7/11/2006
Runciman: Good Intensions...
David Runciman: The Politics of Good Intensions: History, Fear and Hypocrisy in the New World Order
Hardcover: 224 pages
Publisher: Princeton University Press 2006
ISBN: 0-691-12566-X
Runciman, using a historical perspective (instead of news or election timescales) goes to argue that many features branded as new in the War on Terror are not new. Runciman's argument is that the War on Terror has created a permanent epoch of exceptions, double standards and hypocritical risk assessments - all features that render political debates useless and leave many disillusioned bystanders hearing preaching but seeing Machtpolitik.
Tony Blair, whose Icarian nature is perfected by his openness and silky pr skillls, has forged close partnerships with two almost contrasting US presidents, Clinton and Bush. Runciman sees this as a sign of fervent motivation to achieve great, maybe even noble things - goals that can only be achieved through American power.
Runciman's book is a good peak at the Iraq War logic - which was, as we now know, based on threat exaggeration and manipulated information. However, as a judgement of history it does not qualify. Even if I agree that the war was an 'unnecessary' one, the future Iraq in 20 years will be the ultimate judge whether war is a statebuilding tool or not - i remain sceptical.
The chapters of the book have previously been published as essays in the LRB and consequently the book suffers from discontinuity. The texts work reasonably well as essays but the underlying argument gets a bit lost between the different points-of-views. One has to also wonder why all opposition has to be marketed (book covers etc.) in michaelmooore style - can't peace stand on its own as a credible policy recommendation?
Second Opinion: Chris Bickerton / Culture Wars ¶ 7/11/2006 12:44:00 ip.
David Runciman: The Politics of Good Intensions: History, Fear and Hypocrisy in the New World OrderHardcover: 224 pages
Publisher: Princeton University Press 2006
ISBN: 0-691-12566-X
"Politics is the devil's business." (p. 37)The mainstream Iraq War criticism you find is obsessedly focused on George W. Bush and his neocon entourage. David Runciman, refreshingly chooses his topic closer home and scrutinizes Tony Blair's politics of good intensions and offers Teflon Tony what he's been asking for all along: to be judged by history...
Runciman, using a historical perspective (instead of news or election timescales) goes to argue that many features branded as new in the War on Terror are not new. Runciman's argument is that the War on Terror has created a permanent epoch of exceptions, double standards and hypocritical risk assessments - all features that render political debates useless and leave many disillusioned bystanders hearing preaching but seeing Machtpolitik.
Tony Blair, whose Icarian nature is perfected by his openness and silky pr skillls, has forged close partnerships with two almost contrasting US presidents, Clinton and Bush. Runciman sees this as a sign of fervent motivation to achieve great, maybe even noble things - goals that can only be achieved through American power.
Runciman's book is a good peak at the Iraq War logic - which was, as we now know, based on threat exaggeration and manipulated information. However, as a judgement of history it does not qualify. Even if I agree that the war was an 'unnecessary' one, the future Iraq in 20 years will be the ultimate judge whether war is a statebuilding tool or not - i remain sceptical.
The chapters of the book have previously been published as essays in the LRB and consequently the book suffers from discontinuity. The texts work reasonably well as essays but the underlying argument gets a bit lost between the different points-of-views. One has to also wonder why all opposition has to be marketed (book covers etc.) in michaelmooore style - can't peace stand on its own as a credible policy recommendation?
Second Opinion: Chris Bickerton / Culture Wars ¶ 7/11/2006 12:44:00 ip.
