'Red man' speak with forked tongue!

It has been a busy week for me, hence the delay in posting, and also the delay in responding to Meaders' comment below.  I have decided to bring it up here as the basis of a new post.  His full comment can be read below but here I will simply repeat the key paragraph:

"I've discussed with you, at greater length than it merits, the distinction between "necessary" and "possible" means. I am more than happy to repeat the slogan "by any means necessary". I have used it in the past. It denotes the strong connection between means and ends that is vital if any moral sense is to be given to political decisions: it states that only those means absolutely needed for a given ends should be used, and that this should be a maximum of force. It is stands in stark opposition to the phrase "by any means possible"."

For those new to this discussion, it concerns a slogan issued by the fascists in the SWP in support of the Iraqi terrorists which urged them to achieve their ends "by any means necessary".  This slogan was given unequivocal support by Meaders, the 'red man' of my title.  I mis-quoted this slogan as 'by all means possible' and Meaders is affronted.  Apparently there is a difference.  At odd moments during this week I have attempted to 'spot the difference'.  The only one I could think of, and it is more of a nuance than a difference, is that 'all means possible' implies that some are not 'possible', at least, not yet!  For example, they don't actually possess a nuclear now, but if they did, well then, it would be used because it was 'possible' to use it.

The slogan preferred by Meaders has no limits at all.  "Any means necessary" precludes nothing.  He tries to put a spurious limit on it by adding the phrase "... needed for a given ends ..."  What that means is that  you can explode a car bomb in the middle of a crowd of children if it is part of your political campaign, but you can't do it for 'kicks'.  But lest his 'comrades', the likes of 'lenin' and the dreadful 'bionoc', think he's going a bit soft, he adds that these "necessary means" "... should be a maximum of force".  So, if al Zakhari decides, again, that it is "necessary" in furtherance of his campaign to tempt unemployed Iraqis into an area in the false hope of jobs, and then blow them to bits, well, Meaders will no doubt shrug, and mutter something about omelettes and eggs; now, remind me, who was it who was fond of using that old proverb?

I need to add one further point lest I stand accused of inconsistency.  I make no complaint about the means employed by the Iraqi terrorists.  It is a war, and war tends to deteriorate quickly into beastliness.  Both sides do whatever has to be done in order to win.  The means employed are outside the scope of conventional, personal morality.  They can only be judged, usually in retrospect, by their success or failure.  But Meaders prides himself as a tribune of the people.  He joins with those who utterly condemn any action taken by Anglo/American forces that might lead to injury or death to an Iraqi citizen whilst simultaneously urging the terrorsits to let rip amongst the very people he is supposed to love.  The stench of hypocrisy is overpowering!

Comments

[dearieme]

"Whatever it takes" is a pretty nasty prescription too, isn't it?

[David Duff]

Both slogans are dreadful in their implications, 'Dearieme', but not wrong. Clausewitze points out the necessity for war to be waged ruthlessly in order for an outcome to brought about as quickly as possible. Of course, he was writing in a time where there was no strategic or tactical advantage in deliberately attacking civilians - although, a 'scorched earth' policy came close.

As far as I can judge, Zakhari and his cohorts are seeking to inflame a civil war between Sunnis and Shias which is their only path to power. Such a conflagration combined with American casualties is likely to cause the Americans to throw up their arms in despair, and depart. To achieve this aim, the whole of Iraqi society must be de-stabilised by vicous attacks on *civilians*. It ain't pretty, but war ever was.

However, the truly sickening sight is that of Meaders and his SWP fascists urging ruthlessness on the part of Zakhari, but denigrating any response from the Americans. You could call his attitude 'Nelsonian', if it weren't so corrupt.