I read on Ceefax today that some of the people who went out to Iraq a few days ago to act as human shields in case of attack, are coming home over “safety fears”. I wonder if they fully appreciated what they were doing when they went out there. There’s a clue in the job title, “human shields”. The reason that humans generally need shields is because human flesh is a poor protection against swords, guns and bombs. So to make a shield out of a human is only going to lead to problems in the long run, most especially for the human is being the shield, and then after a very minimal time for the person who is being protected.
ItÂ’s a bit like agreeing to be a suicide bomber and then expressing safety fears later on.
Although I suppose I admire the bravery of these people, risking their lives for a cause they believe in, I think it was always a rather naïve policy. I actually think the Americans are super-conscious of the necessity to hit as few civilian targets as possible. If they do (and they will) it will almost certainly be by accident (with one of what Al Murray calls “their wedding-seeking missiles”). If the target turns out to be militarily important then I don’t think having a Westerner in the building is going to stop the bombing of it. Let’s face it, America and Britain are sending its citizens over to face death already (in the form of the Armed Forces). They are able to square a minimal loss of life with an objective achieved.
It was also fairly inevitable, as seems to be the case, that Saddam Hussein would use the protestors as pawns and put them in places that suited his needs.
I am against war and the murder of human beings (whatever their shields are made of) in general. But then who isnÂ’t really? Sometimes a war is necessary in order to stop even more killing (or at least in the hope of doing so). If someone was attempting to harm my family or friends then my anti-murder stance would change. There are no absolutes here.
So I donÂ’t know what I think about this potential war. Whilst being suspicious of Bush, I infinitely prefer him to Hussein. Yet I donÂ’t think America or Britain has any kind of moral right to determine the governments of the world even if by doing so they make the country involved a better place. I would like it if there wasnÂ’t a war, but then I wouldnÂ’t like it if a few years down the line Hussein starts bombing the crap out of people, because no-one tried to stop him. Imagine agreeing to be a human shield for the Nazis in 1939. That would be an embarrassing thing to justify today wouldnÂ’t it?
At the moment I don’t see that either side has proven its case. It is good to be aware that our governments can lie to us, but that doesn’t mean that they always do. I don’t think this is a war about oil and I don’t think Blair would risk this level of unpopularity unless he really believed in what he was doing. But it is frustrating that he won’t share the supposed “proof”, if it exists, with us.
I suppose I am saying that the level of certainty some people have (in both directions) is somewhat suspicious. But if there was any way of getting round this without bombing the shit out of an already oppressed people, (which common sense says there must be) then I would be all for it. Sending some shields made out of some kind of bomb-proof material might be a start. Or at least human shields who understand what being a shield involves and donÂ’t come home again because they think they might get hurt.
