On War Aims and ‘Safety’

Getting back from Washington DC, I was disappointed to see that the UK Parliament has narrowly voted to extend the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days.

More disturbing was the rationale behind it. In Question Time, Prime Minister Brown claimed that the greatest duty of the government is national security.

Safety first, in other words. And he claimed that this has the support of the majority.

Absolute security, underwritten by a ‘tyranny of the majority’ has disfigured the way we frame the conflicts we are in.

For what its worth, I think we need to conceive the whole thing a little differently. The first duty of the state is to ensure a way of life, organised around the principle of freedom within the rule of law, to protect and not undermine this principle. As opposed to maximising the physical wellbeing of all, even to the point of compromising habeas corpus and waving opinion polls around to justify it. The fact that 65% of people agree with it, or so we are told, if anything is good grounds for restraint and consideration for the rights of the 5% who may find themselves banged up without charge. Mobs suck.

In terms of the ‘Long War’ against militant extremists, we should be clear what our aim is. It should be to defend an open society. And living in an open society must entail some reasonable tolerance of risk. It must risk the improbable threat to life if that means avoiding the creation of an oppressive, authoritarian state.

There are alternative commonwealths out there where one in theory is ensured physical welfare, medical attention, regular sustenance and vigilant security. They are called prisons. The fact that many prisons devolve into something a good deal more unpleasant should also make us pause about the implications of the analogy for the state.

So the lack of a coherent strategic vision in this country proceeds. Proclaiming the pursuit of democratic and liberal values abroad, the state cries ’safety’ at home, busily eroding the very thing that we ask our military to fight for. An ex-world power committing to utopian aims with limited means dismantling the law it is supposed to defend.

Moreover, by framing the struggle unrealistically as a bid to secure perfect safety, the impact of any successful attack will be multiplied as the state fails the test it foolishly sets itself. In a time of war, victory is not best defined by the dystopian goal of making sure everyone stays alive at any cost.

Without getting too excited about the oncoming ‘police state’, this is worth worrying about.

CORRECTION: The House of Commons, not the whole Parliament, has passed this bill. It now awaits the House of Lords. Delay it, Lords, delay it!