The Long War: Laurie Lee and Alan Rickman

Posted on by

Here is everyone’s favorite velvet-throated thespian Alan Rickman, reading Laurie Lee’s poem The Long War for Peace Day, which was, apparently, September 21st. I wish they’d tell me these things ahead of time.

The Long War is a title which has been applied to any number of seemingly-endless conflicts, most recently used by the Bush administration to describe their “War on Terror” which has been the excuse for the continuing encroachments on civil liberties both within the US and around the world.

From The Long War by William S. Lind:

Long wars are usually strategic disasters for winners as well as losers, because they leave all parties exhausted. If they work to anyone’s advantage, it tends to be the weaker party’s, because its alternative is rapid defeat. The Rumsfeld Pentagon certainly does not see the United States as the weaker party in its “Global War on Terrorism.” So why has it adopted a long war strategy, or more accurately lack of strategy, unless one sees national exhaustion as a plus?

The answer is a common strategic blunder, but again one that is seldom seen up front; it normally arises as a war continues longer and proves more difficult than expected. The blunder is maximalist objectives. In a speech announcing the QDR, Secretary Rumsfeld said, speaking of our Fourth Generation opponents,

“Compelled by a militant ideology that celebrates murder and suicide, with no territory to defend, with little to lose, they will either succeed in changing our way of life or we will succeed in changing theirs.”

Guess which one won.

The Long War
by Laurie Lee

Less passionate the long war throws
its burning thorn about all men,
caught in one grief, we share one wound,
and cry one dialect of pain.

We have forgot who fired the house
Whose easy mischief spilled first blood
Under one raging roof we lie
The fault no longer understood
But as our twisted arms embrace the desert where our cities stood
Death’s family likeness in each face must show at last our brotherhood.

54 thoughts on “The Long War: Laurie Lee and Alan Rickman”

  1. I’ve seen you mention Alan Rickman but never clicked in to who he was. He does have a very nice voice, doesn’t he?

  2. He certainly does. Apparently it’s been examined by scientists and found to be near-perfect.

    Also, if you haven’t seen Truly, Madly, Deeply, you MUST run out and get it at once. With a bottle of wine and a pint of decadent ice cream.

  3. There is no “National exhaustion” here or among our allies in this very real war, unless you believe the MSM propaganda machine.

    We are fighting a faceless weaker enemy who claims no nationality, who refuses to identify himself with a uniform as he cowers behind innocent civilians. He is willing to sacrifice non-combatants for his religious fanaticism. For him, every non-muslim is a menace to be destroyed by any available means.

    This war has been going on for a long time, and it predates 911.

    Whether or not the U.S. and her allies should have overthrown Hussein’s Iraq and subsequently chased down the tribal warlords of the region is a moot point. The job must be finished.

    There is no doubt in my mind that this war will last many more years. If we walk away now, the resulting bloodshed will make the Holocaust of World War II appear small by comparison.

    Thanks for letting me vent.

  4. Vent away, but don’t expect unanimity. That is not a characteristic of this blog.

    I don’t find resistance to wearing a uniform to be a shameful thing; nor should you, given that the rebels’ adoption of Native American clothing and the principle of camouflage was an important part of their military victories during the American Revolution. Those redcoats were a lot easier to draw a bead on.

    Characterizing normal defense as “War” is in my opinion a trick to ensure funding for the machine. But there IS a boosterism fatigue, reflected in the government and president’s popularity rankings. As time goes on and people become more aware of the sacrifices of the military they are coming to respect soldiers more, politicians less.

    Do you see an exit strategy in Iraq? There’s one on this blog: it’s called Cut and Run, and it was written by a senior general serving in Iraq. You might be interested in it, particularly as we are now several years later…

  5. Thanks for the civil response, and I don’t mean to be a crank. I do see an exit strategy in Iraq. It’ll happen after Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida (et.al.) terrorist thug tribes are defeated.

    Let’s stop this thread… your excellent blog is not the forum for it; neither is mine, and I just put my soapbox back in the garage next to all the cat/possum food.

    Your Pal, Bunk

  6. Two of those groups are not even ACTIVE in Iraq, so how do you intend to defeat them by fighting there? That’s the problem. If the exit strategy is to stay until no-one, anywhere advocates…uh, anything you don’t approve of, you may be stuck there forever.

    As for stopping the thread: Not at all; this blog has a long and honourable tradition of mixing politics, anarchism, and plain weirdness. I’ve been thinking we needed to get back into it. By all means, comment away.

    Frankly, I stay away from the purely political blogs. They’re far too strident, even for me.

  7. Rain–

    Although you parsed my words a bit, I know you know what I meant. Here’s my honest opinion.

    There are a lot of things that the U.S. government does with classified information that the public won’t know about for 20 years or so.

    Immediately after 911, the American public demanded a response.

    That response, proposed by our President Bush, and supported by all of Congress (less one), was to sit our military down in the middle of the most volatile regions of the earth. Hussein’s Iraq was an easy target, and it provided the military with an airbase to operate from.

    Do you not remember how many of the region’s tinhorn despots suddenly paid attention? Even long-time terrorism supporter Khaddafi stood up and said “Hey! Look at me! I’m not doing anything anymore!”

    The exit strategy is to reduce the islamo-facist movement to a level such that local authorities can deal with it on their own.

    Now, why the U.S. is still in Germany, Japan and South Korea is another discussion altogether.

  10. Congress? No, the Iraq war only went for Congressional approval after the fact. That is what makes it an illegal war. The White House alone is not supposed to declare war; the founding fathers designed things that way so there would be checks and balances, and those were routed around and the panic of the people at being attacked on their home territory was used as an excuse to declare war on a government which was not, in fact, responsible for the attacks. No-one will argue that Saddam Hussein was a great guy, but IF indeed you take on the responsibility for removing all not-great guys, you surely understand that you have become the world’s policeman.

    As Gore Vidal has pointed out, America didn’t used to think of itself this way. Unquestionable victory in WWII and the Long War strategy of the Cold War (with the attendant rise of the economic and political clout of the military-industrial complex) somehow leeched into the consciousness as “Team America, World Police” and this came to be an unconsciously or consciously held notion among more and more of the populace.

    More and more who had never been to war.

    America had been a nation largely isolated from Europe, a mercantile nation and a highly successful one. But the World Police model had never been tested; the Roman Empire only held as long as it did because of the way the Romans conquered and then occupied the territories. I can’t see even Bush moving the Hurricane Katrina victims willy-nilly into Kandahar or Baghdad, can you?

    It’s my belief that the government is using this Long War strategy not because they believe it will be effective in fighting Al Quaeda, but rather because they believe that a populace in fear is one that will accept any infringements upon its rights that the government chooses to enact. And, as we have already seen, if Congress balks, the White House will order up custom documents from the CIA and just go ahead and do what it wants anyway.

    I maintain that Bill Clinton was right when he said that there is nothing wrong with America that can’t be cured by what is right with America. But as long as you’ve got your eye on Helmand and Baghdad, you aren’t looking to fix America at all.

  14. Gettin’ kinda late for me, Rain. Maybe I’ll respond to you tomorrow, or maybe I’ll clean the litter box, depending on what seems to be more fun.
    Gore Vidal was a moron. I’ll explain tomorrow after I dump the poop.
    Bunk

  16. I will hear not a word against Gore Vidal. And you shouldn’t say anything either: all his enemies are dead. Think about it.

    I’m just sayin’. A vindictive gay man with Kennedy connections and all his enemies just HAPPEN to die…I’m just sayin’.

  19. Hiya Rain,
    I’m enjoying your “banter” and I back your line of thought.
    If you are interested (I did some research last year when the vid (with the best actor alive :-) came out:

    The Long War is also available in these anthologies:
    Peace and War edited by Michael Harrison and Christopher Stuart-Clark: Oxford University Press, c1989.
    Poets of Our Time edited by F. E. S. Finn: J. Murray, 1965.

    More on “Peace One Day”:
    “Attack” by Siegfried Sasson. First published in Counter Attack and Other Poems: E. P. Dutton, 1918.

    AT dawn the ridge emerges massed and dun
    In the wild purple of the glow’ring sun,
    Smouldering through spouts of drifting smoke that shroud
    The menacing scarred slope; and, one by one,
    Tanks creep and topple forward to the wire.
    The barrage roars and lifts. Then, clumsily bowed
    With bombs and guns and shovels and battle-gear,
    Men jostle and climb to meet the bristling fire.
    Lines of grey, muttering faces, masked with fear,
    They leave their trenches, going over the top,
    While time ticks blank and busy on their wrists,
    And hope, with furtive eyes and grappling fists,
    Flounders in mud. O Jesus, make it stop!
    Also available in various anthologies:
    The Red Harvest: A Cry for Peace edited by Vincent G. Burns: Macmillan, 1930.

    Oxford Book of Twentieth Century English Verse edited by Philip Larkin: Clarendon Press, 1973.

    Poetry of the First World War edited by Edward Hudson: Wayland, 1988.

    New Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1950 edited by Helen Gardner: Oxford University Press, 1972.

    P.S. There are not many Americans left here in Germany, which is understandable and right, but – in a way – also a pity. They were/are well-liked.
    Have a nice Sunday

  20. I studied that poem in high school, but had forgotten it. Thanks for posting it. Powerful stuff.

    As with the poem that started this post, it’s yet another reminder that if we fail to unite in peace, we will surely be united in death.

  22. @Bunk:
    Respectfully, I can’t see how classified information could possibly turn a decision of this depth of stupidity into a smart one. Especially given the all-out promotional tour to which the world was treated in the run-up to war.

    Also, I don’t understand your logic in seeming to address the Iraq invasion as a response to the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001. Or am I misreading you?

    Khaddafi is continually held up as an example of what can be achieved through keeping the communication channels open. If the Bush regime had refused to talk to him, I doubt he’d be officially on the list of good guys.

    In any case, most tinpot dictators (one assumes this wouldn’t include the Saudi Royal family, Pervez Musharref, or Vlad Putin) have paid scant notice to anything the Bush misadministration did, and less since they’ve noticed how thin the US army is spread and how little support and enthusiasm Bushco is able to command. One need only look to the Sudan, Zimbabwe, or Iran for an example.

  25. You mean like WaPo? HuffPo? MoveOnPo? SalonPo? Daily KosPo? Any other Po excuse for a “news” website?

    I picked that one because it roughly sums up my opinion of the Iraq situation, and I didn’t find a General Odom analysis on LGF.

    Here’s an honest question. What do you really think would happen in the Middle East if the U.S. and her allies decided to walk away from the region starting tomorrow? I’m genuinely curious.

  26. There would, of course, be a bloodbath. This is inevitable. It is not, as far as I can see, preventable. By your logic, the US should still be in Vietnam and Korea…which of course wouldn’t have given them any spare troops to go into Iraq with in the first place. Is that a good thing?

    Chaos upon exit is inevitable. But what I’m saying is that better we have that and self-government in the region sooner rather than later because what we’re looking at now is a bloodbath indefinitely delayed yet still coming, PLUS an ongoing, brutally draining war that has resulted in the Iraqi people having fewer services and less personal security than they enjoyed under the dictator Saddam Hussein.

    Do not become the monster to fight the monster. Remember that?

    What would happen in Afghanistan I think we all already know: it would break into warlord-dominated factions, which has been its mode of being for centuries. That is Afghanistan’s issue and nothing is more patronizing, ultimately, than the implication that a nation is not fit to handle its own affairs.

  27. You are correct; there would be a bloodbath, but I disagree that it is inevitable.

    Regarding Korea and Viet Nam, they have no relationship to the situation in the middle east. Both actions were a result of the disproven “Domino Theory.” Walking away from Viet Nam resulted in a bloodbath in Cambodia as well (remember Pol Pot?) We didn’t walk from Korea, and we’re still there, without a bloodbath, regardless of protests over mad cow disease.

    Your second paragraph, that the Iraqi people were better off under Hussein’s thugs ignores the facts. The Iraqi economy is blooming because the oil is flowing; many villages have reliable power, water and sanitary facilities for the first time; schools have been opened that allow girls to attend; people can vote without fear of death. Do you really think that things were better under the brutality of Ba’athists?

    C’mon, Rain, you’re smarter than that.

    The problem the arab regions have is similar to the problem the African nations have. They’ve never gotten past tribal law. Hell, Poland was one of the last European nations to get over the concept of petulant dukedoms, and they almost ceased to exist because of the delay.

    Unfortunately, there are many nations that, patronizingly or not, are not fit to handle their own affairs… Burma for example. But Burma/Myanmar does not have the valuable resources (oil) that drive the world economy.

    Tomorrow’s Monday, so I’ll take this assignment and put it in my inbox. Maybe I’ll have it resolved by Friday, but I may have to delegate responsibilities as I am wrapping up my thesis on the prevention of Global Cooling.

  28. With respect, I have to disagree with your statement that the Iraqi people are better off materially and economically. Sure, more money is flowing into and out of Iraq, but as Vanity Fair has pointed out, precious little of it goes to Iraqis; it stays in the hands of the Westerners.I encourage you to read their remarkable expose on the subject.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/iraq_billions200710

    Between April 2003 and June 2004, $12 billion in U.S. currency—much of it belonging to the Iraqi people—was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad, where it was dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Some of the cash went to pay for projects and keep ministries afloat, but, incredibly, at least $9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed. Following a trail that leads from a safe in one of Saddam’s palaces to a house near San Diego, to a P.O. box in the Bahamas, the authors discover just how little anyone cared about how the money was handled.

    It is an undeniable fact, for instance, that Baghdad has less consistent electricity (leading to security problems, health problems, education problems, the list goes on) now than under Saddam Hussein. The mortality rate is up; life expectancy is down. These are good things for the Iraqi people how, and how should they thank the forces there?

    Your statement that Africa and the Middle East have tribal economies and their right to self-government is therefore forfeit begs the question when are you going to solve Africa? Either this doctrine is applicable everywhere or it is applicable nowhere.

    The fact is: the invasion forces have one-twenty-fifth the number of men the British had when they last occupied the area. And they cannot seem to get any more. With a force this small, even with a technological advantage over the goatherds and merchants of the area, no-one could expect to hold an area the size and porosity of Iraq, particularly after having lost the goodwill of the Kurds. I needn’t point out that the technological gap between the armed combatants on each side is MUCH smaller.

  29. Ooh. Smack down by Vanity Fair. Smarm city.

    I didn’t say that tribal entities are illegitimate or should be forfeited. By their nature, tribal governments are unstable as they hold decades-old grudges over logic. That very hate keeps them from being cooperative with their neighbors and prevents them from achieving self-sufficient prosperity.

    Had the spastic corrupt governments of Africa looked at the big picture 20 or 30 years ago, they could have merged to become one of the world’s economic leaders by now. It’s still not too late for them to get in gear, but it’s not our job to fix their problems either.

    The militant tribes of the middle east are not that much different, with the exception that they blame Jews and the U.S. for all the problems they’ve created for themselves, and they announce unequivocoapoiapnly that they will not stop until the infidels (you and I and everyone else in the western world) are dead. That is beyond irrational, and that is why our military is in the region.

  31. “It’s Vanity Fair, therefore I will dismiss it,” isn’t going to cut any ice around here. Read it.

    If you say that tribal rule is not America’s problem, then surely that applies as well to the Middle East. As someone who’s had family living in Saudi Arabia and friends in many countries throughout the Middle East, I can state for the record that you are incorrect when you say that they blame Jews and the US for all their problems. Ask any of the rival factions of Islam what they think of the others; ask the Pashtuns what they think of the valley dwellers. It goes on and on.

    Please consider the very real (but brutal) possibility that if we pull out and leave them to fight one another they’ll be too preoccupied to get around to that whole “destroying the Great Satan” thing.

    The War Against Terror (TWAT) has been a highly effective recruiting tool for the very groups you claim to oppose. They’ve effectively made Osama binLaden look immortal. And Saddam Hussein (remember, supposedly the reason your country went into Iraq) was not at all a part of that movement.

    What is irrational is responding to a religiously-motivated, stateless threat by invading a specific, secular country from which the attackers did not originate, in which they were not trained, and which did not contain the organization which perpetrated the attack in the first place.

  32. Bunk:

    If you enjoy good first-person accounts, may I direct you here.

    To liken Jihadwatch, favoured of Anne Coulter, David Horowitz, and Michelle Malkin, to the Washington Post is false equivalency. And I would say the same of MoveOn and a couple of your other selections, though not Salon, which has published Horowitz. Although you dismiss Vanity Fair, your problem with them seems to be their tone, rather than their accuracy.

    If you want to be taken seriously, I really wouldn’t try citing LGF.

    Iraq was in a bad way before George W. Bush decided to prove his manhood was bigger than his dad’s. Thanks to him and his enablers, the country is unquestionably in worse shape now. And it had nothing to do with anyone’s worldview, by the admission of the Bush administration.

    The bloodbath is not inevitable. It has been happening for the past five years.

    You asked what would happen if the US leaves “the region.” Let’s be clear–I have less of a problem with the Afghan mission, which was clearer in scope and purpose and not built upon a foundation composed of shifting lies and neocon power fantasy.

    But let’s turn that question around: What do you think will happen if the US stays? How long should the US keep spending its treasure and its blood to keep the dream alive?

  33. Rain, I just had to pop in here to tell you what a great post this is. And your comments. I wish I could write like that!

    Someone mentioned not to get political. It’s obvious you know your stuff and write so well. I would love to see more. This is one of the most interesting conversations I’ve seen for a while. Thanks!

  34. Metro– In responding to your comment about JihadWatch, I was being sarcastic when I listed WaPo and the other liberal propaganda sources who all tend to beat the same drum regardless of the facts of the middle east situation.

    The longer the U.S. stays in the region, the more peaceful and productive it’ll become. Casualties are down to the lowest levels since February 2004, while military enlistment and re-enlistment are up. The Iraqi army has greatly improved it’s own lot as well.

    I’m not so naive to think that Iraq will be fully self-sufficient in one year or ten years. But you certainly can’t deny that the Iraqi people are in much better shape with a better quality of life than when Hussein’s ba’athists were running the show.

    As for our “treasure,” well, it’s ours to spend. As far as casualties go, we lose more people in L.A. due to gang activity each year. I’d rather walk unarmed through Baghdad than to walk through some areas of Los Angeles WITH a Glock.

    [Michelle Malkin, Charles Johnson (LGF), Peggy Noonan and Thomas Sowell are among my favorites. I read Daily Kos and HuffPo for comedy.]

  37. Please, gentlemen.

    There is no point whatsoever in attacking the wrapper that information comes in. It’s lefty, it stinks! It’s right-wing, it suxxors! are sentiments which do justice neither to the writers whose works you dismiss without reading, nor to yourselves and present company, who should be expected to debate the case on its merits, not on whether or not it comes to you in a red or blue wrapper.

    Try to keep up the standard, people. References. And read the others’.

  38. First hand reports from folks who were there. They are similar to the one Metro pointed me to on Slate: https://raincoaster.com/2008/05/31/the-long-war-laurie-lee-and-alan-rickman/#comments

    So not starving, having running water and electricity, having schools for one’s children to attend, being able to find a job, being able to travel freely and participate in elections without having to fear for one’s life are all not improvements in the Iraqi quality of life?? You have a different definition of “improvement” than I.

  40. The Iraqi people were hardly starving. The had careers, jobs. It was one of the few places women could dress the way they wanted. Did you know that every citizen was entitled to a free university education? Even the women.

    They had free education. They had electricity.

    The sanctions put on Iraq were the cause of all those things not being fully available or working. Because we put sanctions on them they suffered. And then we bomb them and kill innocent people.

  43. Bunk, they are talking about things going better with the war. Quality of life was better before the sanctions and the war. You cannot say life is better for them now than it was. And it never will be. Ever. Now they have to deal with the after effects of depleted uranium. Years of disabilities and deformity ahead of them. Health problems they will endure for decades.

    As for rebuilding. If it wasn’t for the war, they wouldn’t even have to do that.

  44. I’m thrilled to provide a place for civil discourse and exchange of facts. I mean, is there a more important issue facing us right now? We need to discuss this.

  45. It’s also important to ask if there are more important things than creature comforts…but if you do ask those things, the answers factor into your whole reason for being there.

  46. ‘Scuse me, but I thought the thread had to do with the positive changes since Hussein’s regime was ousted.

    If it wasn’t for Hussein invading Kuwait and setting fire to Kuwait’s oil fields, there wouldn’t have been any sanctions. Had the sanctions been enforced, we probably wouldn’t have gone in at all, but “what if” don’t feed the bulldog. We’re there to make things better, and we are. Gotta take it all in context.

    To repeat myself, the reason for the invasion is a moot point. We are in the process of repairing infrastructure caused by the war with Iraq, while the insurgents still try to sabotage and damage the same. They’ve been trying to blow up their own countrymen for God’s sake.

    I think (read opinion) that the biggest mistake we made was dissolving the existing Iraqi army, rather than retraining them to fight the insurgents. But then, nobody axed me about it. Nevertheless, the New Iraqi army is taking up the charge. That’s a big step in the right direction, and the sooner they can protect their own, the sooner we’re out.

  47. The thread has to do with the changes, Positive or Negative, since he was ousted.

    The Gulf War Mark I is a different issue: it had nothing to do with any attack on mainland USA or even threat thereof. Remember, some of us are old enough to understand what went on then.

    If you want to know what I think of sanctions, just do a blogsearch. The reasons sanctions work is that if agreed to they preclude overriding the people.

  49. Whoa, the topic focus changes fast around here. True, Gulf War I was a different entity, but it started the dominos falling in the direction of Iraq, resulting in the sanctions, resulting in Hussein thumbing his nose at the effeminate U.N. forces, etc.

    Sanctions are imposed upon governments of non-cooperative nations, and they work only if the people of a country have enough power to overthrow their own corrupt government, otherwise, they eat it… Cuba for instance, or better yet, North Korea’s bark eaters.

    It’s similar to folks who want to send a message to [insert Big Oil Company Name here] by boycotting the gas stations supplied by [Big Oil Company]. The franchisee takes it in the shorts for things beyond his control, and the boycott accomplishes nothing.

    Same with sanctions. Sanctions are a false threat in most cases.

    I hear y’all say, “Okay Bunky. You’ve got all the answers. What should we do now?”

    My answer: Nothing. Let Iraq play out. Let the oil market stabilize itself without government interference. The end of the tunnel is a dim fuzzy glow, but it’s there.

    I’m an optimist.

  51. Sanctions don’t work by having an effect on governments; they work by having an effect on the people, making them dangerous. THAT is what changes things. That is what changed things in South Africa.

    People who get in bed with Shell deserve to suffer from the herpes in the dry periods. They live high enough when it’s lucrative.

  53. I love Alan Rickman. He is a great actor. When he dies, it’s going to be a really sad day. He has been my inspiration ever since I read on Wikipedia that he did Calligraphy when he was young.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.