The Innocence Of Argentina
In his political obituary of the late Francis Pym which appears on today's 'Comment is Free', the distinguished baldy and homme serieux Michael White writes of the Falklands War that,
"Pym's instincts were to cut a deal and avoid bloodshed - so far from home. But neither the Argentine junta, in its way as innocent of war (though not of torture) as Mrs Thatcher, nor the Iron Lady herself, was in the mood for compromise."
No, mate. They were not 'innocent of war'; they invaded British territory. The junta were a shower of warmongering bastards; and I'm afraid that the only prism through which the junta could be 'innocent of war' in that context is one prepared to stretch notions of law and the rule of law to breaking point.
In its way, of course.
| 10 blogger comments
| links to this post
10 Blogger Comments:
Yet across the breakfast tables of Islington a thousand heads were nodding in agreement with the great Sir Michael's analysis. They well remember how a couple of thousand young Argentinians were quietly cleaning their rifles and counting sheep when the warmongering THATCHER invaded these peaceful islands.
I hated Thatcher, but in the Falklands War she had my 100% support.
And as for the Belgrano - the fucker would never have even made it out of port if I'd been in charge.
I think that Sir Michael was trying to say that the Argie junta, for all their gold braid, were innocent of the realities of war, only being good for torturing their own people. Thatch was also innocent of the realities of war, in a way that Pym was not, having been a veteran of WWII. However, the fact is that the Junta were never going to back down, and the Falklands War had to be fought.
Politicians like Pym could never really get beyond the idea that Britain was doomed to decline, and that the art of politics was to manage that decline gracefully. It is no wonder he could not cope with a politician who could not stand the concept of defeat. And Sir Michael White is still a cunt.
The title of this post sounds like it should be some strange magic-realist novel in which the tragic heroine turns into a butterfly for no particular reason and lives on the ceiling of her unfaithful lover's bedroom.
Of course, Michael White is quite a different kind of insect. But his comment about Argentina is a great demonstration of the Guardianista mindset. General Galtieri's junta becomes innocent simply because it opposed Britain. As such it is a reminder of the utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy of a "left" that is ready to lionise anybody who opposes Britain/America/The West, regardless of what those people actually stand for.
I put "left" in sneer quotes because anybody who really believed in equality and internationalism would have despised Galtieri's nationalist military despotism (not to mention Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, etc.).
So White also illustrates the sheer laziness of Guardianism. By reducing everything to a simplistic dogma in which British is always bad the Guardianistas save themselves the effort of thinking seriously about anything. They assiduously avoid any troubling complexities while congratulating themselves on their sophistication.
In the end, it's just leftism as a fashion accessory.
When he says "innocent of war", I strongly suspect, from the context, that the words should be parsed as "ignorant of war" or "inexperienced about war".
I don't think he's saying that the junta was somehow not responsible for starting the war but rather that they did not understand what the implications of a war with Britain would be.
And, indeed, the junta seems to have expected Britain simply to roll over an accede to their demands; the junta's expectations were that the "war" would be over on April 2nd.
The author used a term which was unfortunately more opaque and ambiguous than it ought to have been, but I do not get the impression he's trying to absolve the junta of their responsibility for starting the war and directly causing all the suffering that derived from it.
My tuppence worth.
Anon, you are being kind to the disgusting Michael White. He is a professional journalist & surely knew the meaning of the words he was using.
I can't see that Thatcher was 'innocent of war' in 1982. She had us shooting to kill in NI for years and I'm sure was well aware of the regular carnage there.
Only 60 billion barrels of oil in the Falklands. I can't see the feckless gauchos were interested in that one little bit....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/09/wfalk109.xml
Pym - self loather. Appeaser.
"I can't see that Thatcher was 'innocent of war' in 1982. She had us shooting to kill in NI for years and I'm sure was well aware of the regular carnage there.!
a strange comment, in fact she'd only been PM for 3 years at this time and had not that much experience of it all, hunger strikes notwithstanding of course.Anyway most of the "carnage" was caused by the terrorists, not the security forces. I know what i'sm talking about, I served 9 tours of duty there!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home