[Article] Richard Dawkins: Why should we in Britain help Bush to get re-elected?

gandalf

Heres a excellent article from todays British Independent.

Personally I think he hits the nail on the head regarding Bush's current motivations for this "adventure" in the desert.

Gandalf.

Richard Dawkins: Why should we in Britain help Bush to get re-elected?

I am vigorously pro-American, which is one reason why I am anti- Bush. They deserve better

01 March 2003

Tony Blair's restless shifting of his justification for war undermines conviction, for standard "lady doth protest too much" reasons. More important is the dangerous paradox that his opportunism must arouse in the mind of Saddam Hussein. When the stated aim was to disarm him, Saddam had only to comply and war would be averted. But if the aim is to save the poor helpless Iraqis from their wicked tyrant, everything changes. Why would anyone disarm on the eve of an inevitable attack? Mr Blair's sudden shift to the moral high ground is presumably a desperate (and it now seems unsuccessful) bid to win over his own party. But has he thought through how it will be viewed in Iraq?

The timing alone indicates that the real reason for war is neither of the two offered by Tony Blair. If it had been, all this would have blown up long ago. It would not have waited until George Bush failed to catch Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and needed a new foreign adventure to divert his electorate. War would have been a big plank in both Bush's and Blair's election platforms. Gerhard Schröder is the only major leader to have mentioned such a war to his electorate – he was against it – and he consequently has the best, if not the only, claim to a popular mandate. Bush not only failed to mention it in his manifesto. He failed even to get elected.

This is George Bush's war. His motives and his timing have an internal American rationale. Bush is so unswerving in his thirst for war that Saddam has even less incentive to disarm than Blair's paradox would suggest. Cowboy Bush is saying, in effect, "Stick your hands up, drop your weapons, and I'll shoot you anyway."

Bush wants oil and he wants the 2004 election. Unlike Blair's two aims, Bush's two are far from contradictory. An important part of the post-11 September American electorate likes kicking Arab butt, and never mind if a completely different lot of Arabs (who, incidentally, detest the secular Saddam) committed the atrocity. If Bush now wins a quick war, with few American casualties and no draft, he will triumph in the 2004 election. And where will that leave us?

Bush, unelected, has repudiated Kyoto, the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, international trade agreements and environment-friendly initiatives set up by the Clinton administration, and he threatens the UN and Nato. What may we expect of this swaggering lout if an election success actually gives him something to swagger about?

Victory over Iraq will play well in Peoria. It will bomb – literally as well as metaphorically – in the rest of the world. In that post-war climate of seething hostility, are we, in Britain, going to let ourselves be identified, throughout the world, with this uncouth fundamentalist redneck? And are we really going to help him finally to get elected?

Those of us opposed to the war are sometimes accused of anti-Americanism. I am vigorously pro-American, which is one reason I am anti-Bush. They didn't elect him, and they deserve better.

If, in a khaki election, Bush finally wins a term as President, decent Americans, intellectual Americans, American scholars, scientists, philosophers, engineers, writers, artists and, not least, American philanthropists, Americans with a great deal to contribute, are going to be looking for a civilised haven.

English-speaking countries such as Ireland and New Zealand will be well placed to welcome them and benefit from their talented presence. How sad if we rule ourselves out by poodling up to the very leader they will be seeking to escape. As a scientist, I would like to be able to say something like the following to my American friends:

"Dear Colleague: You are a member of the leading scientific nation, by far. No wonder there has been a brain drain from my country to yours. The trickle in the other direction has been, alas, negligible. Occasional attempts, by my own university of Oxford among others, to compete on the open market to recruit leading American professors or promising young scientists, have usually foundered on the problem of salary. But is it possible that things are now beginning to change? Could it be that political developments in your country are now starting to make emigration look more attractive, in spite of the salary differential?

"I know, of course, without even asking, that you were a member of the majority who voted for Al Gore. When your majority in the country, reinforcing your clear majority in the Electoral College but for dead-heated Florida, was reversed by the Supreme Court coup d'état, you must have been saddened, even infuriated. You presumably consoled yourself that it couldn't last more than four years.

"All that has now changed, and you must be close to despair, especially if you happen to be working in a field such as stem cell cloning and find your research blocked by the religious bigotry of this administration, the most anti-intellectual administration in living memory.

"Have things reached the point where you might consider moving? We in Britain may not be able to match your salary, but we can at least offer you a civilised, decent government, very different from the one you are eager to leave behind."

If only...

The writer's latest book, 'A Devil's Chaplain', has just been published by Weidenfeld

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=382663

Jes'Shout!

RE: "This is George Bush's war. Bush wants oil and he wants the 2004 election......."

What Bush wants is to make the US into his own private corporation.


RE: "If, in a khaki election, Bush finally wins a term as President, decent Americans, intellectual Americans, American scholars, scientists, philosophers, engineers, writers, artists and, not least, American philanthropists, Americans with a great deal to contribute, are going to be looking for a civilised haven...."

We can only hope that the people of the US will say "ENOUGH!" and boot that pinche son of privilege to the curb before any such mass exodus occurs. Why should Bush be allowed to win without getting substantially "bruised" in the process? Hasn't he gotten enough stuff in his life without working for it?

sceptre

If Bush now wins a quick war, with few American casualties and no draft, he will triumph in the 2004 election.

This (and I'm sure it's an attitude the administration does have) is what I don't get - Poppy was given the same advice in 1991 and still managed to get whipped by the Democrats. Abandoning any coherent domestic policy in favour of bombing the crap out of the Arabs played a big part in losing Poppy the election that followed. Admittedly, Junior doesn't have to cope with the two other obstacles that Daddy had to cope[1] with but doesn't he read history? Or at least know someone who reads history? The jubilation caused by a war victory isn't going to last twenty months. Unless he has another one planned for the Autumn. Isn't he afraid of another Bush getting slapped by a Clinton?


[1]Namely running against an extremely charismatic politician who owned a working brain (the current crop of interested Democrats can't seem to cover both bases at once) and raising taxes after saying he wouldn't (Junior hasn't raised them (he's even put in a nice cut for high-earners) and hasn't promised anything as he managed to forget domestic policy nine months into office, whereas Poppy only forgot about it after thirty months)

TomF

There seems to be a trend on this board of copying and pasting from newspaper articles. May I do that, too? I know some very interesting articles that I could post.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by gandalf
Heres a excellent article from todays British Independent.

Personally I think he hits the nail on the head regarding Bush's current motivations for this "adventure" in the desert.

Really? Personally I thought it was pig-ignorant, bigoted trash. Just like everything else that Dawkins writes.

Tony Blair's restless shifting of his justification for war undermines conviction, for standard "lady doth protest too much" reasons.

Blair is not shifting his justification for war. The justification for war has always been to enforce the multiple UN Security Council resolutions mandating Iraqi disarmament. The reason that the Iraqi human rights situation is brought up so often is because it is an attempt to appeal to the public’s sense of empathy with their fellow man, seeing as how they don’t seem interested in preserving the authority of the UN.

Why would anyone disarm on the eve of an inevitable attack?

The reason an attack is inevitable is because it is clear Iraq will not disarm voluntarily.

The timing alone indicates that the real reason for war is neither of the two offered by Tony Blair. If it had been, all this would have blown up long ago. It would not have waited until George Bush failed to catch Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and needed a new foreign adventure to divert his electorate.

Why not? Why would they have chosen to fight two overseas wars simultaneously? The timing of this war has been largely dictated both by America’s desire to pursue a multilateralist approach to resolving the crisis by working through the UN and by the length of time needed to build up an invasion force in the region.

War would have been a big plank in both Bush's and Blair's election platforms.

Hang on, his central argument is that this war is all about ensuring Bush’s re-election. If this was true, why wouldn’t Bush have been calling for war in order to get elected in the first place?

Gerhard Schröder is the only major leader to have mentioned such a war to his electorate – he was against it – and he consequently has the best, if not the only, claim to a popular mandate.

A politician using war to get re-elected? Shocking! But anyway, Schröder’s not that popular you know. See here.

Bush not only failed to mention it in his manifesto.

That’s because it wasn’t an issue before 9-11.

He failed even to get elected.

No he didn’t.

If Bush now wins a quick war, with few American casualties and no draft, he will triumph in the 2004 election. And where will that leave us?

In a safer, more democratic, happier world.

Victory over Iraq will play well in Peoria. It will bomb – literally as well as metaphorically – in the rest of the world.

Does this twat know what “literally” means?

If, in a khaki election, Bush finally wins a term as President, decent Americans, intellectual Americans, American scholars, scientists, philosophers, engineers, writers, artists and, not least, American philanthropists, Americans with a great deal to contribute, are going to be looking for a civilised haven.

It’s handy for them then that they already live in one.

Could it be that political developments in your country are now starting to make emigration look more attractive, in spite of the salary differential?

Typical lefty. Utterly self-delusional.

I know, of course, without even asking, that you were a member of the majority who voted for Al Gore.

He’s not suggesting that all American scientists voted for Gore is he?

When your majority in the country, reinforcing your clear majority in the Electoral College but for dead-heated Florida, was reversed by the Supreme Court coup d'état, you must have been saddened, even infuriated.

There was a Supreme Court coup d'état?!!? Why then is there no movement in America to overthrow the régime and have the coup leaders arrested and tried for treason?

All that has now changed, and you must be close to despair, especially if you happen to be working in a field such as stem cell cloning…

I see now why he’s anti-war: he has absolutely no regard for human life, neither for the life of the unborn nor for the lives of Iraqi civilians living in abject misery under a genocidal despot.

…and find your research blocked by the religious bigotry of this administration…

I find it ironic that someone who can call Bush an “uncouth fundamentalist redneck” would also accuse him of being bigoted.

…the most anti-intellectual administration in living memory.

I also find it ironic that someone who wrote this garbage can call anyone else “anti-intellectual”.

imp

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
[All of it]

Now that's sarcasm!

um... yes, Bush did fail to get elected. He didn't win the popular vote. He won Florida because the Supreme Court (composed largely of judges appointed by Bush Sr.'s administration, btw) put a stop to the recounts which were already showing that Gore was leading. But even after the recounts were stopped and the wrong result taken, he still didn't have the popular vote. And then there's the very serious allegations as regards the legality of the polls in Mr. Jeb Bush's state.

Iraq was an issue before 9-11. What's this figure we keep hearing from the US... 12 years, was it??

Thinking purely from the Iraqi point of view, why should they disarm?? It looks to them as though the "coalition of the willing" is going to attack anyway. Remember, the US and its friends don't want disarmament they want regime change and oil aswell. Its been said privately to reporters at No. 10 recently that regime change was one of the main reasons they were pressing for war, but that this had not been made public because it is legally not an appropriate reason to attack.

And the US is not fighting two wars overseas simultaneously, the war in Afghanistan is essentially over, and has been for sometime, the majority of the work now being done by peacekeeping forces. The US has meanwhile moved its carriers away towards the Gulf.

Well... there's my responses to just a few of your points. I think the only point I can agree with you on is the stem-cell cloning...

}:>

The justification for war has always been to enforce the multiple UN Security Council resolutions mandating Iraqi disarmament. The reason that the Iraqi human rights situation is brought up so often is because it is an attempt to appeal to the public’s sense of empathy with their fellow man, seeing as how they don’t seem interested in preserving the authority of the UN

not much of a justification, since UN resolutions seem to be enforced on a very selective level. It seems to be depended on whether America, (who provides most of the UN's military) decides its a resolution worth following thru on.

The reason an attack is inevitable is because it is clear Iraq will not disarm voluntarily.

Not quite true. The reason why this war is inevitable, is because America is currently geared up for war. They've spent money on transporting troops/equipment to the middle east, and they're not going to turn around and let it all go to waste. Also Bush has convinced himself, and America, that now is time for Iraq to be settled once & for all.

Why would they have chosen to fight two overseas wars simultaneously?

You're not going to tell me that Afghanistan was a war are u? When all the allies faced were gurilla type infantry? Iraq, yes, will be a war, because America will be facing trained troops, and each arm of the military. Afghanistan was a skirmish.

In a safer, more democratic, happier world.

You've got to be Joking.

Safer? with America roaming the world willing to invade for any imaginary reason?

More Democratic? Yup, with a puppet state in Iraq, that has a pernament garrison of American Troops.

Happier? Hmm.. tell that to the families of Iraqi soldiers, that know their men are dead, and face starvation/Dehydration due to lack facilities(which were destroyed from American Surgical strikes)

I also find it ironic that someone who wrote this garbage can call anyone else “anti-intellectual”.

Perhaps because he knows what to look for, from seeing it in the mirror every morning.

DeVore

Really? Personally I thought it was pig-ignorant, bigoted trash. Just like everything else that Dawkins writes.

Biffa, would that include his work on genetics? Just curious.


DeV.

bonkey

Originally posted by imp
the war in Afghanistan is essentially over, and has been for sometime, the majority of the work now being done by peacekeeping forces.

The Russians would have said something remakably similar after they easily took the nation, and held it with relative calm for a year.....before all hell broke loose.

The war in Afghanistan is far from over. For a start, the area of control by the allied-backed forces is embarassingly small. There are constant attacks, and frequent skirmishes.

Its only ever considered "over" when useful to trot it out as a success story to impress the public....who, if they were aware of anything remotely close to a balanced set of facts would be far from impressed.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by DeVore
Biffa, would that include his work on genetics? Just curious.

Same question. I've seen the same implication ("anything he writes") about Noam Chomsky's linguistics work on the politics forum, based on people, including Biffa, not liking what the chap has to say about economics and politics. With regard to Dawkins, The Selfish Gene was a groundbreaking book, even if you're the type of chap who didn't enjoy Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould sniping at each other for years. "Everything" is a pretty all-encompassing word.

DadaKopf

Yeah DeV, I noticed that trend in Biffa's posts, too. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is a pretty smart guy, smarter than most of us on here so it's even just a little arrogant to dismiss everything someone writes on the basis of prejudicial invective.

If Bush now wins a quick war, with few American casualties and no draft, he will triumph in the 2004 election.

I'm not entirely sure of this. Surely, the war if won will have an effect but what about the millions of Americans who 1) didn't vote for Bush the last time, 2) voted Bush last time but won't vote Republican next time because 3) they oppose the war. Furthermore, US elections are usually won or lost over domestic issues - which the government knows as a lot of this march to war is about stabilising the US economy and creating growth (a tactic employed by the US since the 1910s).

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon:
That’s because it wasn’t an issue before 9-11.

That's simply not correct. The whole war plan dates back to at least 1998, when the first official documents surfaced about Republican intentions. It merely wasn't an issue communicated to the public until the time was right.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Martin Amis, another cossetted intellectual, publishes an article in the Guardian today. He's not so much arguing against the war as pondering with an appalled detachment the bloody mess of it all, but he still makes some good points:

On proliferation and why Iraq and not North Korea

we are going to war with Iraq because it doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Or not many. The surest way by far of finding out what Iraq has is to attack it. Then at last we will have Saddam's full cooperation in our weapons inspection, because everything we know about him suggests that he will use them all. The Pentagon must be more or less convinced that Saddam's WMDs are under a certain critical number. Otherwise it couldn't attack him.

On the aftermath of war

There are two rules of war that have not yet been invalidated by the new world order. The first rule is that the belligerent nation must be fairly sure that its actions will make things better; the second rule is that the belligerent nation must be more or less certain that its actions won't make things worse. America could perhaps claim to be satisfying the first rule (while admitting that the improvement may be only local and short term). It cannot begin to satisfy the second.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by DeVore
Biffa, would that include his work on genetics? Just curious.


DeV.

In fairness, no. I actually quite enjoyed The Blind Watchmaker. When I referred to "everything else" he's written, I only meant the article linked to here plus someone other article he wrote a while ago which I have a vague recollection of disagreeing with at the time.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
In fairness, no. I actually quite enjoyed The Blind Watchmaker. When I referred to "everything else" he's written, I only meant the article linked to here plus someone other article he wrote a while ago which I have a vague recollection of disagreeing with at the time.

Do you only have a vague recollection of it as being 'pig-ignorant, bigoted trash' too? Cos that's rather a strong statement if so. Unless you were just trolling.

DeVore

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
In fairness, no. I actually quite enjoyed The Blind Watchmaker. When I referred to "everything else" he's written, I only meant the article linked to here plus someone other article he wrote a while ago which I have a vague recollection of disagreeing with at the time.

So "everything else" consists of this article and another one from some time ago that you vaguely recall disagreeing with.

I'll bear your obviously fair and balanced approach in mind when I read the rest of your writing...

DeV.

Biffa i would have thought you'd have learnt not to use such broad statements in here, and then retracting them to a degree. Generally its a bad idea to do so, in these boards.