Ends and means

Julian Barnes in the Guardian today:

‘The peacenik question before the war went like this: suppose Saddam destroys all his weapons tomorrow, do we still invade on humanitarian grounds? I can’t imagine there would have been too many cries of, Yes please. But that, in retrospect, may be what we’ve done, or shall endeavour to claim we have done and therefore had been intending. Does it look like a humanitarian war to you? Are “shock and awe” compatible with “hearts and minds”? Early on, a US infantryman was seen grimly returning fire over a sand dune, then turning to camera and complaining: “They don’t seem to realise we’re here to help them.” How odd that they didn’t.’

I thought the war was a bad thing before it started. I have been opposed to it throughout. And when it is over (but how will we know? We still don’t even know what we went to war for) I know it will still have been a bad idea.

Whatever benefits may (may) fall to the Iraqi people, Britain and the US have proved ourselves to be willing to go to war on the flimsiest of evidence, for reasons that were impossible to define before the fact, and with brutal disregard for both internal and international opposition.

I fear for the new century.