Jeremy Hardy thinks… about war

'The thing we should know by now is that unpicking their motives doesn’t really help to demolish their case'

November 15, 2013 · 2 min read

Most articles condemning military adventures offer an explanation of the ‘true’ motive for a war, a motive that is different from the ostensible one. But for our leaders, there is no single reason why.

Some of them are mad. Some are nationalists. Some just do as they’re told. Most are men, and many were probably the sort of boys who carried on reading The Victor when others had moved on to Health and Efficiency. Some are driven by realpolitik, however unrealistic it may be; some have a missionary zeal to bring the light of explosions to places where now there is darkness. Some think bombing anywhere that isn’t Israel is in Israel’s interests. Most are egomaniacs who crave global fame but aren’t that good at sport. Some see money in it, for themselves or for their class.

Some think it will be valuable for the country, strategically. Some care less for country than for the triumph of global capital. Some genuinely believe, having weighed the pros and cons, that things would be better for humanity if it were subjected to a localised cull. Some don’t give it much thought. Some don’t understand their own motives. Some like some wars more than others; Kosovo was a big hit in the 1990s, among those who couldn’t see, and still can’t, that it was the start of a trend.

All of the above believe war is a good idea sometimes. They’re not doing it to wind us up. They’re sincere. Later they’ll say they’d never have supported it if only they’d known then what they know now. The thing we should know by now is that unpicking their motives doesn’t really help to demolish their case. People can passionately believe they’re right and still be horribly wrong.


‘Confronting imperialism means winning back the power to imagine alternatives’. An interview with Vijay Prashad

Vijay Prashad talks to Daniel Whittall about socialism, anti-imperialism and the new global research network Tricontinental.

The deadly dangers of the ‘special relationship’

The ties which bind the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US are a toxic mix of militarism and free trade. By Andrew Smith

We went to an arms company AGM. Here’s how they justify profiting from war.

BAE Systems weapons have been involved in countless atrocities - and we saw board members doing rhetorical backflips to avoid accountability, writes Andrew Smith from Campaign Against Arms Trade.


Six things you need to know about the UK arms trade

Andrew Smith from Campaign Against the Arms Trade gives the run-down on one of the UK's most profitable - and most deadly - industries.

Why is the Labour Party dragging its heels on nuclear disarmament?

Corbyn just won a prize for peace activism - so why is the Labour Party still committed to renewing trident? Lily Sheehan investigates.

Fighting for Peace: the battles that inspired generations of anti-war campaigners

Now the threat of nuclear war looms nearer again, we share the experience of eighty-year-old activist Ernest Rodker, whose work is displayed at The Imperial War Museum. With Jane Shallice and Jenny Nelson he discussed a recent history of the anti-war movement.