Who let the bombs out?

Rise, like lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number!

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you:

Ye are many - they are few!

Extract from Shelley's The Masque of Anarchy

Last week I saw Amir Amirani's documentary We Are Many, which tells the story of the global resistance to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by British and American forces.  It charts the unfolding reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attack in the US in 2001 and the decision by George W. Bush and Tony Blair to take their countries to war, purportedly to find the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein could deploy within 45 minutes.  

The high point of the film is the global anti-war demonstration on 15th February 2003, when marches against the Iraq war took place in over 600 countries across the world, and London saw the biggest demonstration in British history, with an estimated 2 million people on the streets of the capital.  The documentary features interviews with the UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix; with American Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff; with members of Tony Blair's cabinet; with the president of the Stop the War Coalition, Tony Benn; and with a variety of other activists and celebrities who described their reactions to the events they witnessed.  

The film has been described as 'a work of beautiful rage', and this is a fitting description.  I went to see the film with the two close friends I marched with in that historic demonstration.  I remember the different figures being bandied about on the day, as everyone tried to figure out just how many people were there (the police said 750,000, whereas the real figure was much higher).  In the film, actor Mark Rylance talks about arriving in central London and thinking he was on the wrong demonstration: people were there with their kids in pushchairs - not the profile of your typical protester.  I remember the banners, the masks, the chanting: "Who let the bombs out? Bush, Bush, and Blair!".  My favoured placard was the one that read 'not in my name', as that summed up my feelings on the subject.  I don't agree with this.  None of us here agree with this.  How can our elected officials start a war which such an overwhelming number of people are against?  Surely they have to listen now!  Of course, as we know, they didn't.  

In her interview for the documentary Clare Short says something along the lines of 'if you cut Tony Blair open you'd find 'Iraq' engraved on his heart'.  Blair never expressed any regret over the Iraq war, even after it was clear that no weapons of mass destruction would be found.  This is something that those of us who opposed the war find very, very difficult to forgive: the absolute refusal to admit that the decision to go to war might have been the wrong one.  Even worse is the evidence presented in the documentary that the powers that be deliberately misled the public about the case for war - remember the so-called 'dodgy dossier'?  As I wrote in my post on the Ched Evans case, if Blair were only to express regret, admit that he made a mistake (as we all do, though most of our mistakes tend not to to have such catastrophic consequences), we could perhaps forgive him and move on.  Of course, it's much easier for me to forgive someone who hasn't bombed my country.

One of the most fascinating series of scenes in the film, for me, was the footage of 'CODEPINK' activists and their actions after the war.  CODEPINK is a grassroots anti-war movement in the US led by women.  In one scene we see Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his wife arriving at a smart event and the camera follows them as they walk across a square and into the lobby of a hotel.  One of the CODEPINK activists is standing in the lobby and when she sees him, she comes right up to him, points and shouts "War criminal!  War criminal!  Arrest this war criminal!". He ignores her but she follows him across the lobby, shouting "This man is a war criminal!".  She carries on shouting as she is dragged away by security.  I was really tickled by this utterly crazy protest, which on the face of it seemed to serve no useful purpose.  But the idea that these women in pink t-shirts were shadowing those responsible for the Iraq war and reminding them of what they had done was quite fascinating.  It made me think of Banquo's ghost haunting Macbeth, his killer.  "Blood will have blood," as Mark Rylance reminds us.

Doubtless some people reading this will argue that Bush and Blair acted according to the best intelligence they had at the time, and so to vilify them as war criminals is unjust.  As a Christian, I am commanded not to judge others and to pray for those in leadership.  I probably need to get over my tendency to descend into incoherent rage whenever I read anything about Tony Blair in the news.  Apart from anything else, that amount of anger isn't good for the soul.  But I don't think being a Christian requires that I submit to those in authority without question.  

The book of Amos in the Old Testament is another work of beautiful rage.  The prophet lists Israel's enemies, naming their sins.  Edom is condemned for war crimes:

This is what the LORD says: “The people of Edom have sinned again and again, and I will not let them go unpunished! They chased down their relatives, the Israelites, with swords, showing them no mercy. In their rage, they slashed them continually and were unrelenting in their anger. So I will send down fire on Teman, and the fortresses of Bozrah will be destroyed.” (Amos 1.11-12 NLT)

Then, once he has condemned the sins of their enemies, he turns to Israel:

This is what the LORD says: “The people of Israel have sinned again and again, and I will not let them go unpunished! They sell honourable people for silver and poor people for a pair of sandals. They trample helpless people in the dust and shove the oppressed out of the way."

(Amos 2.6-7 NLT)

According to Amos, God knows the difference between what is justified in war and what is not.  And he holds to account, not just our enemies, but us too.