October 1, 2001

10 Bad Reasons for Joining a Holy War

It's a shame that they don't teach logic in schools any more. More people would be able to spot a conclusion that does not follow from a preposition. Take the following example: "America has been attacked. Therefore, she should respond to the attack. And Britain should join her." What is most depressing is that everyone seems to agree with the non-logic of this statement. If America has been attacked and if the accepted response to this is to counterattack, then America should counterattack. British debate seems to be focused on whether America should respond, or respond in a certain way. To be honest, this is pointless, as America's counterattack is a done deal -- and both just and prudent. What some members of the British wittering classes have to say to this is pointless in the course of history. What needs to be examined is whether Britain should be involved. What is in it for us? So far I've found a number of remarkably unconvincing arguments (a remarkable collection of them are in an article by the new leader of the Conservative Party):

1. More Britons were killed in the WTC than in any other incident.

So what? The attack was on an American target on American soil. If it had been a British army base or embassy then it would have been a different matter. The British people who worked at the World Trade Center were working under the protection of American laws on American sovereign soil. That's what that war at the end of the eighteenth century was about.

2. The British know what terrorism is like.

Tell that to NORAID. Northern Ireland means that we can extend our sympathy to America, as the Spanish could in the same way. Britain really did feel America's pain. However, that is no reason to get involved whenever some losers at the ballot box want to use guns to achieve their political means. That would mean that we get involved in places like Sierra Leone or Macedonia, and which person in their right mind would want to do that? One thing I will predict, though: the present American revulsion with the IRA will prove short-lived and shallow. The IRA is in no way attacking America, and when America comes to its senses on a war on terrorism (see point 3) it will hardly matter that the IRA are terrorists.

3. We must all defeat terrorism.

We cannot defeat a method of warfare. We can aim to defeat Islamic fundamentalism or al-Qaeda, as they are human entities. Terrorism is a method, and it cannot be defeated. Which sane man starts a war that is impossible to win? It is as silly as starting a war against drugs.

4. America saved us from Hitler.

The prospect of America's support meant that we did not sue for peace, keep our Empire and remain the World's biggest creditor nation. It also meant that the best available escape route for Jews escaping the holocaust was cut off and that the Soviet Union was handed an invitation into the heart of Europe. This is not to blame America's noble sacrifice for Britain's woes (after all it was Britain's decision to fight a war it had already lost on its stated aims). It is just to point out that an unconquered Britain could have saved itself from Hitler with the small matter of a truce and no humiliating Vichy style occupation.

Text-only printable version of this article

Airstrip One Article Archives

Contact
Emmanuel Goldstein

Go to the most current column by Emmanuel Goldstein

Sign up to receive Airstrip One by e-mail

Emmanuel Goldstein is the pseudonym of a political drifter on the fringes of English classical liberal and Euro-sceptic activity. He is a former member of the Labour Party, who knows Blair and some of his closest buddies better than they realise, yet. He has a challenging job in the real world, working for a profit-making private company and not sponging off the taxpayer in politics, journalism or the civil service. "Airstrip One," appears Mondays at Antiwar.com.