Towards A Good Samaritan World

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Here's The Guardian's new take on the war in Iraq:

Much of this is summed up in the current transitional fluidity over the politics of Iraq. The war was a reckless, provocative, dangerous, lawless piece of unilateral arrogance. But it has nevertheless brought forth a desirable outcome which would not have been achieved at all, or so quickly, by the means that the critics advocated, right though they were in most respects.


This may emerge as the conventional wisdom on the Iraq War. Actually, the critics were anything but "right... in most respects"; on the contrary, they were dead wrong at a philosophical level from the beginning, and because of this their predictions didn't pan out. "Blood for oil" seems ever more villainous and fantastic with each passing month. But by smashing straw men for the past two years, while dominating certain powerful institutions like academia and Old Europe, they have at times created the impression of being partially vindiated. And so many (self-)important people have staked their pride on opposing the war that the volumes of anti-war argument that have been generated will have to be given more respect and consideration than they deserve on the merits.

The hawks' view will live on as a sort of secret history, which will never appear in the high school textbooks. One must buy into certain mysterious, antique notions to understand it. Honor. Courage. Visions of glory, and steadfast convictions of right and wrong...

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home