Warmongering

Image based on the famous recruitment poster 

feat. Lord Kitchener, by Alfred Leete (1914)

 

 

I. 

 

I trust that readers recognise that I am neither a pacifist nor a conscientious objector to war. I even wrote a long post in praise of fighters a few years back: click here. 

But, having said that, I'm increasingly irritated by the belligerent new spirit that seems to have gripped the imagination not just of politicians, military commanders and arms manufacturers here in the UK, but even left-leaning journalists like Gaby Hinsliff [1] who, all of a sudden, seem keen to warmonger in the name of keeping the peace and defending our way of life.

 

Hers may be a slightly posher, better-read, more respectable form of warmongering, but warmongering is still what it is. Scratch away the moral idealism and Hinsliff is revealed as simply a more articulate (thus more persuasive, more dangerous) version of an old-fashioned jingoist, exploiting the same fears that the enemy are at the gates.

 

 

II.

 

In an opinion piece in today's Guardian, Hinsliff writes in support of army chief Gen. Sir Patrick Sanders' suggestion that those of military age in the UK should be regarded as a prewar generation and that British society should essentially be placed on a war footing.  

 

This comes after the Dutch head of NATO's military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, warned of the possibility of a wide-scale conflict with Russia within the next 20 years - whether we like it or not - only for Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, to say that, actually, war might break out far sooner: maybe even within the next five years.

 

I suppose we should be thankful that Sanders stopped short of calling for the reintroduction of conscription, although he made it clear that, in his view, civilians would be expected to volunteer for the frontline should Putin's forces invade a NATO country. 

 

 

III.

 

I don't know how seriously we should take all this. 

 

And I don't know how effective it would be to issue a military call up based on an appeal to patriotism; would young people be as ready and willing to fight and die for king and country in 2024 as they were in 1914?

 

I have my doubts, but, on the other hand, I was astonished at the level of conformity and compliance during the Covid period ... Maybe they'd regard World War III as the opportunity to live again ...?

 

 

Notes

 

[1] Gaby Hinsliff is an English journalist and columnist for The Guardian. Her piece I'm referring to here is entitled 'For generations Britain has taken peace for granted. But a belligerent Putin could change all that' and was published today (26 Jan 2024): click here to read online. 

      I have had issues with Hinsliff before: see the post 'Gaby Hinsliff Versus Douglas Murray: You Pays Your Money and You Takes Your Choice' (9 May 2017): click here.   

Gaby Hinsliff Versus Douglas Murray: You Pays Your Money and You Takes Your Choice

In her review of his new book, The Strange Death of Europe, political journalist and commentator Gaby Hinsliff accuses Douglas Murray of gentrified xenophobia; a phrase by which she means a "slightly posher, better-read, more respectable" form of racism.

The implication being that if you scratch away the smooth exterior, then Murray is revealed as simply a more articulate (thus more persuasive, more dangerous) version of Katie Hopkins, appealing to the kind of people who "wouldn't be seen dead on an English Defence League march", but who nevertheless fear Muslims are coming to rape their loved ones and destroy their way of life.

I don't think this is a fair characterization of Mr Murray, or his readers. And nor can such fears be dismissed as entirely irrational or groundless; not after Rotherham. In fact, I would say concerns about the three i-words around which Murray weaves his text - immigration, identity and Islam - are perfectly reasonable.

Nor do I think that Murray's book - which Hinsliff rather bizarrely disparages as a "proper book, with footnotes and everything" - is "so badly argued" that she can dismiss it without addressing any of the factual data that is carefully documented and detailed in those footnotes, even if she chooses to interpret it differently from the author and play down the seriousness and legitimacy of his concerns. 

Hinsliff insists the work "circles round the same repetitive themes" and "regurgitates the same misleading myths" concerning immigration that UKIP like to peddle. But, ultimately, it's she who bores us by repeating the well-worn platitudes of liberalism and her feigned ignorance - at least I hope its feigned - of what makes European culture uniquely precious and worth defending.

In a tweet, published on the same day that her review appeared in The Guardian, Hinsliff jokes that she'd read Murray's book so that her readers wouldn't have to - hardly an inspiring model of criticism. But, in that same spirit, I'm writing this so that you'll not waste your time clicking on the link below - whilst at the same time strongly recommending Murray's text.


Notes

Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (Bloomsbury, 2017).

To read Gaby Hinsliff's review of the above in The Guardian (6 May 2017): click here. 

To read my reflections on Murray's text, click here.  

Photo of Gaby Hinsliff by Mark Pringle. Photo of Douglas Murray by Matt Writtle.