Home » Posts tagged 'war'
Tag Archives: war
The last judgment
A message to Netanyahu from Shakespeare’s Henry V. The soldier Williams, on the battlefield, is questioning whether the war they are fighting is just:
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all ‘We died at such a place;’ some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.
Henry V, Act 4, scene 1, lines126-138
Remember – and think before you believe what they tell you
This story is about the reinstatement of a person’s reputation. For years he was vilified by the tabloids, and even by more “serious” newspapers, as the “cause” of the arrival of HIV/Aids. The research described in the article below proves that he wasn’t, and that blame was not an appropriate response to the emerging crisis:
The article tells its own story. But if we remember those days (the 1980s), especially the subtle, unrelenting pressure to believe that the epidemic was a “gay plague” because the gays started it, we should now remind ourselves again not to take at face value all we read. About anything. About housing benefit claimants, about disability allowance claimants, about tax credit claimants, about people who use food banks, about “bogus” refugees living in grand houses paid for by the local council, about war and its causes and the reasons for going to war, about the need to bomb children in far-off places – about anything.
That’s all. I just wanted to say that. I was remembering old tabloid headlines.
For peace – and against ceasefires
Am I missing something? I’m tired of the United Nations wringing its United hands about Aleppo and acting surprised because a ceasefire has failed, humanitarian aid hasn’t been delivered and the bombing has got worse. Of course it has. All the nations of the world are united in believing in war; all of them are armed to the teeth, the big and strutty ones with WMDs. War is the opposite of humanitarian. It’s the opposite of aid. War is destruction. War is murder. That’s what it’s for. Why would two (or in the Syrian situation, Gawd knows how many) antagonists at war be interested in aid to their victims? Or a ceasefire? (“Will it hold?” “Oh dear, there seem to have been violations.” What a surprise!).
This is why I can’t stand the mushy sentimentality surrounding the Christmas truce during the First World War. One English language textbook a few years ago used it in one of its lessons. The class weeps over a bilingual “Silent Night” in the trenches, sighs as it realises that the very next day both choirs went back to war, and then the class joins in singing some old wartime song popular with the British troops.
I don’t have an answer to all this. We don’t need ceasefires or humanitarian aid. We need to stop believing in war. Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t believe in war but, if he does get into government, I don’t know how he’ll try to persuade others. He’s set himself the task of trying to persuade his own party not to renew Trident (there’s a mountain to climb) and we can only join him in that effort and keep our fingers crossed. But it feels as if it could all be too late, especially since Iraq, and our creation of ISIS.
So, as I say, I’ve got no answer. I’m just tired of it, that’s all.
Tell your MP: “all necessary measures” – against war
The Labour Party decided at its conference this year that military intervention in Syria by the UK should not take place without
- authorisation from the United Nations;
- a comprehensive plan for humanitarian assistance for any refugees who may be displaced by the action;
- assurances that the bombing is directed exclusively at military targets associated with ISIS;
- the subordination of any military action to international diplomatic efforts to end the war in Syria.
I’m not sure if the UN Security Council’s post-Paris call to take “all necessary measures” against ISIS counts as authorisation, although I think David Cameron thinks it does. It looks like he will present proposals for bombing to the House of Commons this week or next and he’s been telling the French president not to worry: it’ll be “shoulder to shoulder” again apparently.
A good many Labour MPs are flexing their shoulders in anticipation of voting with the Tories and against the Labour conference decision and the advice of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and others. They’re jumping the gun, of course, if you’ll pardon the expression. Even assuming that the Security Council’s “all necessary measures” count as authorisation, there are three other Labour Party conference criteria to be met before Labour MPs should even consider hoisting their shoulders into war. The Guardian thought that meeting all four criteria would be difficult if not impossible “in the short term”. Or in the long term, I would add. Even if, by sleight of hand or smoke and mirrors, Hilary Benn, say, declared they had been met, those vague criteria couldn’t possibly guarantee that refugees would be protected, that only military targets associated with ISIS would be bombed, or that international diplomatic efforts would be able to end the war in Syria while the politicians “pitilessly” (the word used by the French president) extend it.
Politicians quite like shoulder-flexing. But we must absolutely refuse to give them permission. Although John McDonnell has suggested that Labour MPs might have a free vote, I’ve told my MP (Alan Johnson) to vote against war. Please tell yours. And sign a petition, pass a resolution in your union branch, or at your local Labour Party meeting, and go on a demo.
Because the truth is that the history of previous shoulder-to-shoulder events (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, then back to Iraq again) cries out for them not to do it again. It doesn’t work. It won’t work with French shoulders either. What it will do (to use a phrase that was quite often used by my mother) is send us all to buggery.
In today’s Guardian, Frankie Boyle argues that “Britain clings to its bombing addiction with the weary rationale of a junkie.” He concludes:
“If we wanted to get well as a society, we would end up like anyone in recovery: sitting around a table talking, having awkward conversations and making compromises. Instead, a few months from now, we’ll be dealing with the kind of horror that is unleashed when British MPs are told they can vote with their consciences.”
Jeremy and John, I don’t know how you’re going to play this but, given the malleability of many Labour MPs’ consciences in the past, I don’t feel safe with a free vote.
Bob Mouncer's blog 