Skip to main content


I opposed the Iraq War, while living in Paris, in 2003, and edited some anthologies at the time to help protest that illegal war.  It is therefore reasonable that some people have asked where I stand on a possible coalition of willing Western powers, planning to bomb Assad's forces.

Let us first recognise the cruel paradox of using military force to punish the use of certain lethal weapons.  On the one hand, the use of chemical weapons is surely no worse than the atomic bombs invented by the Americans, and foisted on the Japanese public horrendously, thereby altering mankind's sense of danger and evil.  On the other, using chemical weapons against unarmed civilians, let alone one's own citizens, must surely rank as one of the most vile acts a government's army can perpetrate; it is almost the definition of criminality.

The reason is, that, after WWI, the horrors of the gas attacks was seen by all, and some strange line of humanity was worked out, among agreeable nations.

So - if any war is just - and I think the war to defeat Germany in the 1940s was very just - then a warlike punishment of chemical weapons use by any government seems at least morally defensible; if, arguably, hypocritical to some degree, since some weapons used by Western powers even today are equally cruel, if not as taboo.

Given the situation and the likelihood that, if not punished, the Assad regime will continue to kill and maim children and other innocent people (as well as rebels, who, depending on your politics are also innocent); and given that stopping any mass murder of children is especially to be welcome, it seems that, on the balance of things, a limited and cautious use of aerial bombardment, aimed at military and government assets only, is a reasonable response, under international law, regarding proportional use of force in war.

Sadly, even such limited expression of violent power will lead to the loss of innocent life - maybe even Western military personnel - and may not end the regime's war aims.  As such, this may lead to mission creep, and the overthrow of the regime, as happened in Libya.  As we saw there, this has led to chaos and violence on a large scale, though a dictatorial and insane regime was defeated.

That may be a step too far, given the consequences, but again, weighing the good with the bad, the sooner this regime is gone, the better for the people of Syria.  Correct me if I am wrong.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…