Excuse me, but I'm getting a little confused. Is there a war on at present or not?

For nearly six months now, there has seemed to be only one possible answer to that question. The message from the Bush administration has been unequivocal. The civilised world, we were told, was most certainly at war with terrorism - and what was more, you were either With Us or Against Us.

Nor did there seem to be much doubt in the 'State of the Nation' speech that Bush gave the other night. Not only was America at war, he said, but that war had only just begun. Ousting the Taleban from power in Afghanistan, and bombing much of that luckless nation into rubble, had been only the start.

'Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun,'

said Bush.
'This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch. We cannot stop short. If we stopped now, leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked, our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.'

Bush offered some strong clues as to where the next fronts in the 'war' might be opened.

North Korea, he said,'...is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.'
Iran, he claimed, 'aggressively pursues' similar weapons, and exports terror, while Iraq 'continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.'

'States like this, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil,'

concluded George.

There are some interesting choices of words there. I suspect that Bush's evocative phrase about an 'axis of terror' was carefully chosen by those paid to put articulate words into the President's mouth, implying as it does that those the Pentagon deems to be enemies of America are the modern equivalent of the Nazi Axis powers of World War II.

Meanwhile, Iraq is condemned simply for 'flaunting its hostility' towards the USA. So, if a nation expresses anger about American foreign policy, is that now regarded as a valid reason to treat that nation as a military target?

And yet, despite all this evidence to the contrary, there can't be a war on. Al-Qaeda is, by most definitions, a terrorist organisation. So surely, if America is at war with terrorism, people suspected of being agents for Al Qaeda or the Taleban, taken under armed guard to Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and consequently imprisoned without trial in harsh conditions, must be prisoners of war?

Er, no. Because that would mean that the prisoners in Camp X-Ray would have to be given the full rights of prisoners of war, as defined for decades by the Geneva Convention.. And that would never do, because then there might be some serious legal restraints on the interrogation of these prisoners. Indeed, it might be thought to be wrong for them to be chained, blindfolded, gagged and earmuffed to prevent any kind of communication. That might be considered sensory deprivation, by some 'bleeding-heart liberals' or 'hand-wringers' - to quote any number of conservative commentators.

So - is there a war on or not? What are the rules right now? Is America going to take on any country that looks at it a bit funny, or is there some prospect of peace in our time? I'd like a clear answer, but I don't expect one. Not while Bush has domestic problems like the Enron scandal to deal with - and not while warlike rhetoric and heroic posturing can provide such an effective distraction.

There are, thankfully, few fields of human endeavour in which a man can be convicted of rape, demonstrate a taste for the flavour of human flesh, and yet still be regarded as some sort of hero.

In fact, boxing is hopefully the only activity in which someone like Mike Tyson could become a celebrity and not just a criminal. That's why, as a great sports fan, I am becoming more and more uncomfortable about the fact that boxing is still regarded as a legitimate sport.

It would be naive not to suspect that there might have been some degree of premeditation surrounding the bizarre events at the press conference to promote the planned match between Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Way back in the 1970s, Muhammad Ali had a brawl with Joe Frazier before one of their title fights. Ali didn't bite his opponent on the foot, as Tyson did last week, but the principle was the same. If people believe that the fighters really hate each other, then a fight becomes a bigger attraction. More people are likely to shell out those all-important pay-per-view fees to watch the contest on TV, and thus there's more money for all concerned with the event.

In the 21st century, boxing is certainly not unique among professional sports in being largely governed and directed by television rights money. Nor is it the only game in which part of the appeal can be the hope of seeing someone you dislike humiliated: I often watch soccer matches involving Manchester United or Leeds United for that reason.

But boxing is the only sport in which battering one's opponent into unconsciousness is regarded as a reason for applause, not for immediate disqualification and a lengthy ban. It appeals to the lowest levels of human nature - to fantasies of power without responsibility. It's the only serious sport in which bloodlust is, shamelessly, part of the attraction - unless you count the pathetic farce of professional wrestling, which boxing resembles more and more.

So I was pleased to see that the Nevada State Athletic Commission voted this week to reject Tyson's application for a licence to fight Lennox Lewis in Las Vegas in April, despite the huge financial interests involved. Money talks so loudly in boxing that the Commission's verdict is refreshing and admirable - even if its likely result is that the whole sick circus will simply take place somewhere else.

But still, I hope to live to see the day when boxing in general is a thing of the past. What has convinced me on this point has been the experience of standing in a bar while a boxing match is going on, listening to the voices and watching the faces as one fighter or another goes on the attack and looks likely to batter his opponent into submission. Then, truly, you see the nastiest side of human nature - a primitive desire for weakness to be punished and humiliated, and for brainless brute force to prevail.

One day, when I'm very old, I hope that I'll be able to tell wide-eyed children:
'No! Honestly! Boxing really happened! They battered each other senseless! That was the whole point of the game! And they weren't put in prison - well, not for what they did during the match! They were paid huge amounts, and lots of people thought they were great!'

And I'd like to think that the kids would laugh, and think that the silly old man must have imagined it.

As a fan of the fine British band Blur, I am pleased to hear that their music is being taken far beyond the usual concert circuits. A specially composed track by the band is to be sent to Mars on Beagle 2, a British craft that's due to reach Mars next year.

The idea came about after Blur drummer Dave Rowntree and bassist Alex James contacted scientist Professor Colin Pillinger. The professor wanted the European Space Agency's mission to put a spacecraft in orbit around the planet to include a small lander that could be sent down to the surface to search for signs of life. James has described the song Blur are sending into space as '...kind of like a musical cave painting - a ponderous, clear tune.'

Professor Pillinger has said:
'We have to announce our arrival, and normally we send back some piece of computer gobbledygook and wanted to have something that was instantly recognisable. When we started this project, we really need to demonstrate credibility and we also need to raise a lot of cash. Blur could provide both media appeal and this signal for us.'

Well... fair enough. But, if, at some point in the future, the Earth is invaded by aliens speaking in the sort of exaggerated Cockney accent that Blur's Damon Albarn often affects on record, we'll know who to blame.

Finally this week, I'd like to enlist the help of 'Post' readers in a project I've started elsewhere on h2g2.

Sometimes, I find this writing lark pretty hard. I often suffer from an affliction that greatly troubled this site's founder, the wonderful Douglas Adams: writer's block. It's an affliction that affects many of those of us who are regularly required to write, and it can be pretty depressing when it takes hold.

So I've started a conversation on the 'Ask h2g2' page, asking simply: 'How do you overcome writers' block?'

And I'd appreciate your input. I've already had enough interesting responses to form the basis of a good Collaborative Guide Entry - but the more ideas that are submitted, the better.

See you next week - block permitting.

Ormondroyd

31.01.02. Front Page

Back Issue Page