Read Martin Woollacott on why the insurgency in Iraq ‘is essentially a nihilist and not a nationalist campaign’:

Many see the insurgency in Iraq as entirely a product of occupation, but the hard question is what the insurgents are trying to achieve. Get the Americans out, but then what? Indeed, if the aim is to get the Americans to leave it would, objectively, be better to offer them some cooperation. They are pretty desperate to go, and are, arguably, no longer so attached to remaining a permanent power behind the scenes, at least not at the price they might have to pay.
…..
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the aim of most insurgents, or at least of those who finance them and hurl them into the fray, is entirely destructive. They wish to break down and disrupt by violence any constructive effort of whatever kind in any part of Iraq. The aim is the failure not only of the American project but of the Iraqi project. The targets are not only American soldiers but any Iraqi, from party leader to traffic policeman, engaged in the work of bringing Iraq back to something like normal life.

In order to pursue such a course, you have to believe that the principal function of Iraq is to be the battlefield between the forces of true Islam and the forces of evil. Its people can, and should, be sacrificed to that end if necessary. That is why the insurgents so frequently break the rules that other rebels have usually observed, like trying to keep public opinion on their side or not provoking other communities. Twelve Islamist groups recently issued a joint statement saying that after the Americans had gone, there would be a three-day curfew during which all those who had helped the invader would be arrested or liquidated. The ruthlessness, the cruelty, and the life-denying viciousness of such ideas chill the bones.

A new meme has announced itself, its spokesperson Naomi Klein. Remember one of the arguments against the war (I don’t say used by all anti-warriors, but certainly by many)? To the point that Iraq was a vile tyranny, and its people could use some outside assistance in escaping from that, there came the reply often enough: but if it’s done in this way and by these people (Bush, Blair, imperialist nations), then what follows won’t be democracy. Well, but maybe it will be a whole lot better than Saddam’s regime? Not better enough, evidently, to swing the argument.

So if something quite a lot better were now to follow the war and what some of us call the liberation of Iraq, if indeed democracy were to follow, would this be a plus point for the war after all? Naaah, fiddlesticks.

Naomi Klein, writing in The Nation this week, is struck by the ‘appetite for democracy among Iraqis’. Fair enough. It’s something a lot of us who supported the war guessed at even before the war, as likely to have been generated by decades of intense oppression and suffering. The body of Klein’s article is a critique of coalition policy in Iraq, a setting out of the things she thinks shouldn’t be happening but are, and of the things she thinks should be happening instead, and which she sees good possibilities for, coming out of that aforesaid appetite for democracy. But then we come to Klein’s conclusion, the argumentative crux – and the place which I’ve been heading for since I clicked on ‘New Post’. It is as follows:

And here’s the really surprising part: It could actually happen. Why? Because all of Washington’s reasons for going to war have evaporated; the only excuse left is Bush’s deep desire to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Of course, this is as much a lie as the rest – but it’s a lie we can use. We can harness Bush’s political weakness on Iraq to demand that the democracy lie become a reality, that Iraq be truly sovereign: unshackled by debt, unencumbered by inherited contracts, unscarred by US military bases and with full control over its resources, from oil to reparations.

Washington’s hold on Baghdad is growing weaker by the day, while the pro-democracy forces inside the country grow stronger. Genuine democracy could come to Iraq, not because Bush’s war was right, but because it has been proven so desperately wrong.

If you hear, rumbling from out of the skies above you, a deep and resonating belly laugh, don’t look at me. It’s not my way to mock, and in any case I’m seriously earthbound. However: even if the aftermath of war ends by delivering a democratic outcome, one which no one could foreseeably have envisaged without that war, the war will have been wrong. The subtext: we who opposed it will still be able to claim the credit for us and our views.

Got to teminate this abruptly – sorry, folks. My window panes are rattling and the table is shaking. Damn, my tea’s all spilled.

(Hat tip: Tony Hutchison.)

A letter to the Guardian today makes one of the same points as I did in my long post of yesterday. David Hughes writes:

I thought the Guardian had made up its mind Blair was wrong to go to war. I believe he was right. Neither of us needs an inquiry to decide that. Whatever the Butler inquiry finds, it won’t change your mind on the decision to go to war with Iraq, and it certainly won’t change mine.

Rather more succinct than I was. I want also to reproduce here, with Harry’s permission, a comment I left round at his place, on a thread initiated by his linking to that long post of mine. The comment is aimed at a misunderstanding which I don’t think I’ve said anything to license, but want to make sure to rule out all the same.

This thread starts with the suggestion by Richard that some people may not regard the concerns over WMD, the intelligence about them, and the way the intelligence was used, as serious ones. I can’t be absolutely sure of this, of course, but I’m assuming from the context of Richard’s comment that his ‘some people’ is meant to include me and/or Harry.

Speaking then for me, all I’m going to say… is that Richard not only has no grounds for ascribing the some-people view to me, but on the contrary, in the post of mine which Harry links to, I make it quite clear that I do take those concerns seriously. Look towards the end of the post, where my ‘immodest proposal’ is, and read point 2. Or else go back to 21 August on my old site – the post ‘But where is the green parrot?’ when I first discussed this issue – and you will see that I say it is a serious matter if there has been wilful deception about WMD, and those responsible for it (if there has been) are then accountable for it.

So, insofar as Richard’s point is meant to be directed to me (and if it isn’t I’m sorry for wasting his time), it’s misdirected. My point in the post Harry linked to, as well as in the green parrot post, is a different one: namely, that there is something else behind the anti-Blair, anti-Bush furore than this, quite legitimate, concern. And that is a point I stand by.

Stephen Pollard is a political columnist who writes regularly in the Times, Sunday Telegraph and Independent. He has been described by the Sunday Times as a New Labour ‘guru’, and by the New Statesman as the leading ‘British neoconservative’. He is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank, where he directs the health policy programme, and at Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, in London.

Stephen is currently writing the biography of David Blunkett, which will be published in the spring of 2005. From 1998-2000 he was a columnist and Chief Leader Writer on the Daily Express. From 1995-98 he was Head of Research at the Social Market Foundation, and from 1992-95 Research Director at the Fabian Society. Before that he was Research Assistant to Rt Hon Peter Shore MP. He is the author of numerous pamphlets and books on health and education policy, and is co-author with Andrew Adonis (now the Prime Minister’s adviser on public sector reform) of the best-selling A Class Act – the Myth of Britain’s Classless Society. Stephen lives in London. He blogs at Stephen Pollard.

Why do you blog? > To get off my chest the things no one will pay me to write.

What has been your best blogging experience? > Discovering, and being astonished by, some of the people who read my site.

What are your favourite blogs? > Yours, Oliver Kamm, Melanie Philips and Harry’s Place.

Who are your intellectual heroes? > Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Voltaire, and Milton Friedman (with whom, as a rather obnoxious school boy, I had a long correspondence; it says a lot about what a wonderful man he is that he spent a fair amount of time writing to a pipsqueak).

What are you reading at the moment? > My entire life has been, and will be, taken up for sixth months with the writings of, and writings about, David Blunkett.

Who are your cultural heroes? > Woody Allen, Martha Argerich, Benvenuto Cellini, Wilhelm Furtwangler, Whit Stillman. (And Henry Clay Frick and Duncan Phillips for their art collections.)

What is the best novel you’ve ever read? > I’m going to answer a different question: the best books. Robert Caro’s ongoing biography of LBJ. The book which has, I think, had the most influence on me is Alexander Murray’s Reason and Society in the Middle Ages. And I adore Benvenuto Cellini’s autobiography.

What is your favourite movie? > Metropolitan.

What is your favourite song? > A song-cycle: ‘Dichterliebe’, by Robert Schumann.

Who is your favourite composer? > I’m going to cheat again: Bach, Handel, Mozart and Beethoven.

Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you’ve ever changed your mind? > The death penalty, about which I am still in trauma. I do not think of myself as the sort of person who supports it, but I have thought it through and can’t come to any other conclusion. And I used to think governments actively should pursue full employment, rather than allowing it to happen by getting out of the way.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate? > That apart from the few areas in which the state does good, it does harm.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat? > That the state is beneficent.

Who are your political heroes? > Joe Chamberlain and Stafford Cripps. I long to write a comparative political biography. And yes, I realize those choices may seem incompatible with the answer to the above question, but the world is now a very different place.

What is your favourite piece of political wisdom? > Nil desperandum carborundum (don’t let the bastards grind you down).

If you could effect one major policy change in the governing of your country, what would it be? > Introduce education vouchers, and have no state involvement in the running of education.

If you could choose anyone, from any walk of life, to be Prime Minister, who would you choose? > Jeff Stelling.

What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? > Militant Islam.

What would be your most important piece of advice about life? > I was told this by a senior politician who seemed to have spent his entire career ignoring it: be nice to people on your way up; you’ll need them on your way down.

Do you think you could ever be married to, or in a long-term relationship with, someone with radically different political views from your own? > I tried it once, and the answer is no.

Do you have any prejudices you’re willing to acknowledge? > I would lock up any man over the age of about 12 with long hair or a ponytail. I would hang anyone who says ‘these ones’. And I hate football fans who only started supporting their team when it became successful.

What commonly enjoyed activities do you regard as a waste of time? > Computer games. Most pop music. Drinking beer, when there’s so much wine to be drunk.

What, if anything, do you worry about? > What’s going to win the Champion Hurdle?

If you were to relive your life to this point, is there anything you’d do differently? > I’d have backed Norton’s Coin to win the 1990 Cheltenham Gold Cup. He won at 100/1.

Where would you most like to live (other than where you do)? > New York City: the greatest example on the planet of human inventiveness and civilization.

What would your ideal holiday be? > A week’s racing at the Punchestown Festival.

What do you like doing in your spare time? > Cooking. Eating good food. Drinking good wine. Horse racing. Reading books about American public policy. Writing: I am one of those sickening people who gets paid to pursue their hobby. Watching Spurs – although God knows why.

What is your most treasured possession? > My collection of Joe Chamberlain’s letters.

What talent would you most like to have? > I would love to be a good pianist.

What would be your ideal choice of alternative profession or job? > Chief conductor of the New York Philharmonic. I’d turn it back into a decent orchestra.

Who is your favourite comedian or humorist? > Larry David.

Who are your sporting heroes? > Glenn Hoddle, Tony McCoy, Patrick Depailler (a now deceased racing driver). And two horses: Remainder Man and I’m A Driver.

If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for? > To be able to wake up and not give a damn about Spurs. Life would be so much more fun.

If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be? > Joe Chamberlain, Norman Podhoretz, Clara Schumann.

[Previous profiles: Ophelia Benson (Nov 7); Chris Bertram (Sep 26); Alan Brain (Oct 10); Chris Brooke (Jan 2); Francois Brutsch (Dec 5); Anne Cunningham (Jan 23); Jackie D (Oct 17); Brad DeLong (Jan 16); Harry Hatchet (Oct 24); Saddam Hussein (Nov 14); Jeff Jarvis (Dec 26); Oliver Kamm (Nov 21); Ken MacLeod (Jan 30); Sheila O’Malley (Dec 19); Glenn Reynolds (Jan 9); Natalie Solent (Nov 28); Roger L. Simon (Oct 31); Michael J. Totten (Oct 3); Brian Weatherson (Dec 12). The normblog profile is a weekly Friday morning feature.]

Last night I went to the Royal Northern College of Music with my friend and colleague Simon to see the Esbjorn Svensson Trio. At this time of the night – morning – I won’t rely on my descriptive powers. I’ll just tell you that the place was packed and it was a great gig. And I’ll then turn to the book, which says, amongst much else:

Working in comparative isolation in Stockholm, [Svensson is] producing piano-trio records ready to take on the best of whatever the rest of the jazz world can retaliate with.

I’d say that E.S.T. are right up there with this guy – and that’s high praise from me.

Michael Costello writes in The Australian:

The case for war against Iraq remains as strong as ever – on legal grounds, moral grounds and security grounds.

This might seem a big statement in the light of widespread reports that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time of military action in 2003.

If these reports prove correct, that would be relevant if that had been known at the time of the attack last March.

But the fact is the world did not know this at the time of the attack, and it did not know because Saddam Hussein had made sure that it could not know.
…..
Resolution 687… set out a short and long-term verification regime to ensure that Iraqi weapons were destroyed. Further, on the nuclear front the resolution provided for the indefinite monitoring of Iraq.

So the relevant question is not whether the world knew that Saddam did have WMD. Such knowledge was not required to justify military action. Under the Security Council resolution, the world needed to be certain, and was entitled to be certain, that he did not have them.

Is there anybody who suggests that, at the time of the invasion of Iraq last year, the world knew with confidence what it was entitled to know under the Security Council resolution – namely that Saddam had definitely got rid of all his WMD and would co-operate in future in ensuring there was no resumption of WMD programs?
…..
The Security Council put the onus on Iraq to account for the destruction of all its weapons, as previously identified by UN inspectors, or risk the end of the ceasefire and resumption of hostilities.

Iraq had 12 years to do so and refused. A fundamental ceasefire condition was thus breached. Hostilities were resumed by those authorised to do so in 1990.

The war was legal. And the war was right. The fact that John Howard, Tony Blair and George W. Bush say so does not make it wrong.

(Hat tip: Sophie Masson.)

Matt Frei on tonight’s BBC news, and re George Tenet and the threat posed by Iraq:

The word ‘imminent’ was never used but the impression of imminence was created. [Copied down by hand but I’ll vouch for its substantive accuracy – NG.]

Norman Geras re Matt Frei:

He never says ‘I’m a BBC reporter with a definite axe to grind’, but the impression of axe-to-grindism is created. (I preferred his predecessor in Washington, Stephen Sackur, by whom the impression of a conscientious professional journalist was created.)

David Fickling reports from Sydney:

Australia will more than double its defence budget over the next three years under plans that will turn the country into one of the world’s major military powers.

The government has revealed it intends to increase overall spending by £21bn over the next 10 years. The proposal highlights the country’s determination to position itself as a key ally of Washington in conflicts around the world…
…..
Border security is a key priority for Canberra, which fears terrorist activity in its neighbour Indonesia, and the arrival of refugee boats on its northern shores. The budget includes more than £400m to be spent on a squadron of 10 unmanned aerial surveillance aircraft, £1.9bn for maritime patrol aircraft, and a £400m upgrade of electronic surveillance equipment covering northern Australia and Indonesia.

See also here.

Anne Cunningham – who sounds as if she’s enjoying her stay in Paris – has a couple of posts up on the veil debate and some of the background to it.

Haytham al-Husseini writes in the Lebanon Daily Star:

Like many Iraqis, I get angry when watching programs on certain Arab satellite television stations. They clearly alter their news broadcasts to meet the preconceptions of audiences in other Arab countries. They want the US project in Iraq to fail, preventing the development of a new Iraq, no matter how much instability and bloodshed we Iraqis must suffer. If a bomb blows up in a school, they’ll go so far as to suggest that the Americans were perhaps responsible ­even if there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim.

These Arab TV broadcasters use Egyptian, Lebanese and other non-Iraqi commentators to tell us what’s happening in our own country. They use words like “collaborator” to refer to Iraqis who work with the coalition, and “resistance” to identify people whom we believe to be more like saboteurs.

We need news with an Iraqi perspective ­both for viewers at home, as well as to communicate our point of view to others in the Arab world and beyond. There is an Iraqi terrestrial station called Al-Iraqiya, which is run by the Iraqi Media Network (IMN). I mainly watch Al-Iraqiya when my satellite dish isn’t working. Although a poll of urban Iraqis conducted in September 2003 by the US State Department said that some 36 percent get most of their news from Al-Iraqiya, that figure falls to only 12 percent among people with satellite access.

The article goes on to detail the problems facing Al-Iraqiya and the mistakes that have been made by the coalition authorities towards it. (Hat tip: Jeff Weintraub.)