From a thoroughly unsympathetic review of William Shawcross’s Allies: The US, Britain, Europe and the War in Iraq by Ed Vulliamy:
But Iraq is something other than ‘humanitarian intervention’, let alone ‘progressive war’. Iraq is an act of arrogance and of empire… For all the joy and relief at liberation among many Iraqis, there is so little, if anything, that is honest about America’s invasion. It is the hardest part of the argument against this book: that moral language is not utilitarian. That motives for action do matter. As do the consequences of action, which, quite apart from enhancing the personal fortunes of America’s ruling elite, may result in anything but ‘democratisation’.Serious moral reflection needs to weigh – to take account of – both motives and consequences. But note the untroubled movement of thought here. Joy and relief among Iraqis over liberation is more or less written out of the deliberation because of American lack of honesty and because moral language is not utilitarian. A couple of sentences later, by when the consequences of action have (also) come to matter, joy, relief and liberation have been forgotten for the ‘personal fortunes of America’s ruling elite’ and what ‘may result’. Both confused and obfuscating. (Thanks to Eve Garrard for the link.)