George Orwell on Iraq?

TomF

I just read an old Jonah Goldberg column which referred to a George Orwell essay which I then read. Both seem instructive to us who think that the war against terrorism (Afghanistan, Iraq) is going disastrously for the Americans.

First Goldberg:
"Until a house is completed, it's useless as a house. The rain falls through the top, the stove doesn't work, the toilets don't flush. As a house, an unfinished house is a total disaster. This is especially so very early in the construction process, when it's often just a giant hole in the ground with a bunch of workmen scratching their exposed posteriors at $35 an hour. In a certain sense, an unfinished house is worse than no house at all: It's more expensive, time-consuming, and complicated.

This principle is not unique to houses; it also applies to… well, let's see. Omelets are a mess and a waste of food until they're cooked. Cars are a lot of useless and expensive metal and rubber until they work. Football games are a bunch of guys running around and hitting each other until the final score tells us who was better at it… And, oh, yeah: Wars are a colossal fog of whirling confusions and unknown banshees, consuming time, money, emotions, geography, and of course lives — until someone wins."
Jonah Goldberg, "War and Patience"
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg110901.shtml


Then Orwell (writing about the predictions of an American, James Burnham):
"Political predictions are usually wrong, because they are usually based on wish-thinking, but they can have symptomatic value, especially when they change abruptly. Often the revealing factor is the date at which they are made. Dating Burnham’s various writings as accurately as can be done from internal evidence, and then noting what events they coincided with, we find the following relationships:

In The Managerial Revolution Burnham prophesies a German victory, postponement of the Russo-German war until after Britain is defeated, and, subsequently, the defeat of Russia. The book, or much of it, was written in the second half of 1940—i.e. at a time when the Germans had overrun western Europe and were bombing Britain, and the Russians were collaborating with them fairly closely, and in what appeared, at any rate, to be a spirit of appeasement.

In the supplementary note added to the English edition of the book, Burnham appears to assume that the U.S.S.R. is already beaten and the splitting-up process is about to begin. This was published in the spring of 1942 and presumably written at the end of 1941; i.e. when the Germans were in the suburbs of Moscow.

The prediction that Russia would gang up with Japan against the USA was written early in 1944, soon after the conclusion of a new Russo-Japanese treaty.

The prophecy of Russian world conquest was written in the winter of 1944, when the Russians were advancing rapidly in eastern Europe while the Western Allies were still held up in Italy and northern France.

It will be seen that at each point Burnham is predicting a continuation of the thing that is happening. Now the tendency to do this is not simply a bad habit, like inaccuracy or exaggeration, which one can correct by taking thought. It is a major mental disease, and its roots lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice.

George Orwell, "Second thoughts on James Burnham"
http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/jamesburnham.html

Biffa Bacon

You should also read this excellent (as usual) piece by Victor David Hanson at NRO: These Are Historic Times

Actually, you should just read anything by VDH if you want to find out the truth about the War on Terror, as opposed to the propaganda bull**** anti-American anti-Israeli pro-terrorist lies fed to us by the independent, not-for-profit media.

Sand

Yep.

When you look back at the trends in the war on terror the forecasts of victory or utter defeat seem to swing practically week to week.

Afghanistan was a case in point.

Iraq was also. First Saddam and his people would fight to the very death. Then when the Americans and British started advancing people couldnt seem to understand why they werent in Baghdad yesterday. Then when logistical porblems started popping up the merchants of doom and gloom popped up again. Baghdad was untakeable, tens of thousands of Americans would die trying to take it from fanatical militia men. Then the Americans took it fairly easily and again the criticism swung from the Capital not being unconquerable but that it wasnt taken as quickly as it should. Once the former regime was deposed people started acting like the Ameircans should have brought along a ACME country building kit and fixed the place up in a week. When some guerilla bands showed up popped the prophets of doom again. Iraq will never know peace. The Guerrillas will take back Iraq by stealth. Iraqis arent ready for democracy . The spectre of vietnam rises once more!!!!!

Relax lads. Chill out. Have a pint and sit back down. Come back in ten years time and see where Iraq is. Same goes for Afghanistan. It took 5 years for West Germany to elect its own recognised government after the war, after a process of denazification. Im sure they had people bemoaning the fact it wasnt done in a wet weekend too but hey.

And cheers for the links Tom. Very interesting article by Orwell. Quote worthy stuff indeed given the times we live in.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
find out the truth about the War on Terror, as opposed to the propaganda bull**** anti-American anti-Israeli pro-terrorist lies fed to us by the independent, not-for-profit media.

LOL ... you think the National Review is a non-biased, more truthful publication than main-stream media

Media that criticises the establishments you believe in or support isn't necessarily lying ... biased media such as the NRO, that while attacking one side of the argument, refuses to take criticism of its own position, is an affront to journalism.

In mainstream media you will get the view point of both conservatives and liberals. The only time a liberal is mentioned in the NRO is when they have done something wrong, or to say that they are all traitors to their country.

Just because you don't share the view point of liberals or anti-war supporters doesn't mean that them being allowed air time is an act of propagranda or a lie. The neo-conservatives seem to think that the simple fact that liberals are shown on mainstream news is a signal that mainstream news is biased to their view point. Unless a news outlet refused to put broadcast or print any expression of a liberal view point, they are considered liberal biased. That is why you get such obviously one-sided conservative news shows such as FOX proclaiming that they are the only non-biased and fair shows. The criteria for this seems to be that they attack any form of liberal ideas, or that they simply don't show them in the first place

THe NRO is a completely one sided source of conservative propaganda .. that is fine if you like that sort of thing, and there are plenty of liberal sources of left wing propaganda. But please don't pretend that it is a responsible journalistic publication.

Anyways .. back to the topic ..