h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Iraq, a soldier's view - A2191358
Author: seargantFlipper - U544515

OK well here it is my first political piece subjected to public review...

This is an excellently written moving intellegent piece. I love it.

It challenged what I thought about the war and I'm glad to have read it.

I'm sure that it could appear on the front page soon enough....

The question is in what format... the Edited Guide is meant to be factual, and not written in the first person. But they do make exceptions for certain exceptional pieces such as "my experience of cancer"

I have a feeling that this could be considered one of those pieces.

However there is also the underguide which is for exception writing on any nature... and I'm fairly sure that this is the sort of thing that they'd love as well..

Any way accept a for a well written piece and we'll see what the consensus is on whether it's EG or UG.

It's still good either way...

Well, you know what I'll say...

The UnderGuide would probably welcome this piece, but if you want it in the Edited Guide, it might be able to get in with some intensive formatting and help from scouts and commenters. It's your decision of whether you want to tough it out here in Peer Review or try to get it into the UnderGuide.

I think it's a very well written, interesting piece, but there are no guarantees either way you choose.

I'll add my congratulations to the others... a very interesting and intelligently written piece...

Now, just to throw a spanner in the works...

When you were giving reasons for the lack of WMD... there is one possible alternative you don't seem to have covered....

There weren't any WMD left... as you mentioned, they could have all long since been destroyed, however, the Iraqi regime held onto the pretence of having them simply to discourage any military action against them (the poor man's version of M.A.D.) It is possible that they were working on the principle that the UN and thus the US would not invade Iraq if it appeared that they would be putting their soldiers at unnecessary risk and that as long as Iraq could continue to convince the world that it could threaten Israel with WMDs then it could virtually hold the entire world to ransom...

Just my 2cents worth... please feel free to ignore it though

I understand that this is a little bit different than a strict interpretation of the guidlines would call for, I have no idea what the next step is I am new to h2g2 and thought it might be fun to hit the submit for peer review. I have heard the theory about the bluff of faking the WMDs as a deterent, however I discount that because if that were the case why on earth would he not scream Just Kidding!!! as Bush was knocking on the door?

SeargantFlipper

Thank you for writing this and for submitting it. Like Z it's made me rethink some of my views about Iraq. Good for you! It is well-written and had me hooked from start to finish.

After months of all my information coming from Iraq via journalists and other commentators, it is a relief (honestly) to hear the views of somebody who is actually involved and who is at the sharp end (literally).

I have no idea whether this has a chance of getting into the Edited Guide, but I for one would vote for it.

You have given us an important insight into what's happening in Iraq and I would like to allow as many people as possible to read what you have to say.

Good luck out there. Avoid the bombs and bullets and keep us informed.

I'll raise a to you tonight.

Oh, and welcome to h2g2!!


Frenchbean

Interesting piece, SargeantFlipper.

I too have no idea whether this entry meets the Edited Guidelines, although I think a good case could be made for it. There are after all, particular circumstances where first person entries are permitted. I would be tempted to leave it in, as entries undergoing the Peer Review process almost always get improved as a result of it. Therefore, even if it was deemed to be more appropriate for the Underguide, it would be an improved piece.

My !

Shall we ask for an italic opinion on whether it could eventually become an Edited Guide Piece? If it could become an EG piece, then the UnderGuide can't really use it.

It might be good for the post, as well.

I wondered about that.

What is an "italic opinion?" Seems that so far most people think that although it is not a strict interpretation of the guidelines it is a good candidate for exception to policy. Thanks for the comments guys, means a lot

seargantFlipper,

When an entry is recommended by one of the scouts, the italics (who are the BBC staff) then decide if the entry meets the guidelines. Scouts have an e-group, which tells us when our picks are due and is an opportunity to raise questions. I've asked the italics via the e-group whether they would consider this to meet the guidelines. Personally, I think there is a good case for it. Now it's up to the italics (they're called italics because their nicknames are italicised). If they say yes - great - if they say no - then this would be a great candidate for the Underguide and could appear on the front page in this guise.

The Post had crossed my mind too Jodan - simply because I would like the entry to get as wide an audience as possible in h2g2.

What's the food like seargantflipper?


Frenchbean

The h2g2 editors responded on the Scout offsite forum, and it looks as if they're willing to make one of the rare 'Personal Perspective' exceptions for this entry. We'll still need to fix it up a bit, but it looks like this will be able to go into the EG

Excellent!

It looks like this will be one of those "personal narratives" that may well make it into the Edited Guide . There are a few small changes that could be made - they are really nitpicks, and we'd all be delighted if it got in.

Do you know who said "war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means"? it would be nice if that quote was attributed.

Edited guide artilces are often read by casual readers, and as this is a viewpoint that isn't often put across by the UK media I have a feeling that it would attract attention from quite a few causal readers. Perhaps it would appear a little more proffessional, if you removed the mention of h2g2 to the last sentance of the first paragraph? Any way that's just an idea..

My final point is a very mere nitpick.. and frankly I feel an bit of a bastard mentioning them...

According to the house style quotation marks should be single quotes, not double quotes.. again a sub editor could fix this. But I just thought I'd point it out..

This is an incredably intellegently agrued piece - and I think I've piled on quite enough praise and may be on the verge of becoming annoying.

Z - You? Annoying? Pah!

I don't think you're annoying either, Z !

I'm really pleased at the positive reaction to the e-mail. My gut feeling was that it would be one of those rare exceptions to the first person perspective entries.

I too thought this entry would benefit by a couple of well chosen headers, although it's interesting enough to follow on its own.

All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means. (1954)
-- Zhou Enlai, Chinese Premier

... apparently. I always thought it was Clausewitz...

I think it was von Clausewitz who said it this way round, too. Zhou Elnlai has turned it on its head and come up with the carollary.

That explains it - thanks!

Great article, btw....