Before we begin, I think it is important that we decide what we mean by 'definition'. At present the nation is debating what it means to be British, what is meant by 'just', what is the national status of Kosovo and whether American imperialism is imperialist. Readers of newspapers have joined in, sometimes providing the best analysis and sometimes not. Letters pages exist in part as an outlet for pedantry, or, to be precise, semantic hair-splitting by people with nothing else to do. Hence the rather tiresome efforts which read: 'Surely a ground war is impossible; one cannot grind a war,' and so forth.
Words, however, are important. There is a battle for the language, especially when things have to be justified. During this war, all the old Vietnam-speak is employed to make things sound less awful than they are. 'Collateral damage' is now almost self-parodic. Nato should hire consultants to come up with new euphemisms. We could say we are shaking out excess lives, downsizing hospitals or creating leaner, fitter school buildings.
Geographical definition is inevitably a battlefield - or non-permissive intervention zone - when territory is to be carved up. It is, for example, more than a quibble to protest that the term 'Ulster' is misused. This is not an innocent error, like anachronistic railway livery in a period drama. It is deliberate. Ulster (here we go again) is one of the four provinces of Ireland. It consists of nine counties, unlike 'Northern Ireland' which comprises six. The other three are in the south, except for Donegal, which is actually to the north but in the Republic.
The term Northern Ireland is, however, roughly accurate and refers to a political entity created by the disastrous partition forced on Ireland by Britain. Unionists favour 'Ulster' because it suggests that the north-eastern corner of Ireland is a different place entirely. The title Northern Ireland rather gives the game away about where it is, and offers a clue to the problem's solution.
Those arguing that Kosovo is a historical part of Serbia have pretty much won their argument. But I'm not sure it gets us anywhere and it doesn't justify the oppression of Albanians. The allies are reluctant to define or even mention 'Greater Albania' because it is something they cannot possibly allow. Nato's ostensible war aim is to continue to dictate to a region that has always been dictated to by outsiders.
People who support the war place themselves in very strange political positions. Backing US imperialism is a Labour tradition so there is no surprise there. But it is extraordinary that so many new people are backing it, with no regard for the danger its unbridled ambitions pose to the future of the world.
They seem to be saying that the Balkan war fits into the pattern of US aggression by pure chance, or that intervention can be redefined because there is no oil in Kosovo. However, even if I'm wrong that there is a strategic aim of securing America's sphere of influence in the Middle East, that arms dealers influence policy and that military machines need to clear out their old gear and re-stock, you can't tell me that this is the dawning of a bright new era in international relations. Even if the politicians believe their own propaganda, they are still wrong.
I am sure Clinton and Blair do see themselves as crusaders. Hardly anyone wakes up thinking: 'How can I make the world a worse place today?' - except perhaps Robert Kilroy-Silk. I'm not sure to what extent Blair is a US poodle. I do believe he is a dangerous lunatic, who but for an expensive education would be walking harmlessly down high streets clutching plastic bags and shouting at strangers. I may be wrong but I can only go on the evidence.
The view circulated by his media poodles is that he really wants a ground war. That may be true, which would confirm my view of him, or it may be spin, which would suggest that he is lying to them, or that they are lying on his behalf.
Perhaps the war can be defined as a simple attempt at discipline that went too far. Wars take on lives of their own. I still think it's unlikely that Nato will launch an invasion, but it's possible and it would create even more havoc.
I am often told we have to start from here. Perhaps that is true, chronologically, but it is a great debate-stopper. People concede that the break-up of Yugoslavia has been a disaster encouraged by western allies who have wanted it gone for a long time, but that's in the past, they say. From the start of the war, many of us said that the bombs would make things worse. The counter argument was: 'What is your alternative?' to which we replied: 'Not to make things worse'.
Now the start of the war is in the past, things are already worse and those who have opposed it are challenged to suggest what should be done from here. It is a strange request but I shall do my best. It should be stopped now.
