Oh, but they are incandescent and inconsolable! As well they might be. First no war against Iran, and now no war against Russia. Poor loves.
The War Party, we must always remember, is as it is because it has absolutely no stake in the lives of our Armed Forces, at least beyond a patriotic or a universally human stake in which the warmongers do not believe.
The officers are drawn from the old ruling class that the armchair warriors long ago displaced, but which they have to insist is somehow still in charge in order to justify their own existence on the wholly specious basis of "meritocracy" and the mind-blowingly ridiculous fantasy that they themselves are somehow "anti-Establishment".
The other ranks, meanwhile, are drawn from the ruled, from those without "merit" (material wealth and paper qualifications, defined as "merit" by those with material wealth and paper qualifications). There was much mockery, by the Nick Cohens and David Aaronovitches of the world, of "toffs" marching alongside trade unionists and others against the Iraq War. But very well they might have done, and very well they did.
So let them all die, and that in horrible agony. It will never have the slightest impact on the persons, families or circles of those who advocated and advocate the wars in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can you point me to an example of one of these people saying they want a war against Russia? It strikes me as a rather implausible thing to be in favour of.
ReplyDeleteSee MacShane's Telegraph article yesterday, and Kamm's blog, just for a start.
ReplyDeleteI've read them. Both are critical of Russia, but neither advocates any kind of military response. There's a big difference.
ReplyDeleteIt's perfectly obvious what they mean. These people ONLY EVER want wars. Not least beacuse they and theirs never have to fight them.
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. War with Russia would obviously be a bad idea, and even people who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can see that.
ReplyDeleteIf they hadn't the wit to oppose the wras in Iraq and Afghanistan, then no, they can't.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, they don't.
Do they want war with China too?
ReplyDeleteThe moment Saakashvili opened fire on Tskhinvali and turned it into a pile of rubble, there was no chance whatsoever of the local population ever accepting Georgian authority or the status quo ever being restored. Even a president as inept as Saakashvili must have realised this.
ReplyDeleteThe Georgian bombing could only lead to one of three outcomes:-
1. The de-facto ethnic cleansing of South Ossetia, as the local population flees into Russia from where they would have no realistic prospect of return.
2. A guerilla war waged by the remaining South Ossetians (and others) against Georgia, backed by Russia.
3. A Russian military response to free South Ossetia, which inevitably would involve the degredation of Georgia’s military machine and their humiliation as a nation.
Like Iraq, this was a war of choice and act of monumental stupidity. Saakashvili’s only defence is that the Washington neocon dinosaurs gave him the green light, which given the presence of 200 US military advisors embedded in the Georgian army, they surely did.
Of course, none of this is taking place in a geopolitical vacuum. Russia is resurgent. China is rising. And the US is in long term relative economic decline. Welcome to multi-polarity. Say goodbye to Saakashvili.
Anonymous - eventually, yes.
ReplyDeleteThe must be no check, "foreign or domestic" on their hegemony. They must have "full spectrum dominance" at home and "full spectrum dominance" abroad.
Have you got any evidence for this claim? It sounds highly implausible, and I wouldn't want to accept it without very good justifications.
ReplyDeleteRead anything that they have ever written.
ReplyDeleteLook at everything that they have ever done.