The Guardian asked a number of well-known “doves” what their alternative would be to war. Their replies make interesting reading. The consensus seems to be that there’s still no good reason to do anything and that the onus should be on the “hawks” to say why we need to do something.
I was particularly impressed by what Zadie Smith said.
The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause. The case against is clear. To begin war on Iraq would be to launch a pre-emptive strike on a country we fear will attack us on a future unspecified date, in a future unknown manner, with weapons we have not been able to find. It would be to set the most remarkable international precedent. It would be in contravention of international law and the UN charter. It would be to consolidate a feeling of injustice in the Middle East, the consequences of which we will reap for generations. It would be, simply, illegal.