muninnhuginn | Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

In today's Independent parliamentary sketch Simon Carr quotes Bernard Jenkin:

"Mr Jenkin suggested that the air forces surely were engaging in pre-emptive strikes, indeed that we had already witnessed the opening shots of the Second Gulf War (his capitals)."

But then, did the last one ever finish? With the Kurds and the Shiites in southern Iraq left to Saddam's tender mercies and the entire population, give or take presumably a privileged minority with wealth and influence to prosper, hit by sanctions that crippled a previously functioning health system, with continued overflying by US and British planes, systematic bombing, did the war over Kuwait really end or just shift one country across the map and down a couple of gears? Well, it must have done. We're apparently seeing the first moves in something new.

Should we be looking wider. Is this part of WW3 as it's described by Bill Weinberg and his cohorts? Or, as I heard one commentator or historian describe the War on Terror/Iraq invasion situation, WW4, the Cold War, WW3, being over.

Or should we draw a line under the last century's multitude of conflicts and label it the nth war of our already bloodied new century? And hang our heads in shame that we already have to think about how to tally these things up.

Of course, as the bringing in of the date (after all itself disputed by the maybe over pedantic) of the new millennium rather points it up as rather arbitrary. For most casualties, even if they know they're part of a war, its numbering makes little difference. When you're dead, you're dead.

Which makes us wonder about the other significant numbers and their efficacy. The, apparently still disputed or a least befogged numbers on the Anti-War demos (see Fuzzy Math at NY Times for example). All those folk, amongst whom we'd have chosen to be had other things not intervened (overcoming a personal dislike of crowds so to do), marching through cities worldwide to what point? Maybe a feeling of solidarity was generated, a point made. But who benefited? Unless they donated their services free--and for all we know they might have done--coach operators bussing demonstrators into London will have had a little business they might not have otherwise obtained; rail operators--no free rail tickets for the well-intentioned--with crowded trains; a potential increase in fuel consumption--profit from which goes into whose pocket? If the money had been diverted to a useful cause--what cause? we wonder--instead of simply moving people into one protesting mass, would that have been more effective? Easier to add up, too, to go back to those annoying numbers.

A counsel of despair? An excuse for inactivity?

With the apparent "softening up" of Iraq already happening, don't we have to bow to the inevitable? Or are we to hope--foolishly--that when Saddam gives way enough we'll stop, apologise for the pre-emptive mess we've made and offer to help clear it up?

Maybe the virtual march was a better idea in some ways, though it got little media coverage this side of the Atlantic and no parallel action that we could find.

And, naturally, even the planes parked at their air base (you'll have to read the article to find out where!)--B52s--have their numbers, too. I'll bet in total they add up to far less than the "millions of the mouthless dead".

Ho hum. Maybe, we're just being grumpy 'cos we agree more than a little with Martin Amis: The palace of the end in today's Grauniad.