Diary

The left and the Iraq war

31 January, 2010

Listening to The Big Questions this morning, I was reminded of how morally obtuse the anti war movement still is. Time and again, they tried to lecture the audience on the evils of Blair's intervention in Iraq, citing the 'fact' that we had armed Saddam to the teeth, that we 'killed' 150,000 Iraqis (or was it 1million) during the war itself, that there was a political solution to Saddam's defiance of the UN, that this was a war for oil done by Blair at Bush's behest. I felt like I was in a time machine and I had gone back to 2003, listening to the Stop the War coalition disseminating their ignorance.

Whatever one's opinion on the war itself, it is easy to unpick this nonsense. First, did we arm Saddam between 1973-1990? If 'we' means the USA (primarily) and Britain, the answer is yes, though far less so than other countries. In fact, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US supplied about 1% of Saddam's conventional weaponry during this period. The overwhelming amount came from the USSR and its Eastern bloc allies, with most of the rest coming from China and France.

With nuclear and biological material, Germany and France led the way, again with the US playing an insignificant role. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the US armed Saddam to the teeth is a grotesque distortion of the truth. In fact, the countries that primarily armed the Iraqi dictator were those that most strenuously argued against invasion in 2003.

To the next charge, the deaths of Iraqi civilians after 2003 are indeed a blot on the allies' record. Blair, Bush and the Pentagon must take much of the blame for failing to provide a proper peacetime plan for securing the country from insurgents and terrorists. It was a criminal dereliction of duty.

That said, the notion that Blair had the blood of these people on his hands is equally monstrous and misguided. The vast majority of Iraqis who died since 2003 were killed by their fellow Muslims and to absolve these killers of any responsibility is to engage in a spurious form of moral denial. It is typical of the left to care little when non Westerners kill their own, yet to scream the roof down when there is even the slightest sign of American or British involvement.

Most nonsensical of all is the idea that the UN could have dealt with Saddam's failure to disclose his WMD programme. The UN had had 12 years and 17 resolutions to do precisely this. Its abject failure to deal with this security issue explains, at least in part, why the Bush administration felt compelled to act in the way that it did. (That it had other reasons too is a separate matter).

Of course, the case against war is more complex than this. Regime change was predicated on the assumption that in 2003, Saddam posed an imminent threat to his neighbours and to the West's interests and that, after 9/11, the world could not stand by on the pretext that he would not reconstitute his WMD programme and pass it on to a rogue terrorist faction.

This argument was undermined by false attempts to draw a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda and dubious evidence of an Iraqi nuclear programme. No links were ever found between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Worse, we had the dodgy dossier. One had a right therefore to be sceptical about some of what the Bush administration was saying in 2003.

But what of the notion that Blair was a mere poodle of the Bush administration? Again, this idea does not stand up to scrutiny. For one thing, Washington was intent on military action whatever the prevailing opinion in Downing Street. Even Donald Rumsfeld admitted in early 2003 that the US did not need a British coalition partner.

Second, Blair's understandable insistence on a new UN Resolution irritated many of the hawks in the White House who lamented a continuation of the UN route. Third, Blair had been warning of the danger of rogue states with WMD since at least 1998 when he was formulating his doctrine of liberal interventionism. His frenzied efforts to build a coalition in 2002-3 must be seen in this context.

It was clear that Saddam had violated international law and his repeated defiance had to be dealt with in a robust, effective and meaningful manner. Taking all of the above into account, the arguments for and against, I placed myself then, as now, in the camp of 'very cautious supporter,' acutely aware that the long term effects of regime change (which may take decades to become fully clear) were going to be hard to predict. But one thing is for sure - if you want illumination on this issue, don't speak to the Stop the War coalition.

top

The Iraq war was about politics more than law

27 January, 2010

The appearance of Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, at the Chilcot inquiry, has added spice to the arguments over the legality of the Iraq war. The questions that have consumed commentators since 2003 have suddenly returned with a vengeance. Why did Goldsmith change the advice he gave to Tony Blair about the legality of the conflict? What pressure was put on him to alter his initial verdict that the war would be legal only with a second UN resolution? Who was leaning on him during March 2003 – Blair and his advisers or the Americans?

In the end he decided that force could be legally applied based on a particular interpretation of Resolution 1441. In essence, that Saddam’s failure to comply with the demands for disarmament would revive the authority to use force that was central to earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 and 687. These had given him 15 days to disarm his WMD after the First Gulf War. The technicalities of these resolutions could be pored over for days by a battery of international lawyers whose arcane arguments would be of little interest to the rest of us. How many of us would care what they said?

For most of us, the legitimacy of the Iraq war did not rest solely, or even mainly, on questions of legality. At most, this was but one dimension of an enormously complicated, multi faceted security challenge. For 12 years, the UN had failed to deal with Saddam’s threats to regional stability; the US and its allies were forced to take over.

In any case, the endorsement of the Security Council hardly provided an unchallengeable stamp of moral authority, as the 2003 Liberal Democrats were arguing. The Council provided no legal backing for the Kosovo war yet one could argue, with good reason, that it was morally justifiable to stop Serbia’s genocide. Yet few people condemn President Clinton’s ‘unilateralism’ with the same vehemence accorded to George Bush.

No, this was a debate about political judgment. Were Saddam to have posed a direct and immediate threat to his neighbours, and to Western interests, there was arguably legal and certainly political justification for the invasion in 2003. I personally argued then, as I argue now, that the case for regime change was dubious from the start. It was not that a second resolution was essential, though it would have been helpful for political reasons. It was that the intelligence assessing the risk from Saddam did not point to an imminent threat, nor did it prove a link between Saddam and 9/11 as some Americans claimed.

But as Saddam had violated his obligations to disclose full evidence of WMD’s, there was a case for more limited military action, as was the case in 1998.

Of course, some argued that there were humanitarian reasons for intervention, just as there had been during the Kosovo war. Saddam’s removal would see the green shoots of democracy spread the Middle East and de-baathification would lead to a new Velvet revolution. But these arguments had to be balanced against the risk that a lengthy war would give succour to Iran, the region’s more powerful and dangerous adversary. These are all political judgments, not legal ones.

In the end what we think about this conflict is unlikely to be changed by the Chilcot inquiry. No smoking gun, few shock revelations, the same old arguments. Now who can be surprised about that?

top

The Iraq war will never be judged by whether it was legal

27 January, 2010

The appearance of Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, at the Chilcot inquiry, has added spice to the arguments over the legality of the Iraq war. The questions that have consumed commentators since 2003 have suddenly returned with a vengeance. Why did Goldsmith change the advice he gave to Tony Blair about the legality of the conflict? What pressure was put on him to alter his initial verdict that the war would be legal only with a second UN resolution? Who leant on him during March 2003 – Blair and his advisors or the Americans?

In the end he decided that force could be legally applied based on a particular interpretation of Resolution 1441. In essence, that Saddam’s failure to comply with this Security Council resolution would revive the authority to use force that was central to earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 and 687. These had given him 15 days to disarm his WMD after the First Gulf War. The technicalities of these resolutions could be pored over for days by a battery of international lawyers whose arcane arguments would be of little interest to the rest of us. How many of us would care what they said?

For most of us, the legitimacy of the Iraq war did not rest solely, or even mainly, on questions of legality. At most, this was but one dimension of an enormously complicated, multi faceted security challenge. For 12 years, the UN had failed to deal with Saddam’s threats to regional stability; the US and its allies were forced to take over.

In any case, the endorsement of the Security Council hardly provided an unchallengeable stamp of moral authority, as the 2003 Liberal Democrats were arguing. The Council provided no legal backing for the Kosovo war yet one could argue, with good reason, that it was morally justifiable to stop Serbia’s genocide. Yet few people condemn President Clinton’s ‘unilateralism’ with the same vehemence accorded to George Bush.

Were Saddam to have posed a direct and immediate threat to his neighbours, and to Western interests, there was arguably legal as well as political cover for the invasion in 2003. I argued then, as I argue now, that the case for regime change was dubious from the start. It was not that a second resolution was essential, though it would have been helpful for political reasons.

In fact the UN’s intervention since 1991 had been marked by failure. It was that the intelligence assessing the risk from Saddam did not point to an imminent threat, nor did it prove a link with 9/11 as some in America claimed. But as Saddam had violated his obligations to disclose full evidence of WMD’s, there was a case for more limited military action, as was the case in 1998.

Of course, there were humanitarian reasons for intervention too, just as there were over the Kosovo war. Saddam’s removal would see the green shoots of democracy spread the Middle East and de-baathification would lead to a new Velvet revolution. But they had to be balanced against the risk that a lengthy war would give succour to Iran, the region’s more powerful and dangerous adversary. These are all political judgments, not legal ones.

In the end what we think about this conflict is unlikely to be changed by the Chilcot inquiry. No smoking gun, few shock revelations, the same old arguments. Now who can be surprised about that?

top

Renewing contact with the MCB is a deplorable act of appeasement

25 January, 2010

Last week the government announced that official contacts would resume between Whitehall and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Rumours have surfaced about a political deal. In return for the MCB accepting a change in the universal jurisdiction law, one that would prevent Israeli politicians from facing arrest in the UK, the Council could once again maintain a dialogue with Britain’s leading politicians.

This dangerous tactic appears to have misfired with the government refusing to clarify whether the proposed law change will now proceed. But whatever its short term benefits, this olive branch to the MCB is completely unwarranted.

For one thing, there is no sign that the organisation’s offensive boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day will come to an end. Until 2008, they declined to attend, claiming that a commemoration of the mass killing of Jews was ‘insufficiently inclusive.’

Instead they advocated a ‘Genocide Day’ which would centre around the issues of Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir. None of these involved genocide but they did reflect the victim mentality so typical of Islamic extremists. It is hard to think of a more disturbing way to politicise genocide and poison Muslim-Jewish relations in the process. This year, Inayat Bunglawala will attend though only in a personal capacity.

But this behaviour is par for the course for an organisation with a dubious track record on Islamist terror. To their credit, the MCB’s spokesmen did condemn the 7th July bombers for their ‘indiscriminate acts of terror’ and claimed to reject all forms of Islamic violence.

But this sits uneasily with their glowing praise for Sheikh Yassin, the spiritual godfather of the Hamas movement, as well as their support for the Islamist Sheikh Qaradawi. The former MCB Secretary, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, was repeatedly asked on Panorama whether the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians was ‘terrorism.’ His evasive responses spoke volumes.

Worse, Daud Abdullah, the organisation’s Deputy Secretary General, signed the notorious Istanbul Declaration in 2009 after Operation Cast Lead. This document called on Muslims to fight ‘by all means and ways’ any nation sending its warships into ‘Muslim waters,’ specifically when those ships were helping to intercept arms for Hamas.

At the time Gordon Brown had suggesting just such a role for British troops, meaning that Abdullah’s signature was tantamount to treason. Hazel Blears broke off contact with the MCB but her successor, John Denham, has now adopted a more forgiving attitude. One wonders what Denham’s response would have been if the deputy director of the Zionist Federation had called for attacks on the British army.

The MCB is also in denial about the ideological basis of Islamist terror. Sir Iqbal Sacranie frequently spoke of ‘Palestine’ and ‘Israeli crimes’ as recruiting sergeants for violent extremism while Inayat Bunglawala decried the use of the term ‘Islamist.’

Bunglawala wrote that this categorisation was used to ‘denigrate and marginalize all politically engaged and active Muslims.’ He could not even bring himself to acknowledge the role of anti Semitism within radical Islam, claiming that the accusation was used to silence critics of Israel’s policies.

Instead of acknowledging the religious fanaticism emanating from the Islamic community, Dr Abdul Bari recently spoke of tackling ‘violent extremism’ while calling on ‘all members of society to eschew criminality.’

Yet the fanaticism that producers suicide bombers is not just criminal behaviour. It is rooted in an extremist interpretation of Islam which is propagated by radical preachers of hate within the Muslim community. In the face of a sustained holy war, the purported moderates are in a state of denial

Thus by renewing contact with the MCB, the government has shot itself in the foot and drowned out the voices of more moderate Muslims. It is an unforgivably misguided policy.

top

The National Association of Police: wrong on Islam, wrong on terror

21 January, 2010

The scale of British denial over the Islamist threat has been highlighted today by the comments from the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP). The officers told MPs that ‘Islam’ was not the driver behind recent Islamist attacks and that the government’s counter terror strategy was ‘stigmatising’ the Muslim community.’

They continued: ‘It can be argued that there is a connection in the rise of Islamophobia and our Prevent programme as it feeds on the stereotypes that the media and some right wing parties promote, i.e. all Muslims are evil and non trustworthy.’

Some might be tempted to defend the government from these attacks. But in fact much of what NAMP is saying is the government’s own view. How often do ministers assure us that Islam is a ‘peaceful and loving’ religion that has no connection with terrorism? How often are we told that Islam has been ‘hijacked’ by ‘criminals’ and that 99% of Muslims are ‘on our side’ (David Miliband last year). NAMP’s denial about Islamist terror mirrors the government’s own confused thinking.

What we should do is to look at the facts. MI5 tell us that there are up to 2,000 Al Qaeda recruits in Britain, many of them indoctrinated in overseas training grounds and madrassahs. Some of Britain’s biggest mosques play host to a number of insalubrious figures from Saudi Arabia whose raison d’etre is to sow discord between Muslims and their ‘infidel’ colleagues. Universities, such as UCL, have become a breeding ground for radical Islamic groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

In this environment, it is fatuous to deny any linkage between Islam and terror. Al Qaeda is not actively recruiting Christians, Jews or Hindus in the search for a Muslim Caliphate. It is Muslims alone who are being signed up for the war against civilisation.

And they are being brainwashed with a not implausible interpretation of the Islamic faith. Clearly it would be wrong to stigmatise all Muslims as terrorists or to believe that ‘Islam’ is the true enemy. But the government never claimed this (nor has the mainstream media) so this is one gigantic straw man.

Having dismantled this fatuous nonsense, we should ask why an organisation like the National Association of Muslim Police exists in the first place. To divide up police officers on the basis of their skin colour, race or religious group is surely to encourage the very kind of separatist thinking that breeds racism in the first place.

It runs counter to integrationist attitudes which see the police as a unified group regardless of their members’ different backgrounds. Sectarian police organisations usually undermine confidence within the police force itself - witness the furore in 2008 when the Black police association called for a boycott of the force by black recruits.

Perhaps we are too desensitized by decades of multiculturalism to object to 'Muslim' or 'Black' police organisations. Perhaps we scarcely even notice. Maybe the left, with their victim centred narrative, have brainwashed the rest of us too?'

top

Haiti needs to be rebuilt by the US and its allies

19 January, 2010

No one can fail to be touched by the scale of the unfolding tragedy in Haiti. This tiny, impoverished island, a historic refuge for criminal despots and tyrannical rulers, has been reduced to rubble. Chaos and anarchy appear to have replaced the law of rule with armed gangs ruling the streets instead of police. Hundreds of thousands are dead or injured, their bodies piling up in the streets as if they were primitive refuse. No scene could better evoke the phrase ‘a hell on earth.’

It is heartening to see a full scale aid operation in action, not undertaken by the UN but by individual nations acting on their own initiative. One of the lead nations has been Israel which promptly dispatched hundreds of aid personnel and a state of the art field hospital to the island. This generosity came despite its relatively small size, limited resources and small population, to say nothing of its distance from the Caribbean. Another lead nation is the United States which has sent thousands of troops to Haiti in recent days.

Yet where the US (and its allies) lead, other nations carp in envy, particularly when they cannot share in the international spotlight. Perhaps that is why a disgruntled French minister administered his wholly ill advised comment about US ‘occupation’ this morning. Bernard Kouchner called on the UN to investigate the US role in Haiti after American forces temporarily turned back a French aid plane.

But the US role is not about ‘occupying’ Haiti in a pejorative sense but maintaining a semblance of law and order and facilitating the relief effort. Given the widespread devastation that has occurred, this island will need to be rebuilt root and branch – its roads, buildings, airports, markets and political institutions. Who do you trust to do this most effectively: the UN, condemned to lethargy by the dissension of its member states, or the world’s most powerful nation and its Western allies? As the Americans would say, it is a no brainer.

top

Divided powers continue to gift Iran time

18 January, 2010

The Jerusalem Post reports today that the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has hailed the failure of the UN’s six key powers to agree on new sanctions. Well might he and his paymaster Ayatollahs be happy. The leaders of the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are taking part in the latest diplomatic charade designed to tell the world that they are dealing with the Iranian threat. But once again this consists of tough rhetoric instead of resolute action.

At the United Nations last week, the five permanent members and Germany met to discuss a fourth round of sanctions against Iran but could not reach a consensus. Perhaps they should not have even bothered turning up. For while there is talk in Washington of more robust economic pressure, this is derided by both Russia and China. The Chinese sent only a lower ranking official at the weekend and he no doubt shared the sentiments of China's UN ambassador Zhang Yesui who had said days earlier that ‘This is not the right moment for sanctions.’

His country, don’t forget, has an insatiable appetite for raw materials and energy which will ensure the continuation of its gargantuan economic growth. It thus has a direct economic stake in the stability of the Islamic Republic. The mood music in both Moscow and Beijing suggests little appetite for upping the pressure on Tehran. In other words, what we are seeing is the same lack of decisiveness and divided opinions that have characterised the international community for the last decade.

For all the tough sounding phrases you hear in Washington and elsewhere, we are no nearer a credible international policy for stopping this totalitarian Islamist state from going nuclear. This is an unmitigated disaster for the moderates of Iran, the ‘moderate Arab arc’ in the Middle East, Israel and the West in general.

top

Israel's Turkish riddle

14 January, 2010

Following a spat between Israeli Deputy Foreign Minster, Danny Ayalon, and Turkish ambassador Celikkol, Israel's damage limitation exercise appears to be bearing fruit. Ayalon has apologised to Celikkol after the latter complained that he had been humiliated by the Israelis in a meeting held only days before. The ambassador has been summoned to see Ayalon to explain why a violently anti Israeli show had been aired on Turkish television. The show had portrayed agents of Mossad as child murderers. Ayalon invited cameramen into his office and told them:

"Pay attention that he is sitting in a lower chair ... that there is only an Israeli flag on the table and that we are not smiling."

Chiding an ambassador for his country's ills is one thing. Demeaning him in the full glare of the cameras and in violation of normal protocol is another. It was clearly a crass and heavy handed piece of diplomacy, unworthy of a great state.

But what makes this episode even more unfortunate is that it has deflected attention from the really big issue here: the declining relations between Israel and Turkey. (A diplomat spat is a tiny matter in comparison).

For years Turkey has been paraded as a model of moderate Islam. Here is a country whose democratic and liberal credentials give the lie to the notion that Islam and modernity can never mix. Here is an ally of the US, a nation with favourable links to European countries, a nominal ally of Israel, a purported model for the Arab world.

Yet this is also a country whose media have just aired a violently anti Israeli show. Israel had every right to confront their Turkish 'allies' about this. Could you imagine the response if an Israeli show had portrayed the Turks as child killers? This was actually small fry compared to last October's disgusting piece of bigotry on Turkey's state controlled TRT1 television network when IDF soldiers were shown executing Palestinians by firing squad.

This crisis has been building for some time. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has been vocal in his criticism of Israel for some time. In recent months he has been an outspoken critic of Operation Cast lead, joining last week with his Lebanese counterpart, Sa'ad Hariri, to denounce the Jewish state's use of 'excessive and disproportionate' force. He once described the policy as a 'crime against humanity.' This is a true Islamist talking.

Last October, relations were strained further when Israel was barred from the Anatolian Eagle military exercise in Turkey.

Erdogan has also linked the termination of the Iranian nuclear programme with the dismantling of Israel's reactor at Dimona. His meetings with the Iranian backed Hamas terror group, from as early as 2006 when they won elections in Gaza, should hardly inspire confidence in Israeli circles

Certainly Israel should have handled Celikkol differently and their subsequent apology makes some sense. But Israel is not primarily to blame for her declining relations with Turkey.

top

The Luton conviction: A sound decision for the wrong reasons

11 January, 2010

The conviction of 5 Islamists over their demonstration in Luton in March 2009 is correct - but not for the right reasons. The men were convicted of using 'threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment and distress.' They had placards with such insalubrious statements as 'British soldiers - go to hell' and others which compared soldiers to murderers and rapists. In commenting on this case, the judge said that their words were 'not just insulting to the soldiers but to the citizens of Luton.' No one, the judge said, 'has the right to be gratuitously offensive or insulting.'

Now, I am no lawyer but this seems to me to be the wrong way to look at this case. Firstly, it is dubious to claim that people should be protected from being insulted, even on a demonstration. This is part and parcel of living in a vibrant democracy where strongly clashing opinions are frequently expressed. Secondly, it is not entirely clear what it means to be 'gratuitously' insulting or abusive. Perhaps, as Peter Tatchell suggests*, it is time for the Public Order act to be amended as there are clauses that appear to prohibit freedom of speech.

What these men were surely guilty of was inciting violence, a much more straightforward charge. These men turned up and launched an appalling verbal tirade in close proximity to soldiers' families in the sure knowledge that it would lead to a violent emotional response. Here freedom of speech has nothing to do with it - one cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre.

But another question remains. Why did the police allow this march to proceed, especially if, as the defence team claims, the police knew in advance of the slogans? Could they not see that violent, extremist Islamists, who were entitled to have some demonstration somewhere, had no place being in Wootton Bassett. Is this not another example of the authorities holding a knife to their own throats in order to enforce their multiculturalist credentials?

top

Et tu...? (or the assassination that never was)

7 January, 2010

The Hoon/Hewitt ‘plot’ of 2010 is the putsch that never was. In fact, it was the third putsch that never was if we count David Miliband's disastrous flirtation with power in 2008 and last year's mini Cabinet revolt. The Cabinet heavyweights (Miliband, Johnson, Straw etc), many of whom agree that Gordon Brown is a liability, simply lacked the stomach to stand against their leader. Though it took some of them several hours to declare their support for Brown, they could not get themselves to bring him down. Thus Brown limps on for another day, a wounded animal maintaining his defiance to the end. If this was political theatre, the audience would have walked out after 10 minutes. Perhaps Hoon and Hewitt had been attending the Inspector Closeau school of political assassination.

But farcical as this is, this plot points to the unsavoury side of Labour politics. We are witnessing the ongoing feud between the Brownites and the Blairites; the latter still cannot forgive the Prime Minister for bringing the Blair project to an untimely end. For all their moral posturing, Hoon and Hewitt calculated that under a new Blairite leader, Labour’s electoral chances would be hugely improved. But this internecine strife is of little interest to millions of ordinary voters who are more concerned about the economy, jobs, violent crime and a plethora of other issues. By putting party before country, these inept would be assassins have just given the electorate one more reason to ditch Labour come the general election.

top

You cut the deficit by cutting the NHS

6 January, 2010

What was David Cameron's 'big idea' in last year's conference speech? In sum, that the state should get smaller, that it should interfere less with people's lives and not be the automatic panacea for every problem, that power should be devolved down to a local level and away from Whitehall. The message was coherent enough - and after 13 years of relentless centralisation and target setting, certainly welcome. With the recession in full swing, it was actually vital.

So it is hard to know what the Tories are on about when they declare that they will 'cut the deficit, not the NHS'? Everyone knows that with the public finances in such a catastrophic state, no government department can hope to survive without major cuts. This is why the government spin about 'investment versus cuts' is such blatant nonsense. Every department must account for itself and contribute to the reduction in the deficit by making extensive savings.

Of course, this is no less true of the NHS. For a decade at least, increased 'investment' has been poured into higher salaries for doctors and the creation of a client state of bureaucrats and senior managers, many with gold plated pensions. Cutting back on the client state is the main way to reduce the size of the state, as well as cut the deficit. So does Cameron seriously think that the doubling of the NHS budget since 2001 actually represents good value for money? If he does, it calls his judgement into question and if he does not, then his call to 'save the NHS' is pure spin.

If it is the latter, which I am inclined to think, then he is once again showing his interest in image rather than substance. By refusing to spell out the degree of waste in the NHS, which does necessitate cuts, he is taking the people for fools for they know perfectly well that taxpayers money has been wasted over the last decade or more. Cameron is running scared of Labour propaganda which readily portrays him as a cold hearted and insensitive toff. Better to deflect that charge than be honest with the electorate, the thinking does.

But the public are surely sick of Labour spin and propaganda by now because they have had 13 years of it. Do they really want more of the same from Teflon Dave?

Basically, this Cameron strategy is about having things both ways. If he wants to cut the state and the deficit, he cannot keep the NHS as it is. To state otherwise is to offer an incoherent message, a messy and unworkable fudge. Blair tried to be all things to all people and his vacuous approach eventually failed. Cameron should take note.

top

Who are we at war with?

4 January, 2010

In radical Islam's war with the West, propaganda and intellectual subterfuge have long been used as powerful weapons. Islamist spokesmen have been at pains to deny their jihadist ideology when speaking to the Western media, protesting instead at 'localised' grievances in Israel, Kashmir and Iraq.

This seems to fit very nicely with the Western intelligensia's current obsession with political correctness and multiculturalism. Our chattering classes are at pains to deny that Islam, on any interpretation, is a problem. They are careful to avoid terms like 'the war on terror' and 'Islamist,' believing that these offer incentives to demonising Muslims as a whole. Sometimes, even words like 'Islamic terrorist' are deemed beyond the pale and the word 'militant' is substituted.

Listen to the invective from Western leaders after terror attacks and you will usually hear that 'these militants' do not speak for Islam, that they have 'hijacked' the faith and cannot be called 'Muslims' at all. This failure or refusal to articulate the real enemy at war with the West could not better suit the purposes of the world's jihadists.

So Charles Krauthammer hits the nail on the head when he laments the Obama adminstration's refusal to identify the real enemy. In his editorial in today's Jerusalem Post, he shows just how far Washington has fallen in the last year, compounding the earlier intellectual failures of the Bush era.

'From the very beginning, President Barack Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor and Khalid Sheik Muhammad will bask in a civilian trial in New York - a trifecta of political correctness and image management. And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over - that is, if it ever existed.'

Krauthammer continues:

'In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Fort Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" - code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.'

There is, in other words, a damning assortment of evidence pointing to a Presidential dereliction of duty: a systematic and lethal failure to spell out to the American people the real enemy they are fighting. For the enemy does not consist of 'militants', 'criminals', 'evildoers' or even 'terrorists.' None of those terms are specific enough. The real enemy is jihadist or radical Islam and terror is merely its weapon in chief.

One might regard this as a rather arcane debate about nomenclature. As the old saying might have gone, one man's jihadist is another man's criminal militant. As long as our intelligence community is working, as long as foreign troops are fighting this enemy, it matters little whether one description is used or another. But this is sadly mistaken.

If we treat people like Abdulmutallab as mere criminals worthy of a police investigation, they will use the judicial system to remain silent while an attack is being planned. And as Krauthammer says: 'Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.'

Worse, our obsession with multicultural sensitivities provides incentives to avoid certain counter-terrorist strategies, such as profiling at airports.

The undisputed truth is that individuals like Abdulmutallab and Nidal Hussein are not 'isolated' extremists. They are part of a global movement to attack and destroy Western civilisation, replacing it with a global Islamic superstate ruled by Sharia law which would culturally enslave all the rest of us. The jihadists, out of earshot of the Western media, are honest about their war with the West. It is time our leaders reciprocated that honesty.

top

January Entries

• The left and the Iraq war
• The Iraq war was about politics more than law
• The Iraq war will never be judged by whether it was legal
• Renewing contact with the MCB is a deplorable act of appeasement
• The National Association of Police: wrong on Islam, wrong on terror
• Haiti needs to be rebuilt by the US and its allies
• Divided powers continue to gift Iran time
• Israel's Turkish riddle
• The Luton conviction: A sound decision for the wrong reasons
• Et tu...? (or the assassination that never was)
• You cut the deficit by cutting the NHS
• Who are we at war with?

Archive

• February 2007
• March 2007
• April 2007
• May 2007
• June 2007
• July 2007
• August 2007
• September 2007
• October 2007
• November 2007
• December 2007
• January 2008
• February 2008
• March 2008
• April 2008
• May 2008
• June 2008
• July 2008
• August 2008
• September 2008
• October 2008
• November 2008
• December 2008
• January 2009
• February 2009
• March 2009
• April 2009
• May 2009
• June 2009
• July 2009
• August 2009
• September 2009
• October 2009
• November 2009
• December 2009
• January 2010
• February 2010
• March 2010
• April 2010
• May 2010
• June 2010
• July 2010
• August 2010
• September 2010

Related links

• Richard Millett's Blog
• oyvagoy
• Robin Shepherd Online