"One of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history"

July 15, 2005 5:53 PM

"One of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history" was how Booker Prize winning novelist & Sydney Peace Prize winner Arundhati Roy described the war against Iraq, in her opening speech on behalf of The Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal On Iraq.

She went on: The evidence collated in this tribunal should [...] be used by the International Criminal Court (whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize) to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now profit from it.
posted by UbuRoivas (61 comments total)

Well, I agree with her. What a shame it won't happen.
posted by Decani at 6:10 PM on July 15, 2005

Jeez, that's a nice speech. I don't necessarily agree with her, but, man.... well spoken.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:22 PM on July 15, 2005

The evidence collated in this tribunal should [...] be used by the International Criminal Court (whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize) to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now profit from it.

It's this kind of talk that really discredits war opponents, IMO. Sadly, without "message discipline" the right is good at casting all who oppose the war as pie-in-the sky peaceniks
posted by delmoi at 6:25 PM on July 15, 2005

John Dolan on Roy:

Great Literary Frauds of Our Time
posted by spacediver at 6:31 PM on July 15, 2005

Oh, I don't see what they're all worried about, everyone knows the left is all talk and no action, hell they're the perfect sock puppets 'Look, it's that evil left, look how dangerous they are (waves around wet paper bag with evil face drawn on it).
The left will kill us all if they have the chance (jumps up and down on worn out sock monkey)
They tried to kill my mother! (punches soft, fluffy bunny rabbit).
Yeah, that left, they'll be the doom of us all. . . If they ever actually *do* anything.
But in order for that to happen, there would need to be the leftist equivalent of community churches, lefties would have to lose their aversion to firearms and form their own counterpart to the National Rifle Association, if anything to frighten and intimidate the paranoid screwballs out there to just *shut up, shut up, shut up*
I guess they would have to aspire to jobs in corporate america so they could take back the reins of power from those who abuse it for their own ends, become involved in the local school boards, local business associations, local and national government and lobbies, take over the judiciary and the banks, why, they would have to do every single last thing the right has done over the past several years. They will have to or they will just be thought of as 'gutless wonders'.
Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go cower in a corner and piddle myself. Again.
posted by mk1gti at 6:37 PM on July 15, 2005

I'm in love.
posted by mondo dentro at 6:50 PM on July 15, 2005

spacediver, I agree with Dolan's sentiment, but on browsing his other articles, it seems, all he does is spew venom.
posted by daksya at 6:54 PM on July 15, 2005

I have a hard time grasping the concept of a "cowardly" war. Could someone interpret that statement for me? Someone who's won some sort of prize, preferably.
posted by shoos at 6:58 PM on July 15, 2005

John Dolan on Roy:

Thinly-disguised racism and a succession of straw men.
posted by Infinite Jest at 6:59 PM on July 15, 2005

John Dolan on Roy:
"In particular, a nuclear war between Pakistan and India has a lot to recommend it, above all the extinction of God knows how many plaster saints on the Gandhi/Roy/Baghwan model."

Wunnerful. John Dolan, another sterling example of the geniuses of the right.

It's this kind of talk that really discredits war opponents, IMO.

~guffaw~

I'm sure you're right. We really *must* learn to couch misguided outrage on trivialities like immoral wars being fought in our names with the proper euphemisms and weasel words.

Why, perhaps the Iraqi civilian death toll could be gently termed "inconvenienced-but-liberated-Iraqi-roster" or some such.

We do have to remember "message discipline."
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:02 PM on July 15, 2005

I have a hard time grasping the concept of a "cowardly" war. Could someone interpret that statement for me?

Sure, I'll have a go. You know how Bush and his fellow war crime defenders are always calling terrorists cowardly because they attack soft targets without any reasonable justification? See if you can extrapolate from there. I'm afraid I haven't won a prize since Speech Day 1973 at the grammar school, but hopefully that won't be too much of an impediment to understanding.
posted by Decani at 7:12 PM on July 15, 2005

Wars "fought in history" are rarely as satisfying as wars fought in realtime.
posted by longsleeves at 7:16 PM on July 15, 2005

Well, Dolan is right, at least, in that The God of Small Things is an execrable excuse for a novel. Other than that, he's a dick.
posted by solid-one-love at 7:17 PM on July 15, 2005

What's with the "brought to you by Enron" dealie on Dolan's site?
posted by undule at 7:19 PM on July 15, 2005

Whoo boy, is Roy in love with the sound of her own voice or what? Way to buck to replace Bono as World Peace Saint in 2020, girlfriend!
posted by gsh at 7:21 PM on July 15, 2005

To document the history of the war not from the point of view of the victors but of the temporarily - and I repeat the word temporarily - vanquished.

Roy thinks Saddam will rise again?

The assault on Iraq is an assault on all of us: on our dignity, our intelligence, and our future.

Agreed. I too am against suicide bombers killing the very Iraqis who are attempting to reconstruct their society after decades of totalitarianism. She's is talking about the suicide bombers, right?
posted by gwint at 7:23 PM on July 15, 2005

Decani, if that were her reasoning, shouldn't she have called it a "hypocritical" war (if that even makes sense)?
posted by shoos at 7:26 PM on July 15, 2005

Decani, if that were her reasoning, shouldn't she have called it a "hypocritical" war

I don't think that was actually her reasoning, shoos. I was being ironic. Terrible British habit; I apologise. I think her reasoning was more along the lines that it's cowardly to beat up the little kid just to make yourself feel better because somebody else beat you up. That kind of thing.
posted by Decani at 7:39 PM on July 15, 2005

I think we should rename MetaTalk the "World Tribunal on Metafilter."
posted by kickingtheground at 7:39 PM on July 15, 2005

John Dolan on Roy:
"In particular, a nuclear war between Pakistan and India has a lot to recommend it, above all the extinction of God knows how many plaster saints on the Gandhi/Roy/Baghwan model."

Wunnerful. John Dolan, another sterling example of the geniuses of the right.

Facetious meet f_and_m. f_and_m meet facetious.

If you think Dolan and the folks at The Exile are representatives of the right, you aren't reading very carefully. Enjoy more of his far-right extremism here [NSFW].
posted by drpynchon at 7:51 PM on July 15, 2005

Dr. John Dolan apparently is deep under the influence of Arundhati's spicy Indian love spell, and he's pretty mad about it.
posted by nervousfritz at 7:53 PM on July 15, 2005

i claim massive ignorance around the issue of Roy, having never read her and being more or less ignorant on the historical contexts - I just like Dolan's style :)
posted by spacediver at 8:02 PM on July 15, 2005

Why, perhaps the Iraqi civilian death toll could be gently termed "inconvenienced-but-liberated-Iraqi-roster" or some such.

We do have to remember "message discipline."

Now you're getting the hang of it.

Agreed. I too am against suicide bombers killing the very Iraqis who are attempting to reconstruct their society after decades of totalitarianism. She's is talking about the suicide bombers, right?

Lol. I can't belive people buy into this crap. At least you didn't call them "Hommocide bombers". People who live in iraq and agree with or work for us are "Iraqis" people who live in Iraq and dissagree with us are Insergents, and terrorists, etc.
posted by delmoi at 8:05 PM on July 15, 2005

I'd like to point out at this juncture that I won an award for big-wheel racing in elementary school. It is in the closet.

Well, I think the idea is that they are calling the people who orchestrate the war cowardly because of their association with the war. Because it is war against an unclear foe, against ideology, and it is fought against people by accusing them falsely. Ultimately, I think it speaks to the lying. Also the general human intuition/cliche that "picking on somebody weaker than you is cowardly."

If the war had been fought "Bravely," it would I suppose have involved relying on a neutral or more general arbitrator to give us some just cause, and then, to be even more chivalrous, had us only fighting with volunteers (volunteering for this war specifically, and with no economic/class pressures), with the same numbers and technology as the Iraqis, with the people who proposed the war leading the charge on white stallions, being the first to fall for what they believed in. (I know I'm being ridiculous here, but if you want to talk about not understanding why somebody might call the war cowardly, well....)

(If I was going to talk about bizarre language, I'd say the "erupting cheekbones" comment from the Dolan article creeped me out a lot more. Sounds like it involves a compound fracture.)

Also why is Gandhi tedious? Other than that Dolan seemed to have a reasonable position, and it did get pretty funny-smart toward the end.
posted by SomeOneElse at 8:23 PM on July 15, 2005

in her opening speech on behalf of The Jury of Conscience

Wow, that's impressive. "The Jury of Conscience." How does one go about becoming a member of such an enlightened body? I'm surprised they didn't go whole hog and call themselves "The Jury of Good People Who Are Right."
posted by pardonyou? at 8:36 PM on July 15, 2005

Not the World Tribunal On Iraq? And you say she won a literary award and received a peace prize from an Australian non-profit organization? Well then.

I strongly and actively opposed this war long before it started and I continue to oppose its conduct. I voted against its proponents in every election that has occurred in my state. But dressing up this peace activist protest, which is all this is and nothing more, in this garb of ersatz formality and legalistic jargon accomplishes precisely nothing.

Here's an alternate title for this post: "Peaceniks oppose Iraq war." Everybody knows what us fucking liberals are against, okay? Meanwhile I'm quite certain that unless there is some radical and effective change in political liberalism, the GOP is going to ride this mess to at least four and possibly eight more years of occupation of the White House. But I'm sure all those dead Iraqis really appreciate that no less than the World Tribunal on Iraq produced some documents on how wrong it all was. Nothing like watching the good guys get their asses kicked at real politics.
posted by nanojath at 8:55 PM on July 15, 2005

Lol. I can't belive people buy into this crap. At least you didn't call them "Hommocide bombers". People who live in iraq and agree with or work for us are "Iraqis" people who live in Iraq and dissagree with us are Insergents, and terrorists, etc.

Riiiight. Because the suicide bombers are fighting a war of liberation against an occupying army by blowing up Iraq army recruits and kidnapping members of the professional class (engineers, doctors, technocrats), and because the Mukbarat and a Jordanian who pledges allegiance to a Saudi speak for the Iraqi people. Lol?
posted by gwint at 9:00 PM on July 15, 2005

Dolan:
... and a fake saint who fucked her way to fame and survives, in spite of her complete lack of talent...

Umm.. yeah.

It's fine to not like her book. It's fine to have a moral position against her supposed upbringing that seemingly justifies her stated position on a number of issues. However, his whole article screams sexist/racist asshat.

Dr. John Dolan shows every symptom of being threatened by a successful young woman. Add the racist bent and regardless of his credentials, or his "pretty funny-smart[ness]" I cannot believe that anyone enjoyed that hate-filled article. It made me feel incredibly uncomfortable.
posted by purephase at 9:48 PM on July 15, 2005

heh - you want more vitriol check out Dead Catholics

btw the War Nerd is a great column on that site
posted by spacediver at 10:01 PM on July 15, 2005

Just to balance out the venom of that Dolan link, I'll go on record as saying I thought The God of Small Things was one of the finest novels I've read in the last decade.

Also that the kind of bitter, envious twats like this Dolan fellow who accuse someone like Roy of being insufficiently lower-caste-Keralan to bring authenticity to her story would never dream of suggesting that Faulkner's pale skin and non-retardedness veto the literary merits of The Sound and the Fury.

Also that I'll take Roy's traces of self-righteousness over the hateful lies of the perpetrators of the war on Iraq any ole day, and I have to listen to their torrents of bullshit daily, not once in a blue moon when someone convenes a "World Tribunal."

Also - and here I'm a lamb slathered in rich marinade in a pit of literary wolves - but also that I preferred The God of Small Things to The Sound and the Fury.
posted by gompa at 10:58 PM on July 15, 2005

Is there anything like proof, any supporting evidence, for Dolan's accusations?

About Roy's, well, the USA did go beat up and conquer a weak country. Again.
posted by davy at 11:52 PM on July 15, 2005

Dolan (again):
... well, you da big Bombay dotheaded nuke BOMB, baby! The next big thing at the Starbucks Book Club! Poisonwood Bible with a tabla beat! The Shipping News with extra masala! Hold the dahl and pass the adjectives!

I have to apologize. This Dolan link really, really bothers me. I have read it over a number of times now and I have a hard time believing that people are actually referring to it in this thread and standing behind it.

I'm trying my best to not be a troll about this whole thing, but my concern over that aspect is overruled by my complete bafflement as to why this article was even referenced. Are the posters actually in agreement with Dolan?
posted by purephase at 11:59 PM on July 15, 2005

Personally I think Dolan's a total dick; I'm looking for proof that he's not also a total liar.
posted by davy at 12:01 AM on July 16, 2005

Also that I'll take Roy's traces of self-righteousness over the hateful lies of the perpetrators of the war on Iraq any ole day, and I have to listen to their torrents of bullshit daily, not once in a blue moon when someone convenes a "World Tribunal."

Golan, I trust you weren't referring to Dolan being a war supporter
posted by spacediver at 12:04 AM on July 16, 2005

I'm trying my best to not be a troll about this whole thing, but my concern over that aspect is overruled by my complete bafflement as to why this article was even referenced. Are the posters actually in agreement with Dolan?

I can't speak for the others, but I referenced it since I thought it would add valuable discussion. More of a selfish thing - I'm too lazy to read her, or educate myself on the literary contexts, so I can't really form an educated opinion on Dolan's piece.

Figured you guys might help :)
posted by spacediver at 12:10 AM on July 16, 2005

The entire point of the eXile is to spew venom. I mean, shit, they even have a deathporn section from time to time...
posted by hototogisu at 12:20 AM on July 16, 2005

spacediver - no thanks for the Dolan derail.

spacediver - war nerd kicks ass!
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:52 AM on July 16, 2005

ah but it had the potential not to derail, but to enrich the journey!

ok perhaps that's an abuse of the metaphor.
posted by spacediver at 1:03 AM on July 16, 2005

Kind of did this world tribunal thing a couple of weeks ago. But I must admit, it was an afterthought link for me in that it holds about zero sway and the outcome was a foregone conclusion given the makeup of the tribunal.
posted by peacay at 2:59 AM on July 16, 2005

"cowardly war":

how about when you sort of invade a country, with the excuse that you're kicking them out of a country which *they* invaded, and then you stop half-way cuz you realize that they're too well armed and dug-in to succeed with sufficient ease that you won't have to face the political consequences of the casualties which you will necessarily incur - SO - you lobby the international community to cut off all supplies of strategic materials and technology, bomb them, starve them etc. for oh, say, about 12 years, then you really turn on the heat and tell them that you're going to invade them if they don't prove they aren't building weapons, and then you use the international community for cover *again* and inspect the fuck out of them to make sure that they don't have anything dangerous to throw at you, like, missiles that go more than 50 miles or what have you - BUT THEN - you say, oh my GAWD they're building all kinds of TERRIBLE weapons WMD WMD WMD!!!!!!! (even though you know they aren't, you get up in front of the world and lie lie lie *snicker*) - AND FINALLY - when you've made damn sure that this tiny little country with a big pile of oil is almost completely defenceless, you go ahead and invade them.

does this qualify?
posted by dinsdale at 5:49 AM on July 16, 2005

shoos: if you want a good understanding about cowardly war and why this one in particular is, you should read Future: Tense: The Coming World Order by Gwynne Dyer, which was also discussed here. He's a war historian, and I don't know if he's won any prizes, but he may well have. It's a great read from someone who has a very indepth understanding about the causes of war.
posted by fossil_human at 6:17 AM on July 16, 2005

peacay: missed yr link the other week. sure, the tribunal is one-sided, but AR mentions that aspect, saying "well, the Koalition of the Killing has had one-sided propaganda all along; this is just the perspective of the other side..."

dinsdale: spot on. as patti smith quipped: "no chivalry involved, no bushido"
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:01 AM on July 16, 2005

The evidence collated in this tribunal should [...] be used by the International Criminal Court (whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize) to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now profit from it.

In other news, the ICC has refused to comment on this ongoing investigation.
posted by Rothko at 7:13 AM on July 16, 2005

I think this writer should give a recap of the Top 10 Most Cowardly Wars of The Last 100 Years, just for context.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:38 AM on July 16, 2005

It's this kind of talk that really discredits war opponents, IMO. Sadly, without "message discipline" the right is good at casting all who oppose the war as pie-in-the sky peaceniks

I've been saying this (more or less) for awhile. Stop making sense, delmoi.
posted by jonmc at 8:01 AM on July 16, 2005

Dolan is a sexist, racist, ignorant fuck too offensive to get picked up by any publication except an obscure site in Russia that makes FunReports.com look like a bastion of serious journalism.

This link on the eXile's sidebar was most interesting: "Do Jews Drink Blood Of Christian Babes On Passower? an eXile Street Poll..."
posted by clevershark at 10:35 AM on July 16, 2005

Dolan is a sexist...

Dolan on Andrea Dworkin: Exterminate the Men

his link on the eXile's sidebar was most interesting: "Do Jews Drink Blood Of Christian Babes On Passower? an eXile Street Poll..."

please tell me you detected the sarcasm :p
posted by spacediver at 10:53 AM on July 16, 2005

Ouch. How cynical is that, dinsdale, saying the USA only starts wars with countries it knows to be almost entirely defenseless?

Mind, the USA only entered WWII after it was clear the Axis was going to lose...
posted by five fresh fish at 10:59 AM on July 16, 2005

If anything seemed clear in late 1941, it would have been the reverse. The Axis countries were running roughshod over the world, and kept right on doing so for another year, year and a half. The only limited exception was Britain, who had successfully fought off the Luftwaffe but was being starved by the Kriegsmarine. Absent the convoy trains from the US, they could have staged Sealion 2 in 1943 or 4..
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:31 AM on July 16, 2005

Dinsdale, fossil_human: I still don't get it. It just sounds like Roy had a place in her speech where a good insulting adjective should go and happened to pick that one cause it flowed well with the rest of the sentence. Aesthetically, it does the job for the audience - who for the most part don't care which negative qualities are attributed to their foes - but it otherwise makes no sense. Like when someone referred to the 9/11 hijackers as "cowards." Assholes yes, but cowards?

And that book you linked to - how it explains her usage of the word is also not at all apparent to me, judging from the editorial review. (Do I need to read the entire thing to get the point?)

The strong attacking the weak doesn't by itself constitute cowardice. Maybe she wanted to say "dishonorable war"? I get the feeling she's a good writer but not a good thinker.
posted by shoos at 11:39 AM on July 16, 2005

Like when someone referred to the 9/11 hijackers as "cowards."

Ah, yes, that would be the White House. So maybe she's being "ironic"?
posted by mek at 3:56 PM on July 16, 2005

Some more Roy: Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy,
What We Call Peace is Little Better Than Capitulation To a Corporate Coup. Profile here.

Interesting fact from her campaign against a dam in India:
Opponents of the project say it will harm small farmers and displace tens of thousands of villagers. Roy donated her Booker Prize winnings – about $30,000 – to the campaign against the dam.

BTW, she's gorgeous.
posted by Aknaton at 6:17 PM on July 16, 2005

Gee, how long ago was it that they *swore* that the ICC would *never* be used to harass and annoy US politicians and military personnel?

Other than having been the brainchild of a *real* neo-fascist movement in Germany, what is this ridiculous thingy, which is neither truly international, nor part of the UN, nor really much of anything other than an ad-hoc assemblage of those who *do* wish to pester US politicians?

International Criminal Court. Yeah, right. Judge Judy.
posted by kablam at 8:57 PM on July 16, 2005

"I still don't get it."

Because you still don't want to. So be it. It's impossible to awaken someone who is pretending to be asleep...
posted by dinsdale at 11:55 PM on July 16, 2005

Other than having been the brainchild of a *real* neo-fascist movement in America, what is this ridiculous thingy, which is neither truly international, nor part of the UN, nor really much of anything other than an ad-hoc assemblage of those who *do* wish to pester bomb the fuck out of steal the oil of Iraqis?
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:06 AM on July 17, 2005

Sadly, without "message discipline" the right is good at casting all who oppose the war as pie-in-the sky peaceniks

"We *know* where the WMDs are; they are in the area around Baghdad and Tikrit" - Donald Rumsfeld, the master of message discipline & 'terrorists-under-our-beds' warnik.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:18 AM on July 17, 2005

Metafilter: a lamb slathered in rich marinade in a pit of literary wolves.
posted by Space Kitty at 3:50 PM on July 17, 2005

Haven't conservatives already shot all of the fish in this particular barrel?
posted by rush at 3:36 PM on July 18, 2005

You need to be a colossal a-hole to be convinced there are, and were no WMDs in Iraq. You could pretty much hide a 10 million deaths supply of certain materials in, say, some warehouse in Queens (NYC) for years without anyone finding them; a 500,000 death supply in a much smaller space. The certainty with which people rant on this subject, in light of Saddam having used WMDs to kill so many people; and with the UN being so disgustingly corrupt, itself a political crime.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:56 PM on July 18, 2005

Colossal a-holes include a thirty year veteran of the swedish foreign service, and head of the IAEA, the handpicked "chief US Inspector" that replaced him, and the chief architect of this whole mess: the President of the United States

Finally Paris, something we can agree on.
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:33 PM on July 18, 2005

pp: free speech is a political crime?
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:22 AM on July 19, 2005