http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1149846,00.html
and wrote...
...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.
======================================
Yes, Aaronovitch's Olympian tone is very tiresome.
Still, he can teach us something about the assumptions of his class - the well intentioned liberal, concerned about the plight of the poor and friendly to 'multi-culturalism' (yes, steretypical upscale organic food store shoppers come to mind), but convinced he's a member of a blessed and elevated group: The Westerner.
Consider this concluding bit from his piece:
"So much for WMD. For "liberal interventionists", however, the Iraq issue had another, more significant dimension. Wasn't war, in the end, the only way of bringing down the tyranny of Saddam, and wouldn't that war end in an Iraq - and a Middle East - that was safer and freer than before? On this, above all, was I wrong? If you care one way or another, I'll try to answer this next week."
He's telegraphing the position he'll take in the next column: the war, for all its flaws, was 'worth it' because the long-term prospects of the Iraqi people have been improved because of it. I may be wrong, he may surprise but I think this is the next stop along the way in his argument's path.
If this point of view could be isolated to Aaronovitch, we might dismiss it and move along to more important issues. But of course, the 'warrior liberal' or 'liberal interventionist' viewpoint is very common - it forms the bridge between conservative / neo-con militarism and the stereotypical big hearted leftie who only wants to help.
What is the foundation of the belief in intervention? I believe it's a faith in the superiority of 'Western values' and our 'way of life.'
People who seem very dissimilar in political view share a (quite natural given human nature, even if ultimately unfortunate) belief that the West in general, but really, the US in particular, offers the world a better model which can and should be exported everywhere for the improvement of humanity.
Dostoevsky (I think) wrote that 'any idea, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to tragedy.' And so it is with liberal paternalism.
Considering the 'we come from an advanced alien civilization of peace' mind-virus infecting some do-gooders (at least some of the ones I've met and worked with), it shouldn't be surprising that many well-intentioned people, convinced of the essential goodness of their culture and proud of its wealth and power would sign off, with a thousand caveats of course, on the Bush admin's Iraq venture.
The Busheviks, far less adept at maintaining appearances than the Clintonistas, have thrown this faith-in-good-interventions into disarray by openly and obviously lying and putting in motion a hard to ignore plan to exploit the Iraqi people.
This leaves the liberal warriors in a strange box. To save face, they must say over and over again that most folks in Iraq are better off without Hussein and since America's responisble for this, the saviour-of-the-world role is intact. Yes, of course, there should have been 'better planning' and the employment, power, infrastructure, education, etc. situations are troubling but Hussein's no longer in power, Iraqis are open to the West so it all balances out.
The word acrobatics of folks like Paul Berman, Aaronovitch and Hitchens are really the uncomfortable gyrations of the faithful trying to explain why their god has failed to appear....again.
DRM
===== http://www.monroelab.com/blog/the-departed.html Yahoo Instant Message ID: idoru345 secure email account: drm5979 at hushmail.com