David Aaronovitch's new column: "Was I wrong about Iraq?" appeared in yesterday's Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1149846,00.html (http://tinyurl.com/32vtb)
In the run-up to war I was constantly amazed at Aaronovitch's capacity to turn the arguments for and against the war into the outpourings of his tortured morality (rather than the ummings and aahings of a liberal). Now, it seems, the fact that the occupation is going badly have forced him to reconsider his positions (he's a typical centre-left liberal so, in all truth, I don't need to outline why he thought intervention in Iraq was justified in the first place). This isn't why he annoys me: after all, the reason for the still healthy support for the invasion (50%+) is because of the humanatarian dimension that Aaronovitch so belives in so I've got used to it. No, the point is that he writes from a messianic position, as if every gobbet from his mouth was of earth-shattering importance. Or perhaps it's best to call this position the "monumental ego" position.
Perhaps it's possible for some people to find this stance admirable. It may be that they find his willingness to question himself refreshing. For me, it's not just that the answer to whether he was wrong (to be revealed next week) is, of course, decided in advance ("it's a hard question, there are good points on both sides but on balance I AM RIGHT"), but above all, it is the fact that egotistical self-questioning and fake humility seems to validate everything. This is how liberal discourse works. In lieu of anything resembling truth ("don't quote me on that, it's just my opinion, mate") we get a whining voice that vacillates between yes and no.
Simon
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com