Posted on 03/11/2004 8:15:33 PM PST by Pikamax
Blair's dramatic warnings ring terrifyingly true
JASON BEATTIE CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
LAST WEEK, Tony Blair delivered a speech in Sedgefield which has proved horrifically prescient.
In words he wrote himself, Mr Blair used the address to defend his fears. Britain and other developed countries were in mortal danger, he said, from a threat "different from anything the world has seen before".
This threat was defined not by Iraq but by 11 September, 2001 - an event which crystallised in the Prime Minister’s mind the dangers posed by global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
"The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world’s security, what globalisation is to the world’s economy," he said.
Contained in the speech was a frequent refrain of Mr Blair. Those who committed the atrocity were prepared to wage that war without limit. "They killed 3,000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it," he said.
If that were not enough he chided those who scoffed at the severity of his warnings. One commentator was later to accuse Mr Blair of indulging in "heebie jeebie" politics.
Mr Blair’s response to this was to quote at length his words at a January 2003 press conference: "And I understand, of course, why people think it is a very remote threat and it is far away and why does it bother us. Now I simply say to you, it is a matter of time, unless we act and take a stand, before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together."
Mr Blair is unlikely to take any satisfaction from the atrocious events at Madrid’s Atocha station but one could understand if, privately at least, he muttered with concern to a colleague: "I told you so."
Not only have his worst fears materialised, but they have manifested themselves on the brutal scale which he envisaged. While the Spanish government initially blamed only ETA for the terrorist attack, it was last night seeming increasingly likely that it was linked to Islamic fundamentalism.
While Spain had learned to be alert to terrorism, as has Britain since the Troubles in Northern Ireland, it had been used to individual assassinations, car bomb attacks and kidnapping.
Yesterday, we saw killing by the hundreds - fulfilling Mr Blair’s prophecy that if such organisations can kill 190 people they could easily kill 1,900 or 19,000.
Unspoken by Downing Street but prevalent elsewhere in the government was a sense of vindication. It takes a particularly perverted mind to find pleasure in the worst terrorist atrocity in Europe since Lockerbie, but one government insider could barely contain his thoughts at yesterday’s events. "Let us hope there is an al-Qaeda connection," he said.
In the arguments over pre-emption, balancing civil liberties with security needs, and collective action against isolation, the pendulum has swung back towards Mr Blair. Europeans never fully comprehended 11 September, now they have their own version, 11 March - a coincidence of dates not lost on the Spanish press. Making the leap from the twin towers to the reasons behind the occupation of Baghdad is more comprehensible.
Eric Joyce, the Labour MP for Falkirk West and a consistent supporter of Mr Blair’s foreign policy, said the devastation in Madrid justified the Sedgefield address.
"Whether or not this was al-Qaeda, it is a very important indicator that international terrorism is with us. These actions are designed to cause maximum carnage, to put states in that destabilising position where they fear the bombers or they over-react against them," he said, before giving warning: "This brings home how this could easily be something that happens in Britain."
A true loyalist, Mr Joyce pointed out that this omnipresent risk will infect British politics.
He suggested that those who had criticised the detention of terrorist suspects in London’s Belmarsh prison may be less forthright in their condemnation.
From asylum laws, to the stock market - which fell dramatically at one point yesterday - the agenda will be shaped by the spectre of another terrorist attack.
Mr Blair said 11 September altered crucially the "balance of risk," whether "to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it." What influence will 11 March have on this argument?
Some doubt that the scale of the tragedy will add strength to Mr Blair’s cause.
Opponents of the military action against Iraq may claim that those countries which backed the US war - ostensibly Spain, Britain and Australia - have fuelled the passions of the terrorist and placed their citizens most at risk.
This is an argument rejected by the government, who point out that France, an opponent of the war, has been a terrorist target.
"They [the terrorists] are indiscriminate about who they attack and I am not convinced the attack yesterday was simply because Spain took a tough line on the war on terror," said Mr Joyce.
A question remains about ETA’s involvement. If it is a Basque organisation then it may be premature to place the events in Madrid in a multi- lateral context.
This could be a purely domestic issue, executed entirely in the context of this weekend’s Spanish elections, and without regard for the wider, international implications.
The scale of the atrocity may be greater but the goal has remained consistently limited. If this is the case, then Mr Blair may be better worrying about the consequences for Northern Ireland, where the parallels are closer, than for the global security.
As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
Both these posts get to the heart of the matter- The islamo facists are engaged in what they see as a war of annhialation, or at least conquest.
Lee Harris wrote a piece called "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris_print.html
Forthose who have not read it, the basic point is that these..."people" are not operating from something we would understand as a strategic mindset. They have sucfcumbed to a worldview, a procrustean weltanschaung in which efficacy doesn't matter. Harris contrasts the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, whic had as it's intent to cripple the US PAcific fleet, with the various suicide bombings/911.
The japanese made a rational, if mistaken judgement that striking a powerful blow early on would give them the advantage. There was a strategic "point."
The islamo facists, like the italians invading Ethiopia ( for what? there was a goat and rock shortage in Italy) in the run up to WWII. Harris argues that what these nut bags are doing is attacking/killing us Because They Like To
It's not so much whether or not the attacks advance their cause...the attacks make them feel good, and suggest that God is on their side.
The article has been discussed here before, so maybe this is old hat- but if you haven't read it, I'd recomend it.
We are not dealing with soveriegn states who act rationally, and plan operations to advance their goals. We are dealing with rabid dog serial killers, who kill because they like it.
Eventually we are going to treat muslims like we treated the American Indians ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.