Cui bono?

Cicero may have popularised Cassio’s wise words “to whose benefit?“, but in our cynical times we need to refine the question: to whose expectation of benefit?  Indeed, it seems implausible that the subtle distinction should have been lost on the Romans, but I certainly lack the comprehension of their language that would enable me to judge such nuances.

WordPress records show the above as the first words of a draft saved, but not published, on February 26^th 2012, following the death in Syria of distinguished journalist Marie Colvin.  Who could expect to benefit from her death?  Or indeed from the escalation of events both before and since: an incursion at the Turkish border, various massacres.  Most recently the use of sarin gas, coming conveniently shortly after Obama had spoken of chemical weapons as a ‘red line’ that would provoke a change of policy.

The answer must surely be, someone looking to provoke Western intervention.  Someone given hope of powerful backing by western rhetoric, and by events in Libya.  They’ve been disappointed for a long time, but now finally it seems Obama will supply them[1] with weapons.  For anyone else to engage in such gratuitously provocative yet militarily futile acts would be extraordinarily perverse.  Above all, for a government with nothing to gain and everything to lose if the West were to get seriously involved (not to mention a ruthless but quietly efficient president without the vain showmanship of Saddam or Gaddafi).

Nor could you rule out someone with an even more sinister Agenda, like the CIA or Al Qaeda, or one-off maverick nutters, with whom neither ‘side’ would wish to be associated.  The latter can be the ones who have the most devastating effects of all, as in the assassins of  Franz Ferdinand or Yitzhak Rabin.

Can this be lost on our politicians and their advisors?  Seems unlikely.  I suspect much of the current rhetoric is driven by a complex case of good-cop-bad-cop desperately hoping to achieve something.  Those Western politicians who really want military intervention do so for external reasons: to topple a regime with a history of the two great regional crimes of being friendly with Iran and hostile to Israel (even if Israel itself would rather have a devil-you-know relationship with a stable neighbour than a civil war)!

Could a new Western-friendly president in Iran change the situation?  It’s an interesting prospect (and will probably spare Iran the kind of disturbance that followed re-election of the ‘wrong’ man last time), but I fear it’s too late to make much difference.  Events in Syria have momentum.  Likewise in the West: if the more gung-ho of American politicians and their backers rebuffed Khatami[2] in more peaceful times, how likely are they to change now, when it would mean some serious backing down?  But at least Rohani’s probable election could serve to strengthen the hands of those favouring peace in the region including, I think, Obama himself.

Where I think the West must really bear guilt is in provoking the war in the first place.  The ambiguous rhetoric and the Libyan example led rebels to suppose they’d get support if things got bad enough, but also westernised media-savvy Syrian emigrants who “spoke for” the country when it was all starting, spinners of propaganda like the “gay girl“, and doubtless others, all contributed.  The contrast must surely be Bahrain, where a similar uprising was suppressed by a government that was historically more repressive than Syria’s.  The obvious difference is that with no agents provocateurs or prospect of international support, Bahraini protestors cut their losses rather than escalate when the government reacted firmly to them.  Bahrain didn’t get Egyptian-style democracy, but neither did it get the horrors of civil war.

[1] Who “they” may be, and whether there is a faction less guilty than the government to whom the West could supply weapons is an altogether different question.  Not one I could speculate on.
[2] The Iranian president from 1997-2005, who made serious efforts to mend fences with the West but was firmly rebuffed by the US, sending a message that the West wasn’t interested and that a Western-friendly leadership was a waste of time.

Lest we remember

11th November is “remembrance day”, when we commemorate the 1918 armistice with plastic poppies, symbolising the Flanders fields where so many young men fought and died in unspeakable conditions.

In the past I’ve not just worn a poppy, I’ve even helped sell them and raise money.  In more recent years they’ve come into disrepute with the appropriation of remembrance by Blair’s warmongers, so I would feel unclean touching them or participating in the event.

This year, we should also have belatedly dropped the pretence of supporting the veterans of the Great War.  Since the death of Harry Patch[1] in 2009, there are no such veterans to support.  The Great War is now history, just as the Roman campaigns or the Napoleonic wars (to take just two examples) are.  The plastic poppy should be relegated to the museum.

Lest we forget may be a fine sentiment.  Until you give it a moment of thought, and look at the history of not forgetting.  Blair’s Britain has glorified war to a level not seen since before 1914, and treats the memory of past wars – particularly 1939-45 – as an absolute excuse to behave like James Hogg’s Justified Sinner around the world.  Much better we do forget.

[1] A man to be admired for his robust refusal to allow his status as the last survivor to have fought in the Great War be appropriated by today’s warmongers.

End of an era

RIP Harry Patch, the last UK survivor of the trenches in the Great War.  His funeral was held today at Wells Cathedral.

I can admire him, not for what he did in 1917/18 but for his later years.  Specifically his repudiation of war, and his refusal to accept a state funeral.  Thank you for not giving our generation’s warmongers an undeserved chance to bang their drum.

Thank you bishop

I don’t often have good words about religious leaders.  But since Bush & Blair brought a new reign of righteous terror on ever-increasing parts of the world, the Church of England has been something of a voice of reason.  With His Holiness The Liar gone, I wonder if anyone might even listen?

Today’s news: The Archbishop of Canterbury (who is second only to the Queen in the CofE hierarchy) has spoken out strongly about starting any more wars in the middle east.  Of course it’s easy for him: neither his job nor his funding depends on producing and selling armaments[1].  In the case of the Rt Revd Dr Williams, I expect he really does find it painful when his country inflicts untold suffering on millions of people.  And speaks from a position of some authority.  Well done that man!

[1] except insofar as it may be linked to the UK economy.

Banging the war drum

Sir Richard Dammit[1], head of the British Army, is reported as wanting some kind of celebration of the return of British troops from invading Johnny Foreigner in the latest armaments industry trade shows.

Let’s see now. Powerful country wages war of aggression in foreign lands. After huge losses to the victims of invasion, they are eventually beaten off and return home. What happens?

A historical parallel in Europe and within living memory would be German troops returning home in 1945. OK, it’s not an exact equivalent: it only becomes that if a victim proves stronger than us and we get bombed into the ground at home, too. So just a moral equivalent. Were the Wehrmacht celebrated? I doubt it. So why the **** should we expect to celebrate today’s moral equivalents?

Right. So that’ll be banging the war drums for the next arms show, which various folks are speculating might be in Iran. And it’s sufficiently out of character[2] with utterings previously reported from Sir Richard as to lead me to suspect he may have been .. ahem .. encouraged to speak on the subject by someone with an Agenda.

[1] Well, that’s how his name always sounds on the wireless, and it appeals to my inner schoolboy.

[2] OK, that’s a very tenuous speculation: I have no knowledge of his character on which to base it.