On March 30th, 2010, Tony Benn appeared on stage in Sheffield City Hall, for the second half of a programme whose first act was Rory Bremner
doing his comedy impersonations.
I can imagine the sneering reaction of pompous politicians to the idea of Benn appearing on stage with a comedian.
On October 4th 2007. BBC News contained an item about Tony Benn offering himself for re-selection as an MP for Kensington. But nothing more has been heard of Benn returning to the House of Commons. I wonder what the Kensington selection committee would think of him working alongside Rory Bremner.
On February 28th, 2009, Rory Bremner gave a speech about how our liberty as citizens is in danger. Bremner, Bird and Fortune, the Channel 4 satire show used laughter to illuminate politics. Bremner, Bird and Fortune: the Last Show before the Recovery was a three-part series on Channel 4 in 2009, which gave the bankers a bit of the lambasting they deserved.
Between Iraq and a Hard Place was a Channel 4 Bremer, Bird & Fortune show at the time of the Iraq invasion. Apart from making me laugh, I found it offered the clearest commentary on what was happening in the run-up to that illegal invasion. It was much more informative than the ordinary news.
I’ve written in many other places about how Aristophanes is a hero of mine. A poet, a master of silly farce, he was also passionate about politics, and devoted much of his huge energy to creating laughter in the cause of peace. Now, in the 21st century AD, as well as laughing with Aristophanes at the stupidity of the 5th century BC Athenian politicians and generals, we can also see the ordinary Athenians of the time brought to life by Aristophanes’ documentaries. How he would laugh at our scholars: but the fact is he now provides very important historical source material, and illuminates our understanding of the politics then. It is pitiful to see the destructive idiocy of Aristophanes' contemporaries. It is even more pitiful to see how our contemporaries repeat the idiocy even more destructively.
If important politicians and political commentators have, by some strange chance, happened upon this blog, they will no doubt have been appalled already by my ventures into fantasy and farce. But our situation is so appalling, we can only grasp how appalling it is through farce and fantasy.
On March 17th, 2005 The Guardian contained an article by Tony Benn titled Not apathy, but anger.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.”
As Tony Benn wrote in 2005, we are indeed very angry. But we are also flabbergasted at the insanity displayed by politicians.
Often the only sensible reaction to contemporary politics is to assume there is a kind of Gadarene swine mentality which has taken possession of them, and they are just about to hurl themselves at speed down the steep slope into the lake and drown.
--
Showing posts with label Tony Benn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tony Benn. Show all posts
Monday, 3 May 2010
Friday, 23 April 2010
Tony Benn & the British National Party
Tony Benn and BNP singing from the same hymn sheet
Front Page Headline in all major newspapers on April 23rd, 2010, St George’s Day.
Ridiculous? Sure. But, strangely enough, they do agree on one thing.
St George’s Day, 2010: the day which revealed to the British electorate that the system of political parties by which Britain has been governed is now utterly obsolete.
Both Tony Benn and Nick Griffin advocate immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. If those two, representing as they do extreme opposites in political alignment, agree on anything, we must concede that Right and Left have become meaningless distinctions in politics.
If Tony Benn can agree with Nick Griffin about anything, the old alignments of right and left in politics are manifestly meaningless.
On the eve of St George’s Day, there was a second debate between the three political leaders: Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg. Brown and Cameron were both determined to dim the lustre Nick Clegg acquired in the first debate a week earlier.
As in that first debate all three leaders were equally incoherent about the steps they would take to restore Britain’s finances.
Perhaps the most serious division of policy with which the electorate is presented is the issue of Trident. Should Britain buy a replacement for Trident at a probable cost of £100 billion? Clegg for the Lib-Dems says no; Brown and Cameron say yes. In the debate, Gordon Brown got a laugh by saying he agreed with David (Cameron). Agreement about Trident, yes. Agreement also in their attempt to crush Clegg, and return the election contest to the good old knockabout between two unrepresentative parties.
And so to the agreement between those two representatives of the extreme opposites in the right-left political line-up: Tony Benn and Nick Griffin.
Should British troops continue to kill and be killed in Afghanistan? This, like the argument over Trident, is a serious issue. The three-cornered leaders’ debate in Bristol on April 22nd gave a fascinating illumination of why each leader believes Britain should continue to wage war there.
Fascinating because the illumination was non-existent. Cameron and Clegg simply assumed Britain should continue the war, and saw no need to explain why.
Since a British general who commanded in Afghanistan has said the war is unwinnable, one would have thought an explanation of why we are continuing to fight an unwinnable war would have been helpful. Clegg and Cameron, terrified of seeming unsupportive of the army, preferred glorifying the soldiers’ bravery to telling us why they should be there at all.
Gordon Brown, however, rose to the occasion magnificently. He justified Britain’s military presence in Afghanistan with reference to Al-Qaeda.
We need to hunt down terrorists. But in the same sentence, he informed us there were members of Al-Qaeda plotting terror from bases in the Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and other places. Why are we not hunting these Yemen and Somalia terrorists? Why have we not invaded Pakistan?
Yes, I could agree there is an argument for sending small detachments of SAS into terrorist hiding places, perhaps working in conjunction with Pakistani special forces. But how can major military operations against the Taliban help in tracking down terrorists who work in teams of less than ten?
Why exactly do Nick Griffin and the BNP want to withdraw from Afghanistan? In a sense, their reason is irrelevant to anyone like myself who is against the rest of their policies.
Tony Benn’s opposition to the war in Afghanistan is stated with bald clarity: history shows that no foreign power has ever succeeded in dominating Afghanistan. Britain failed, Russia failed, and now NATO is failing.
I return to the headline, which the newspapers neglected to print. More than ever before there are issues on which the citizens of Britain would like to vote. More than ever before there is less and less reason to trust any political party to resolve these issues.
Even Brown, even Cameron, and certainly Clegg, mixed their sycophantic references to the electorate “It’s for you to decide, it’s your choice, etc” with vague promises of referendums. Let us see how quickly these promises are forgotten after the election.
Why don’t we have a referendum about the war in Afghanistan, if only to enjoy the sight of Benn and Griffin voting on the same side?
Front Page Headline in all major newspapers on April 23rd, 2010, St George’s Day.
Ridiculous? Sure. But, strangely enough, they do agree on one thing.
St George’s Day, 2010: the day which revealed to the British electorate that the system of political parties by which Britain has been governed is now utterly obsolete.
Both Tony Benn and Nick Griffin advocate immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. If those two, representing as they do extreme opposites in political alignment, agree on anything, we must concede that Right and Left have become meaningless distinctions in politics.
If Tony Benn can agree with Nick Griffin about anything, the old alignments of right and left in politics are manifestly meaningless.
On the eve of St George’s Day, there was a second debate between the three political leaders: Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg. Brown and Cameron were both determined to dim the lustre Nick Clegg acquired in the first debate a week earlier.
As in that first debate all three leaders were equally incoherent about the steps they would take to restore Britain’s finances.
Perhaps the most serious division of policy with which the electorate is presented is the issue of Trident. Should Britain buy a replacement for Trident at a probable cost of £100 billion? Clegg for the Lib-Dems says no; Brown and Cameron say yes. In the debate, Gordon Brown got a laugh by saying he agreed with David (Cameron). Agreement about Trident, yes. Agreement also in their attempt to crush Clegg, and return the election contest to the good old knockabout between two unrepresentative parties.
And so to the agreement between those two representatives of the extreme opposites in the right-left political line-up: Tony Benn and Nick Griffin.
Should British troops continue to kill and be killed in Afghanistan? This, like the argument over Trident, is a serious issue. The three-cornered leaders’ debate in Bristol on April 22nd gave a fascinating illumination of why each leader believes Britain should continue to wage war there.
Fascinating because the illumination was non-existent. Cameron and Clegg simply assumed Britain should continue the war, and saw no need to explain why.
Since a British general who commanded in Afghanistan has said the war is unwinnable, one would have thought an explanation of why we are continuing to fight an unwinnable war would have been helpful. Clegg and Cameron, terrified of seeming unsupportive of the army, preferred glorifying the soldiers’ bravery to telling us why they should be there at all.
Gordon Brown, however, rose to the occasion magnificently. He justified Britain’s military presence in Afghanistan with reference to Al-Qaeda.
We need to hunt down terrorists. But in the same sentence, he informed us there were members of Al-Qaeda plotting terror from bases in the Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and other places. Why are we not hunting these Yemen and Somalia terrorists? Why have we not invaded Pakistan?
Yes, I could agree there is an argument for sending small detachments of SAS into terrorist hiding places, perhaps working in conjunction with Pakistani special forces. But how can major military operations against the Taliban help in tracking down terrorists who work in teams of less than ten?
Why exactly do Nick Griffin and the BNP want to withdraw from Afghanistan? In a sense, their reason is irrelevant to anyone like myself who is against the rest of their policies.
Tony Benn’s opposition to the war in Afghanistan is stated with bald clarity: history shows that no foreign power has ever succeeded in dominating Afghanistan. Britain failed, Russia failed, and now NATO is failing.
I return to the headline, which the newspapers neglected to print. More than ever before there are issues on which the citizens of Britain would like to vote. More than ever before there is less and less reason to trust any political party to resolve these issues.
Even Brown, even Cameron, and certainly Clegg, mixed their sycophantic references to the electorate “It’s for you to decide, it’s your choice, etc” with vague promises of referendums. Let us see how quickly these promises are forgotten after the election.
Why don’t we have a referendum about the war in Afghanistan, if only to enjoy the sight of Benn and Griffin voting on the same side?
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Afghan Civilian Casualties, Queen’s Regulations, & PTSD Complex
On Friday March 5th, 2010, Lance Corporal Joe Glenton was sentenced to 9 months in a military prison for going absent without leave during the summer of 2007,as his unit was preparing to return to Afghanistan. He first went to Afghanistan in February 2006 with 4 Logistic Support Regiment
His defence lawyer, Nick Wrack said “He (Joe Glenton) thought he was going to help Afghanistan, to help the local people. The experience and the reality began to conflict with that.”
After going AWOL, Joe travelled in South East Asia and Australia, then flew back to Britain, handed himself in to the military authorities, but then campaigned against the Afghan war, delivering a letter to the Prime Minister, and addressing a rally in Trafalgar Square.
Is it right to send Joe Glenton to prison for 9 months? Well, Army discipline
insists on punishing him for going absent. What sort of verdict would a civilian court have reached?
During the 1950’s, popular feeling turned against the death penalty. There were instances of juries refusing to bring in a verdict of ‘Murder’, because they did not want to be responsible for sending someone to judicial death. Thus the law of innocence and guilt was brought into contempt because the punishment exceeded what most people regarded as right.
If Joe Glenton had been tried in a civilian court, and if I had been on the jury, I should have voted for his acquittal, even though it was apparent that he had gone absent without leave. In previous posts, I’ve argued that the Afghan war is unwinnable, Senior British officers agree. It is being waged for no clear reason. Certainly no member of the British Government has ever seriously explained why British soldiers are being sent there to be killed and wounded.
Joe Glenton, however, offers us a different perspective on the war. His defence lawyer said “He (Joe Glenton) thought he was going to help Afghanistan, to help the local people. The experience and the reality began to conflict with that.”
We are regularly told NATO forces are in Afghanistan to help the country.
It has been difficult to calculate the number of Afghan civilians killed. But, by every estimate, more have been killed by NATO forces than by the Taliban and Afghan warlords. One estimate reckons between four thousand and five and a half thousand killed by Afghans, but between five and a half thousand killed and eight and a half thousand killed by NATO.
There are also the indirect deaths, including a vast number of children who have died as a result of starvation; one Afghan estimate states that 120,000 Afghan civilians have been forced out of their homes.
How does killing Afghans help Afghanistan?
If neither the British or the American government can give a good reason for continuing the war, and if NATO forces have killed more innocent people than the Afghan forces, we should now judge the war as not only ill-conceived, not only unwinnable, but also immoral.
Joe Glenton went to Afghanistan hoping to help the Afghans. Our leaders affirm that to be the purpose of the war. Joe Glenton has given up 9 months of his life for protesting that if we cannot help the Afghans, we should bring the troops home.
You may not approve of War Resisters International. But if the war in Afghanistan continues, protest against it is bound to grow, and to become more violent.
How does killing Afghans help Afghanistan? Bring the troops home.
His defence lawyer, Nick Wrack said “He (Joe Glenton) thought he was going to help Afghanistan, to help the local people. The experience and the reality began to conflict with that.”
After going AWOL, Joe travelled in South East Asia and Australia, then flew back to Britain, handed himself in to the military authorities, but then campaigned against the Afghan war, delivering a letter to the Prime Minister, and addressing a rally in Trafalgar Square.
Is it right to send Joe Glenton to prison for 9 months? Well, Army discipline
insists on punishing him for going absent. What sort of verdict would a civilian court have reached?
During the 1950’s, popular feeling turned against the death penalty. There were instances of juries refusing to bring in a verdict of ‘Murder’, because they did not want to be responsible for sending someone to judicial death. Thus the law of innocence and guilt was brought into contempt because the punishment exceeded what most people regarded as right.
If Joe Glenton had been tried in a civilian court, and if I had been on the jury, I should have voted for his acquittal, even though it was apparent that he had gone absent without leave. In previous posts, I’ve argued that the Afghan war is unwinnable, Senior British officers agree. It is being waged for no clear reason. Certainly no member of the British Government has ever seriously explained why British soldiers are being sent there to be killed and wounded.
Joe Glenton, however, offers us a different perspective on the war. His defence lawyer said “He (Joe Glenton) thought he was going to help Afghanistan, to help the local people. The experience and the reality began to conflict with that.”
We are regularly told NATO forces are in Afghanistan to help the country.
It has been difficult to calculate the number of Afghan civilians killed. But, by every estimate, more have been killed by NATO forces than by the Taliban and Afghan warlords. One estimate reckons between four thousand and five and a half thousand killed by Afghans, but between five and a half thousand killed and eight and a half thousand killed by NATO.
There are also the indirect deaths, including a vast number of children who have died as a result of starvation; one Afghan estimate states that 120,000 Afghan civilians have been forced out of their homes.
How does killing Afghans help Afghanistan?
If neither the British or the American government can give a good reason for continuing the war, and if NATO forces have killed more innocent people than the Afghan forces, we should now judge the war as not only ill-conceived, not only unwinnable, but also immoral.
Joe Glenton went to Afghanistan hoping to help the Afghans. Our leaders affirm that to be the purpose of the war. Joe Glenton has given up 9 months of his life for protesting that if we cannot help the Afghans, we should bring the troops home.
You may not approve of War Resisters International. But if the war in Afghanistan continues, protest against it is bound to grow, and to become more violent.
How does killing Afghans help Afghanistan? Bring the troops home.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Participation Politics & Tony Benn
The Guardian on March 17th, 2005, contained an article by Tony Benn titled Not apathy, but anger.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.”
Tony Benn is living up to what he promised. He tours the country incessantly, calling on British citizens disillusioned with government, politicians, Parliament, and the inadequacy of a system which describes itself as democracy, but is not democracy, to take to the streets in public protest.
One of the causes for which he campaigns tirelessly is the call to bring back British troops from Afghanistan. Anyone who bothers to read history will know that no foreign power has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan.
The Afghan war is unwinnable. NATO should admit defeat, and if NATO insists on continuing to fight, Britain should anyhow withdraw its troops.
The Afghan war is unwinnable.
Bring the troops home.
See next post
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.”
Tony Benn is living up to what he promised. He tours the country incessantly, calling on British citizens disillusioned with government, politicians, Parliament, and the inadequacy of a system which describes itself as democracy, but is not democracy, to take to the streets in public protest.
One of the causes for which he campaigns tirelessly is the call to bring back British troops from Afghanistan. Anyone who bothers to read history will know that no foreign power has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan.
The Afghan war is unwinnable. NATO should admit defeat, and if NATO insists on continuing to fight, Britain should anyhow withdraw its troops.
The Afghan war is unwinnable.
Bring the troops home.
See next post
Thursday, 15 October 2009
The Emperor's New Clothes in Helmand
John Hutton, www.johnhuttonmp.co.uk/ epolitix.com apinfo.co.uk who, in June 2009, resigned as Minister of Defence, was interviewed as a Defence spokeman on Channel Four News www.channel4.com/news/last night (October 14th). He uttered the standard government pronouncement on the need to send more British troops to Afghanistan, ‘to finish the job there.’ In answer to one of Jon Snow’s interjections, www.channel4.com/news/authors.jsp, Hutton asseverated this was ‘not a political matter” because it was “a matter of UK national security.”
But why?
Why is making war on Afghanistan “a matter of UK national security”?
Has Afghanistan got nuclear weapons, and rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on London?
Has Afghanistan got a fleet of air craft carriers equipped with the latest aircraft such as the F/A-22 Raptor, the LCA, the EuroFighter 2000 Typhoon, the SU-47 (SU-37 Berkut). The SU-37Terminator, the MG/MAPO 1.42 MFI, the Aurora, the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Lightning II), the Chenghu J-10, the JF-17 Thunder (Chengu FRC-1), the V-22 Osprey?
How many regiments of Paratroopers does Afghanistan have? How many commandos of Marines?
How detailed is plan for the invasion of Britain which our intelligence forces have managed to steal from Taliban HQ?
Is there a fleet of Afghan submarines already patrolling the Atlantic western approaches ready to torpedo every oil tanker and merchant ship bringing fuel and food to embattled Britain?
How easily will the Afghan tanks be able to cross Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, not to mention the English Channel?
Have the Afghans worked out a plan to seize the Channel Tunnel, and roll their tanks along the railway line?
No one in government has ever properly explained why defending “UK national security” entails attacking Afghanistan. We are, indeed told that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. But they are also being trained in north-west Pakistan? Why are British troops not attacking Pakistan then?
I have not covered up the fact that this blog is written by a poet, and that the first person to become a follower of this blog is a song-writer. No one in authority takes any notice of poets. But possibly our craft is one of the best for training an ordinary adult to look at the world like a child. Let us remember Hans Andersen with his story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The NATO governments display their shows of force in Afghanistan, as the Emperor, strutting starkers, displayed his astonishing new costume. Let us be the little boy who sees the nakedness.
The only difference is that the little boy is laughing at the Emperor’s sagging belly and spotty bottom. We must weep as the corpses of our soldiers, killed as a result of bad decisions by our rulers, are brought home.
Let’s bring them home alive. Tony Benn says so, and this time certainly Tony Benn is right.
Leo Aylen
But why?
Why is making war on Afghanistan “a matter of UK national security”?
Has Afghanistan got nuclear weapons, and rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on London?
Has Afghanistan got a fleet of air craft carriers equipped with the latest aircraft such as the F/A-22 Raptor, the LCA, the EuroFighter 2000 Typhoon, the SU-47 (SU-37 Berkut). The SU-37Terminator, the MG/MAPO 1.42 MFI, the Aurora, the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Lightning II), the Chenghu J-10, the JF-17 Thunder (Chengu FRC-1), the V-22 Osprey?
How many regiments of Paratroopers does Afghanistan have? How many commandos of Marines?
How detailed is plan for the invasion of Britain which our intelligence forces have managed to steal from Taliban HQ?
Is there a fleet of Afghan submarines already patrolling the Atlantic western approaches ready to torpedo every oil tanker and merchant ship bringing fuel and food to embattled Britain?
How easily will the Afghan tanks be able to cross Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, not to mention the English Channel?
Have the Afghans worked out a plan to seize the Channel Tunnel, and roll their tanks along the railway line?
No one in government has ever properly explained why defending “UK national security” entails attacking Afghanistan. We are, indeed told that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. But they are also being trained in north-west Pakistan? Why are British troops not attacking Pakistan then?
I have not covered up the fact that this blog is written by a poet, and that the first person to become a follower of this blog is a song-writer. No one in authority takes any notice of poets. But possibly our craft is one of the best for training an ordinary adult to look at the world like a child. Let us remember Hans Andersen with his story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The NATO governments display their shows of force in Afghanistan, as the Emperor, strutting starkers, displayed his astonishing new costume. Let us be the little boy who sees the nakedness.
The only difference is that the little boy is laughing at the Emperor’s sagging belly and spotty bottom. We must weep as the corpses of our soldiers, killed as a result of bad decisions by our rulers, are brought home.
Let’s bring them home alive. Tony Benn says so, and this time certainly Tony Benn is right.
Leo Aylen
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
The Afghanistan Mistake
In ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ the Afghanistan war always comes up. How does Tony Benn react to the war there? He is highly intelligent and well-read; he knows history. His principle argument is incontrovertible.
NO ONE HAS EVER CONQUERED AFGHANISTAN.
The British tried three times in the nineteenth and early twentieth century: there were three Anglo-Afghan wars: in 1839 – 1842; in 1878 – 1881; and in 1919. The Soviet Union tried: their Afghan war lasted from 1979 – 1989, and ended in defeat and undignified withdrawl. In 2001 NATO forces invaded Afghanistan, and are fighting there still. NO FOREIGN POWER HAS EVER SUCCEEDED IN SUBDUING THE AFGHANS FOR LONG. Has there ever been any point in invading this wild mountainous country?
What arguments are there for continuing the Afghan war? Government spokesmen say Afghanistan is a training-ground for terrorists. But north-west Pakistan is an equally important training-ground. British ministers are obviously embarrassed by this fact, since Pakistan is officially an ally of the West. The Afghanistan war is justified as an attempt to control the production of opium, since most of the heroin sold on the streets of Europe and America is derived from Afghan opium. But nothing will stop the production of opium, as long as Afghan farmers earn vastly more for opium than for any other crop. So what use is the war?
I have the greatest respect for the soldiers fighting there. Of course it is dangerous, and uncomfortable. Nothing alters my respect for their bravery, fitness, and determination. But however brave they are, it does not alter the fact that they are fighting an unwinnable war in a country which is best left alone.
Every day ordinary lads in uniform perform acts of great bravery. The British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are highly trained professionals. Their wives and girl-friends, their parents and grandparents, accept their wounds and their deaths. But suppose the British Government had ordered conscription. When the United States fought and lost the war in Vietnam, their army of conscripts had no reason to behave with the restraint and discipline of professional soldiers. The Vietnam war damaged America hugely. Just imagine British conscripts fighting in Afghanistan, as the National Service boys fought in all those miserable so-called little wars of the 1940’s and 50’s. 21st century British conscripts in Afghanistan? They’d mutiny. But just because they are professionals it is still wrong to ask our soldiers to risk their lives in an unwinnable war. It is still wrong even though they remain silent and do not complain as conscripts surely would.
Admit defeat, and bring the troops home. How could any sane person not agree with Tony Benn?
NO ONE HAS EVER CONQUERED AFGHANISTAN.
The British tried three times in the nineteenth and early twentieth century: there were three Anglo-Afghan wars: in 1839 – 1842; in 1878 – 1881; and in 1919. The Soviet Union tried: their Afghan war lasted from 1979 – 1989, and ended in defeat and undignified withdrawl. In 2001 NATO forces invaded Afghanistan, and are fighting there still. NO FOREIGN POWER HAS EVER SUCCEEDED IN SUBDUING THE AFGHANS FOR LONG. Has there ever been any point in invading this wild mountainous country?
What arguments are there for continuing the Afghan war? Government spokesmen say Afghanistan is a training-ground for terrorists. But north-west Pakistan is an equally important training-ground. British ministers are obviously embarrassed by this fact, since Pakistan is officially an ally of the West. The Afghanistan war is justified as an attempt to control the production of opium, since most of the heroin sold on the streets of Europe and America is derived from Afghan opium. But nothing will stop the production of opium, as long as Afghan farmers earn vastly more for opium than for any other crop. So what use is the war?
I have the greatest respect for the soldiers fighting there. Of course it is dangerous, and uncomfortable. Nothing alters my respect for their bravery, fitness, and determination. But however brave they are, it does not alter the fact that they are fighting an unwinnable war in a country which is best left alone.
Every day ordinary lads in uniform perform acts of great bravery. The British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are highly trained professionals. Their wives and girl-friends, their parents and grandparents, accept their wounds and their deaths. But suppose the British Government had ordered conscription. When the United States fought and lost the war in Vietnam, their army of conscripts had no reason to behave with the restraint and discipline of professional soldiers. The Vietnam war damaged America hugely. Just imagine British conscripts fighting in Afghanistan, as the National Service boys fought in all those miserable so-called little wars of the 1940’s and 50’s. 21st century British conscripts in Afghanistan? They’d mutiny. But just because they are professionals it is still wrong to ask our soldiers to risk their lives in an unwinnable war. It is still wrong even though they remain silent and do not complain as conscripts surely would.
Admit defeat, and bring the troops home. How could any sane person not agree with Tony Benn?
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
The Anger of the Apathetic
As I said in my previous blog, The Guardian on March 17th, 2005, contained an article by Tony Benn www.tonybenn.com.archive.html titled Not apathy, but anger.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them.”
I think this is a serious challenge to the citizens of Britain. How can we best follow the implications of Tony Benn’s Guardian article? There are two ways in which to push the debate forward. The first is to consider how and where we, the citizens of Britain, can influence government, and take more part in government. This of course needs a huge amount of discussion, and will be developed later, Alternatively, we jump immediately into current political debates about urgent political problems. The two most obvious and most urgent are the war in Afghanistan and the ‘drugs problem.’ In his ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ Tony speaks eloquently on these two topics. There is no doubt where he stands on both these questions. For myself, I cannot see how any sensible person could disagree. Watch this space.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them.”
I think this is a serious challenge to the citizens of Britain. How can we best follow the implications of Tony Benn’s Guardian article? There are two ways in which to push the debate forward. The first is to consider how and where we, the citizens of Britain, can influence government, and take more part in government. This of course needs a huge amount of discussion, and will be developed later, Alternatively, we jump immediately into current political debates about urgent political problems. The two most obvious and most urgent are the war in Afghanistan and the ‘drugs problem.’ In his ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ Tony speaks eloquently on these two topics. There is no doubt where he stands on both these questions. For myself, I cannot see how any sensible person could disagree. Watch this space.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Guy Fawkes and Tony Benn
Not apathy, but anger, an article by Tony Benn www.tonybenn.com.archive.html news.bbc.co.uk in The Guardian of March 17th, 2005, contained this paragraph:
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them.”
My aim in writing The Guy Fawkes Option was to follow up on what Tony Benn wrote when he announced he was leaving Parliament to devote more time to politics. Tony himself tours Britain tirelessly; his message: politicians must not ignore the citizens of this country.
There is the reverse to this coin. The citizens of this country should start a continuous debate on how we can take more control of the way our nation is governed. I’ve called this project — an ongoing debate of citizens — The Guy Fawkes Option.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them.”
My aim in writing The Guy Fawkes Option was to follow up on what Tony Benn wrote when he announced he was leaving Parliament to devote more time to politics. Tony himself tours Britain tirelessly; his message: politicians must not ignore the citizens of this country.
There is the reverse to this coin. The citizens of this country should start a continuous debate on how we can take more control of the way our nation is governed. I’ve called this project — an ongoing debate of citizens — The Guy Fawkes Option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
