entertaining wasn't it? It was like being an observer to the world's biggest video game! Coupled with the extraordinarily low amount of Allied casualties over the course of the war (the US army killed more allied soldiers than the Iraqi's...) the TV helped to reassure the West that we were still the big kids in the playground. We knew that we were winning because we could see exactly where the missiles were landing. All the missile-mounted camera's failed to do was flash up the address of the target in the corner of the screen! The TV was our friend.
I don't think it will be this time round. Afghanistan has no infrastructure worth speaking of, nor does it have much in the way of industry. Therefore, our fireworks display will be a lot less spectacular this time round (who wants to see footage of a cruise missile destroying a 4x4 with mounted machine gun when we've already seen one blowing up a Baghdad airfield?). Secondly, the ground war is not the foregone conclusion that it was in the Gulf. The Iraqi army was bombed and carpet-bombed for weeks, and they weren't exactly a credible threat to allied ground forces in the first place. The Taliban have scattered to an extent anyway and so are less vulnerable to bombing, and they will almost certainly do what they did when the USSR rolled in; disperse to the mountains and cause mayhem from there. So this time the US will have competition in the contest to see who can kill the most allied soldiers. I doubt that the TV will show the undoubtedly bloody and ferocious fighting that will be the norm after the ground war commences. It's one thing to watch a war that one has little danger of losing. It's quite another to watch, say, the aftermath of a massacre in a valley which would see almost 100 allied soldiers lying butchered whilst the Taliban guerrillas whoop victoriously in their village.
Then we have the religious angle to consider. Bin Laden claims to be acting in the best interests of Islam when he urges Moslems everywhere to rise up against the Great Satan. He's not of course, but that is by the by. He wants to see the world split into two camps; believers and infidels. There is no half way house here. You are either with him or against him (a phrase which I shall come back to later). He has also built up large-scale international support amongst the people of the Middle East simply because he opposes America. Saddam Hussein was an altogether different prospect; here was a nationalist dictator who had little or no time for religion. He didn't much care for what one's religious background, just as long as his orders were carried out. When he may a brief and desperate call for a Jihad against America and the UK he was pretty much universally ignored despite the fact that he had launched missiles against Israel (normally a pretty safe bet if one wishes to gain the support of fanatics who claim to be Moslem). Unlike Hussein, Bin Laden has a proven record for fighting in the name of Islam so who is to say that he will not become a rallying point for all of those who despise America (and there are a lot of them, make no mistake)?
When the Gulf War began, the world was pretty much united in it's support of the liberation of Kuwait (although perhaps we should ignore the fact that the only reason that they did it was to safeguard the flow of oil from the region). The same cannot be said today. Iran is schizophrenic in it's approach as it has a Prime Minister who seems to support the action against the Taliban and a Supreme Leader who wants to keep it firmly mired in it's USA-hating past (it's probably best to think of it in terms of what would happen in the UK if Blair was still PM and Thatcher was Queen; not a very pretty picture really so let us move on...). Malaysia has come out in opposition to the attacks, and the Moslems of Indonesia seem less than happy. The remaining Moslem nations who support the bombing are all lead by autocratic governments. What they say and what the people of those nations say is not necessarily the same thing. Bin Laden is doing his best to encourage support among the fanatical Islamic groups in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. It may well turn out that those nations have to start denouncing the US and UK in order to keep their own people happy (and save their own skin of course).
Do we think that the US, UK, and whomever else have joined the party by then will simply stop? Can anyone see Bush or Blair making a broadly cheered speech where they make it clear that "...due to the opposition to this war that has sprung up among our allies, we shall withdraw from Afghanistan and rely on the UN to bring Bin Laden to justice"? Especially if they haven't captured or killed Bin Laden? It's not going to happen really, is it? And as has been said by numerous American politicians, "If you're not with us, you're against us!" (Told you I'd come back to it). So it's not beyond the realms of possibility to find a large portion of the Middle East withdrawing support from the US, which could in turn lead to them being cast in the same light as the Taliban. In other words, we could find ourselves facing a war between the Western and Moslem worlds. This is what Bin Laden wants in the first place, so you can bet he won't miss the chance to try and make it happen.
Tuesday 2 October 2001
9/11 Distractions
A month after 9/11, and the haze of shock was clearing from my mind. A stark and unpleasant reality now had to be faced.
Though I've tried (God knows, I've tried) to find something in the news to talk about, it always comes back to the Big Story. It's not as if I'd be short of material at the moment; Darth Tory's election to the Conservative Party leadership has the promise of being one of the most unintentionally funny moves in political history. Here is a man who physically resembles William Hague's older, less vivacious brother and, judging by some of his initial cabinet appointments, mentally resembles Margaret Thatcher's younger, less stable son. However, I shall hold to my promise to leave him alone for a while. I do so for 3 main reasons;
1: It's impossible to judge a man as a leader when he makes his debut in such interesting times.
2: He may end up driving moderate Tory's out of the Party and into the waiting LibDems and I'm worried that if I start to blather about that at length that I might jinx it.
3: I can't be bothered to talk about such an irrelevance as the Tories when there are things that are far more pertinent going on in the world.
It's not as if I'd just be limited to the political scene. After all, it's not every day that one of our Royals makes a balls up the like of which occurred last week. Okay, that's patently not true, but usually they at least have the benefit of being able to close ranks. After having seen the blatant dishonesty employed by the Production Company owned by the more pointless of his two brothers, Prince Charles is somewhat miffed. And who can blame him when the only media group to break the gentleman’s agreement not to film Prince William at University is the only one owned by a gentleman? It would seem that the upper classes could still teach the "gutter press" a thing or two about corruption and venality.
The secrecy surrounding William's University life also gives me further grounds to suspect that he will be a King whom I can admire. After all, it's only 2 years ago since the young Prince went on a week long cruise accompanied only by a dozen plump chested young lovelies. If his University career continues along the same vein as that, indeed if he just behaves like any normal 18-19 year old who finds himself away from home for the first substantial period of time in his life, then we may have a figurehead who is actually a little more representative of the British People. He already has a couple of bonus'; his Grand-dad is Greek so he'll have no trouble adjusting to the University Male diet of Kebabs. His Auntie Margaret could no doubt teach him a thing or two about binge drinking. And he only need look at his Mum's fate to develop the total mistrust of Moslems that this country will no doubt see over the coming months....
Also, if one were to, for example, wish to talk about Northern Ireland and the imminent end of the Northern Irish Assembly followed closely by the end of the cease-fire, one would have no shortage of reports coming from the province to draw upon. A group known as the Red Hand Defenders over the weekend murdered a journalist. Leaving aside the fact that their name immediately brings to mind the US children’s TV programme "The Red Hand Gang" ( a programme that sticks in my mind for 2 reasons; the theme tune which sort of went La la la la la, La La-la, Lalalalalalalala-La and so on and so forth, and the unfortunately named James Bond III whom if memory serves played the gangly black boy in the show.) this is a very serious and bad thing. The RHD is a cover name for the main Protestant groups the UDA et al. Aside from showcasing their obvious love of acronyms, the incident shows that the loyalists are not willing to stick to the cease-fire when it doesn't suit them. Which tends to suggest that the republicans won't. When coupled with the fact that Sinn Fein are on the cusp of being booted out of the NI assembly (whether it gets suspended or not) one can see that perhaps this New War on Terrorism will not just be confined to distant, mountainous area of land full of bugger all.
I don't have to just look at domestic affairs either. Former US President Clinton has found himself disbarred from the Supreme Court as part of the plea bargain that was struck during the Lewinsky scandal. This allows me to rejoice in the news that I now have something in common with Bill Clinton (apart of course from having gotten a blow job off somebody that he really shouldn't have), and that is information that I intend to use just as soon as I head down to Oxford to "accidentally" bump into his daughter (who I am thankful to say has changed an awful lot since her Dad first took office. She's still not as nice as Dubya's delightful daughters are though...).
Yet such is the level of activity in the news that I would not even need to confine myself to the ruling classes unless I desired to do so. Yesterday saw the father and stepmother of 6 year old Lauren Wright convicted of her manslaughter after having treated her to 18 months of sustained abuse. What is even more horrendous about the case is that it has provided the media with a bona fide Wicked Stepmother. Lauren's father was culpable for her death in that he turned a blind eye to what was going on (and so I now understand just what is meant by "blinded by love"). And what was going on? Oh, the usual sort of things; beating, starvation, neglect, torture. And you know what the worst thing about it is? It really is "the usual sort of thing". I mean for God's sake! I have a healthy attitude to small children in that I hate them and don't want to spend any time in their company. But to systematically beat and torture a child to death...I know I am of a liberal nature and have repeatedly stated that I believe in the benefits of rehabilitation for offenders, but when one hears of cases like this one can see exactly why the hang-em-and-flog-em brigade have such a strong following.
But no, such is the climate of the world that it is not really possible for me to talk about such things, not really. After all, by the time I come to write my next faltering words the world will almost certainly have changed again. We will have changed from a world outraged at the acts of 11th September to a world waging war on those responsible. If I were sure that this would lead to the world becoming lighter by a few thousand fanatical morons then I would rejoice. If it could be further guaranteed that no more innocent people would die because of this, I would rejoice. Funnily enough I'm not rejoicing. Such is war I suppose. Can we get it over with please?
Though I've tried (God knows, I've tried) to find something in the news to talk about, it always comes back to the Big Story. It's not as if I'd be short of material at the moment; Darth Tory's election to the Conservative Party leadership has the promise of being one of the most unintentionally funny moves in political history. Here is a man who physically resembles William Hague's older, less vivacious brother and, judging by some of his initial cabinet appointments, mentally resembles Margaret Thatcher's younger, less stable son. However, I shall hold to my promise to leave him alone for a while. I do so for 3 main reasons;
1: It's impossible to judge a man as a leader when he makes his debut in such interesting times.
2: He may end up driving moderate Tory's out of the Party and into the waiting LibDems and I'm worried that if I start to blather about that at length that I might jinx it.
3: I can't be bothered to talk about such an irrelevance as the Tories when there are things that are far more pertinent going on in the world.
It's not as if I'd just be limited to the political scene. After all, it's not every day that one of our Royals makes a balls up the like of which occurred last week. Okay, that's patently not true, but usually they at least have the benefit of being able to close ranks. After having seen the blatant dishonesty employed by the Production Company owned by the more pointless of his two brothers, Prince Charles is somewhat miffed. And who can blame him when the only media group to break the gentleman’s agreement not to film Prince William at University is the only one owned by a gentleman? It would seem that the upper classes could still teach the "gutter press" a thing or two about corruption and venality.
The secrecy surrounding William's University life also gives me further grounds to suspect that he will be a King whom I can admire. After all, it's only 2 years ago since the young Prince went on a week long cruise accompanied only by a dozen plump chested young lovelies. If his University career continues along the same vein as that, indeed if he just behaves like any normal 18-19 year old who finds himself away from home for the first substantial period of time in his life, then we may have a figurehead who is actually a little more representative of the British People. He already has a couple of bonus'; his Grand-dad is Greek so he'll have no trouble adjusting to the University Male diet of Kebabs. His Auntie Margaret could no doubt teach him a thing or two about binge drinking. And he only need look at his Mum's fate to develop the total mistrust of Moslems that this country will no doubt see over the coming months....
Also, if one were to, for example, wish to talk about Northern Ireland and the imminent end of the Northern Irish Assembly followed closely by the end of the cease-fire, one would have no shortage of reports coming from the province to draw upon. A group known as the Red Hand Defenders over the weekend murdered a journalist. Leaving aside the fact that their name immediately brings to mind the US children’s TV programme "The Red Hand Gang" ( a programme that sticks in my mind for 2 reasons; the theme tune which sort of went La la la la la, La La-la, Lalalalalalalala-La and so on and so forth, and the unfortunately named James Bond III whom if memory serves played the gangly black boy in the show.) this is a very serious and bad thing. The RHD is a cover name for the main Protestant groups the UDA et al. Aside from showcasing their obvious love of acronyms, the incident shows that the loyalists are not willing to stick to the cease-fire when it doesn't suit them. Which tends to suggest that the republicans won't. When coupled with the fact that Sinn Fein are on the cusp of being booted out of the NI assembly (whether it gets suspended or not) one can see that perhaps this New War on Terrorism will not just be confined to distant, mountainous area of land full of bugger all.
I don't have to just look at domestic affairs either. Former US President Clinton has found himself disbarred from the Supreme Court as part of the plea bargain that was struck during the Lewinsky scandal. This allows me to rejoice in the news that I now have something in common with Bill Clinton (apart of course from having gotten a blow job off somebody that he really shouldn't have), and that is information that I intend to use just as soon as I head down to Oxford to "accidentally" bump into his daughter (who I am thankful to say has changed an awful lot since her Dad first took office. She's still not as nice as Dubya's delightful daughters are though...).
Yet such is the level of activity in the news that I would not even need to confine myself to the ruling classes unless I desired to do so. Yesterday saw the father and stepmother of 6 year old Lauren Wright convicted of her manslaughter after having treated her to 18 months of sustained abuse. What is even more horrendous about the case is that it has provided the media with a bona fide Wicked Stepmother. Lauren's father was culpable for her death in that he turned a blind eye to what was going on (and so I now understand just what is meant by "blinded by love"). And what was going on? Oh, the usual sort of things; beating, starvation, neglect, torture. And you know what the worst thing about it is? It really is "the usual sort of thing". I mean for God's sake! I have a healthy attitude to small children in that I hate them and don't want to spend any time in their company. But to systematically beat and torture a child to death...I know I am of a liberal nature and have repeatedly stated that I believe in the benefits of rehabilitation for offenders, but when one hears of cases like this one can see exactly why the hang-em-and-flog-em brigade have such a strong following.
But no, such is the climate of the world that it is not really possible for me to talk about such things, not really. After all, by the time I come to write my next faltering words the world will almost certainly have changed again. We will have changed from a world outraged at the acts of 11th September to a world waging war on those responsible. If I were sure that this would lead to the world becoming lighter by a few thousand fanatical morons then I would rejoice. If it could be further guaranteed that no more innocent people would die because of this, I would rejoice. Funnily enough I'm not rejoicing. Such is war I suppose. Can we get it over with please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)