Wednesday, February 04, 2004
An Inquiry Into the Circumstances Surrounding Harry Hatchet's Idiocy. posted by Richard Seymour
Something of a cuckoo in an already asinine nest, Harry Hatchet has decided to befoul His Place with a call to conduct a "People's Enquiry" into the antiwar movement. The remit includes:"1. Did the anti-war movement mislead the public with their predictions about the war?
2. Did the anti-war movement betray the basic principles of anti-fascism and international solidarity?
3. Was the anti-war movement, while professing to be merely a collective of peace-loving protestors, a front for organisations who were/are actually supporting the 'other side' in the war and the subsequent occupation?"
It seems extraordinary that Harry 'Hatchet' Saunders would credit the antiwar movement with the same powers as the government and even more so that he thinks the Stop the War Coalition has the same access to self-occlusion as the government. After all, it isn't as if it would be difficult to discover the answers to his silly questions.
Let's take them one by one. Did the antiwar movement mislead the public with their predictions about the war? We said that this would cost many lives, and it has. We said that coalition authorities would not be welcomed, and they were not . We said that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and there aren't . We said that there were other means of achieving what the United States publicly stated they wanted, and there were .
In all of these respects, the predictions of the antiwar movement came closer to the reality than those of pro-war apologists. Not that every single predication can have been right. Some antiwar protesters thought Iraq would be another Vietnam. That may yet transpire, but it didn't materialise during the occupation, even against the initial assumptions of many leading Generals and pro-war columnists, for the obvious reason that the Republican Guard was not all it was cracked up to be Saddam could never have dreamed of being the international threat he was made out to be.
Did the anti-war movement betray the basic principles of anti-fascism and international solidarity? Well, if Harry wanted international solidarity, he could hardly have done better than the antiwar movement . There has never been such a deep and broad international consensus, crossing all borders including the Iraqi border . As for anti-fascism, I wonder if Harry would be good enough to explain how he deduces that the United States government has, after all these years, suddenly decided to embrace the cause of anti-fascism? Perhaps he could explain this to the residents of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan etc? Unfortunately Harry's point reduces itself to the standard neoconservative thought that anyone who opposes US aggression must necessarily support whoever the enemy-of-the-month happens to be. A vacant line of discussion. Nevertheless, if we're to talk of apologists here, what do we call someone who exerts every fibre in his being to avoid discussion of the lies and murderous activities of our own government, preferring to discuss the vicissitudes of involvement in an antiwar movement?
The final question Harry raises is certainly the most painfully easy to answer. No. The antiwar movement was not a front for organisations supporting Saddam Hussein. I doubt as much as 1% of those who joined the massive February 15th demonstration had any kindly feelings toward Saddam. It simply isn't worth discussing, but again, it's very useful to those who wish to avoid looking at our own government, its actions, and its mendacity.
So I propose exactly what the title of this blog suggests. We should enquire into exactly how far Harry's stupidity and ignorance will stretch, what the history is, what are his motives, what's he hiding? Answers may be deposited in the Comments box.