“The Iraq war is a tragedy, above all, because of the damage it is inflicting on that cause of liberal interventionism,” writes John Rentoul in the Independent on Sunday.
An interesting formulation, from the moral point of view. Imagine, for example that he had made a similar comment on the second world war, describing it as “a tragedy, above all, because of the damage it inflicted on the cause of nationalism”.
Many of you might believe that the death of 650,000 civilians in Iraq (a figure acknowledged as plausible by the government’s own experts) would rank as a greater tragedy than the puncturing of Rentoul’s Gladstonian fantasies.
Or the failure of the war to resolve a single political problem in the Middle East – indeed, its exacerbation of them. Or the incitement of sectarian divisions in Iraq. Or the economic dereliction which persists after more than four years of occupation. Or the pointless deaths of British soldiers, accompanied by an evident demoralisation throughout the armed forces. Or the view of most people in Britain that our democracy was violated by the circumstances surrounding the decision to go to war.
But no, it is the passing of the ideology of “liberal interventionism” which we have most cause to regret, according to the Rentoul worldview.
Of course, Rentoul himself does not see it like that. He boldly asserts that “after Blair goes, the idea of a humanitarian, interventionist foreign policy will revive”.
This may be doubted for a number of reasons. One is that the advocacy of interventionism, if it is to secure popular support, depends on more than simply the position of the prime minister. It also requires plausible propagandists in the press.
And who in the world is ever going to buy a case for war advanced by John Rentoul, Nick Cohen or David Aaronovitch again?
No, if Rentoul is serious about wanting to see the ideology of liberal imperialism rise like a phoenix from the ashes of Iraq he should do the decent thing and emulate Tony Blair by resigning, ceding his place in the commentariat to someone who may be believed in a future crisis.
Personally, I am happy for him to stay exactly where he is. In political argument, an already discredited opponent is a rare blessing.
“The Iraq war is a tragedy, above all, because of the damage it is inflicting on that cause of liberal interventionism,” writes John Rentoul in the Independent on Sunday.
An interesting formulation, from the moral point of view. Imagine, for example that he had made a similar comment on the second world war, describing it as “a tragedy, above all, because of the damage it inflicted on the cause of nationalism”.
Many of you might believe that the death of 650,000 civilians in Iraq (a figure acknowledged as plausible by the government’s own experts) would rank as a greater tragedy than the puncturing of Rentoul’s Gladstonian fantasies.
Or the failure of the war to resolve a single political problem in the Middle East – indeed, its exacerbation of them. Or the incitement of sectarian divisions in Iraq. Or the economic dereliction which persists after more than four years of occupation. Or the pointless deaths of British soldiers, accompanied by an evident demoralisation throughout the armed forces. Or the view of most people in Britain that our democracy was violated by the circumstances surrounding the decision to go to war.
But no, it is the passing of the ideology of “liberal interventionism” which we have most cause to regret, according to the Rentoul worldview.
Of course, Rentoul himself does not see it like that. He boldly asserts that “after Blair goes, the idea of a humanitarian, interventionist foreign policy will revive”.
This may be doubted for a number of reasons. One is that the advocacy of interventionism, if it is to secure popular support, depends on more than simply the position of the prime minister. It also requires plausible propagandists in the press.
And who in the world is ever going to buy a case for war advanced by John Rentoul, Nick Cohen or David Aaronovitch again?
No, if Rentoul is serious about wanting to see the ideology of liberal imperialism rise like a phoenix from the ashes of Iraq he should do the decent thing and emulate Tony Blair by resigning, ceding his place in the commentariat to someone who may be believed in a future crisis.
Personally, I am happy for him to stay exactly where he is. In political argument, an already discredited opponent is a rare blessing.