Was it necessary to stop genocide?
Johann Hari has a David Aaranovitch style new picture on his column (it might not be that new, I haven't read it for a while) and a column agonising over whether he made the right choice in supporting the war.Hari must really be turning against the war, as this is one of the doubts:
"I felt a low sense of horror when I saw the Americans imposing on Iraq the same IMF neoliberalism they have castrophically forced on Latin America and Russia. This is a form of captalism far, far more extreme and destructive than domestic US market forces"
And this is one of the reasons for:
"The Human Rights Centre...have found that if the invasion had not happened Saddam would have killed 70,000 people in the past year".
The 70,000 figure is truly remarkable, and if true (and meaningful), supports the case that the war was necessary now to prevent genocide (the State Department have a figure of about 3,000 between 1997 and 2002). The fact that Hari is having second thoughts despite this new information is strange.
'll link to the whole story when it's on his website, but the conclusion at the moment is 'yes, just'.
posted by Matthew @ 4/14/2004 08:58:00 AM
Comments: 0
