on not having opinions

I note that I haven’t blogged, or wanted to, about big stories for a while. In particular, the war in Iraq and the Anglican schism (which does, absurd though it seems, actually matter) have both seemed subjects actively repulsive. I think the reason for this is that we know, in both cases what is going to happen. It’s important. We are going to care, and to regret what will happen. But the big decisions have all been made, and the interesting questions answered. I suppose this is the same impulse as led me not to go on the last big, anti-war march. It was obvious then that whatever other effect it might have, it could not stop the war. If it was going to have any effect at all, it would be to make the war slightly more likely by showing Blair the costs if his gamble was lost.
If you understand Iraq as a colonial war, then it was very soon obvious that the Americans were going to lose, because they would not bear the cost of fighting it. I see that the first reference to “declaring democracy and getting the hell out” as a strategy cropped up here in February 2004. Everything that has happened since then is the ineluctable outcome of choices made earlier. All those people who said the next six months would be decisive were right the first time, however many times they went on saying it, wrongly, at six monthly intervals thereafter.

Similarly, I cared passionately about the whole gay priests nonsense in the run-up to Rowan Williams’ election, and all through the fight over Jeffrey John. But once he had caved in, then, the rest hardly mattered. I can’t claim quite such perspicacity as over the war, because I did not foresee that he would so completely abandon his friends as well as his beliefs.

In any case, there seems absolutely nothing to add about either of these stories. Equally, there are huge stories, like global warming, which aren’t interesting yet because we don’t know what the choices are, or if there are any. In Afghanistan, there has been a rush of stories saying that we can’t go on like this. Either we must retreat, or we must fund the occupation properly and send really large numbers of troops there, not just from the USA and Britain, but from other NATO countries too. Well, if those are the alternatives, it’s bad news for Afghan women, because, obviously neither Britain nor any other European country will spend the blood and treasure that is needed any more than the Americans will. So that’s not interesting. It’s just awful.

What, then, is an interesting story right now? In what fields are the decisions being taken which will shape the world in important ways? There are two additional criteria. The choices have to be clear, at least to the well-informed, and the outcome has to be uncertain, in the sense that we still have a chance to influence which choice is made.