An Obsession with George

This Spiked article is worth reading (via).

This is a particularly insightful analysis.

As each of these moral arguments has crumbled in the face of reality, the war's supporters have had to reach a little lower into the barrel to find a new one. Each time, the result has been further to expose the lack of a coherent case for the war. Now, after all the dodgy dossiers and dubious claims, they have touched the bottom. 'Look at Galloway making an idiot of himself!', they say. 'How could he be right about Iraq?'

Sound familiar? Here's the clincher:

[T]he fact that the self-styled leader of the anti-war movement is self-evidently a pillock is not in itself a justification for the invasion of a sovereign state.

I wonder if anyone at Harry's Place has read that? It could well have been written especially for those guys and their apparent obsession with the Gorgeous one. Lot's of people who opposed the invasion agree that Galloway is a self-obsessed arse. So what? Play the ball, not the arse.

But they're struggling with that. Their last post actually on the subject of Iraq was this from January 20th.

Secularists will hold the balance of power in the Iraqi parliament if the initial election results are correct: Read the whole story here.

Er? I've read that article. After some consideration, I'm guessing that the claim in the post relates to this paragraph:

Despite Sunni accusations of widespread electoral fraud, informal talks have already begun between the main Sunni block and the Kurds over the formation of a consensus government. Many observers believe the Sunnis could be offered the important defence portfolio to secure their collaboration.

The main Sunni block is the Iraqi Accordance Front ( 44 seats). They are Sunni Islamists. They are not a secular party. Unless some sort of miracle occurs, the secular parties are going to be on the outside looking in. Despite my objections to the war, I genuinely wish that Marcus was right. But I'm afraid he's not. If I was being unkind, I'd say he's talking out of his galloway.

What we really need now is an honest debate about what we're going to do next in Iraq. What are we going to do about the fact that Shiite Islamic fundies are the dominant force in the new Iraq? How will we react if, as seems likely, the new Iraqi government is generally supportive of Iran's nuclear ambitions? These are very serious questions and we desperately need a competant prime minister to deal with them. What we don't need is more of the fairytale optimism which characterised so many "pro-war" views in the first place.

I'm not trying to start a flame war with HP and have no particular disagreement with them. They are the most prominent "pro-war" blog I know in the UK, so that's why they tend to end up here on occassion. And there are a few of them so they've got moral support if they notice that some random blogger has been slagging them off.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Georgeous George