Last Train from Euston

These are my last comments on the Euston Manifesto. On Normblog (see Links, but note Norm does not allow comment on his blog) it is stated that the Manifesto is not a pro-war document. The Manifesto says that the signatories, “took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against”. However, looking though the list of signatories, the ones I recognize are all well known for their pro-war position. It would be interesting to know which ones were anti-war (none of the “leading lights” seems to have been). Secondly, the document certainly seems to support the continuing occupation of Iraq. The argument is something like this: there were “compelling reasons” for and against the “intervention” and we may have disagreed over this; but here we are now, and there is no point “picking over the rubble” of these arguments; from where we are now, we must support the occupying forces. I think it is reasonable to describe this as a pro-war standpoint. The occupation is really an ongoing war and the signatories support this war. Those – whoever they are - who opposed the intervention/invasion in 2003 but who now support the occupation are effectively saying: “we were against the war, but now we are for it”. But as Iraq descends into mayhem it is increasingly obvious that invasion and occupation is a poor strategy for promoting democracy. There will be no good end to this hubristic adventure, but ending the occupation is the least worse option.