Ian B
I think it’s a pity that Cameron isn’t being attacked more for being an ideologue divorced from reality. His motivations and ideals are both fantastical (“liberal government for all in Syria”) and motivated by an ideological commitment to “Humanitarianism”.
I am neither a hawk nor a dove. I think there are some situations in which war is necessary- 1939 is for me an example of this- but the need for war is not something one ever rejoices in. It’s at best something nasty that needs to be done at times, like unblocking a sewer. But if choices were being made on conventional rational grounds- the self interest of the nation- we would be allied with the Syrian government, Russia and even Iran. Not because they are nice people, but because they are the practical allies. Being allies doesn’t mean liking each other, it means having common cause, as was the case when we allied with the revolting Stalin and his repugnant regime to defeat Nazi Germany. If Churchill had thought like Cameron, he’d have been primarily interested in “regime change” in the USSR, with disastrous results for all of Europe.
But anyway, even the destruction of ISIL will not make us or the rest of Europe safer in itself, because the enemy is a religious ideology. With whose Saudi backers we are, apparently “allies” while they spend their oil money on funding Wahabi extremism.
We could use the correct alliance to push for humanitarian interests- require that our arming and fighting alongside Assad be dependent on his not committing “war crimes”, and on recognising a Kurdish independent state when the war is won. Instead, all Cameron wants to do is topple Assad which will inevitably result, by one path or another, in the Caliphate returning to Damascus, the old Umayyad capital.
I would just add to this that I am a “minarchist” rather than an “anarchist” and so I personally consider the nation state to be a valid construct, and my view on Libertarianism is to seek to have a maximally liberal nation state, rather than the abolition of such things. This is to clarify the position I wrote this comment from, in case people wonder who this “we” is of which I speak.
Ian,
Like you, I call myself a minarchist. But I don’t want a minimal state; I want a minimal code of law. Very different.
No ideologue can be divorced from reality. This widespread habit of repeating crass hyperbole as if it ever could be true is the fashion today. Note that most fashion is rather stupid.
Cameron has silly ideas and he does immoral things but he is not divorced from reality.
War hangs oddly with humanitarianism. But it stimulates terrorism.
We can, with great ease, imagine that wars will be needed, like unblocking a sewer needs to be faced from time to time, but when was that sort of war last needed in England? 1066? Hitler threated many others in 1939 but not England or France. It was fought on the old balance of power motive, as it was in 1914.
There is exactly no reason of national interest in the decision to bomb in the middle east, and it was only extended, not begun, this week. Terrorism is a police matter.
When will this latest caper ever end? To think of it as humanitarian is so silly. In terms of the need to re-home displaced people, all of them that might understandably think of revenge against the bombers, in Europe, it is clearly encouraging terrorism at home rather than opposing it. It is an indirect attack on England rather than any defence.
Stalin was worse than Hitler, of course, just as Mao was worse than Stalin. If Lenin had lived long enough, he could have outpaced all three in evil. Churchill did favour regime change in the USSR and supported the sending in of troops there early on. They were defeated.
ISIL will be aided by all this, as they have so far. Yes, Wahhabi memes will only be discredited in open [non-PC] debate and can only be fed by war.
__._,_.___
“No ideologue can be divorced from reality. This widespread habit of repeating crass hyperbole as if it ever could be true is the fashion today. Note that most fashion is rather stupid.”
If you have a problem with the idea that Cameron is an “ideologue divorced from reality”, try “Cameron’s ideology is not realistic”. The meaning, in the piece above, is clear and the point is sound.
It seems to me we already have war on several fronts with the Pig Fucker every bit as much an enemy of the British people as are the islamics.
[…] http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/12/03/thoughts-on-war-and-david-cameron/ […]
This article is thoughtful and well-written, but like a lot of what appears on this site, fundamentally misses the point.
Cameron is not a fantastical ideologue. He is not a dreamer or a liberal. He is not some left-winger in Tory clothes. He is not an irreasoned interventionist fanatic. He is not a Marxist or a Blairite. Nor is he a Fabian.
He is attacking ISIS or Syria or whoever it is he is attacking this week [I lose track] because he believes it is in our national interest, but what needs to be grasped is that what Cameron and others like him regard as our ‘national interest’ is quite different from what an ordinary person might think is the ‘national interest’.
When Cameron and his colleagues refer to ‘the national interest’, they are primarily talking about class interest. His ideals, in so far as he has any, are related to the economic interests of him and people like him, and also, I would argue, the interests of certain groups in society that have a powerful influence as lobbyists. Whether, and to what extent, he is himself conscious of this is another matter. He might genuinely imagine himself to be a liberal internationalist, but that’s just hot air.
[quote]”If Churchill had thought like Cameron, he’d have been primarily interested in “regime change” in the USSR, with disastrous results for all of Europe.”[unquote]
I think this is a good analogy, but it fails simply because Churchill WAS motivated by exactly similar “ideals” and “ethics” to those of Cameron. He just decided that the ‘national interest’, as he defined it, would best be served by waging a land war on Germany, a war that Churchill and the ‘Allies’ provoked. Likewise, when Cameron provokes an attack on Libya or Syria, or whoever is this week’s victim, he does so because it serves someone’s interests.