Posted on 07/14/2005 3:47:37 PM PDT by Crackingham
When a monstrous crime occurs, attention should focus on the perpetrators. The London bombers appear to have been British Muslims, but this does not explain their reasons for carrying out the attacks. The response of Britain and its allies requires better intelligence and increased ruthlessness, but also greatly improved focus on their enemies – something that the Bush administration has not only failed to provide, but has gone out of its way to obstruct.
A network of Islamist extremists represents by far the greatest security threat to the west. Fighting it will require a very considerable redeployment of resources and restrictions on immigration and certain civil rights. The days when London could be called “Londonistan” must be ended for good.
The danger stems not only from future catastrophic attacks, but also from the possibility that terrorism could exacerbate tensions between alienated white and ethnic minority working class populations to the point where European democracy is endangered.
In portraying the struggle against Islamist terrorism as a war, the Bush administration is correct, and European critics who envisage it as a mere struggle against criminals are wrong. The key questions, however, are: “What kind of war?” and “How can it best be fought?”.
In the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks, many Americans treated such questions from Europeans as an impertinence. After the London bombings, any such attitude from Washington would itself represent the grossest insolence. If the British are to make serious sacrifices as a result of supporting US strategy, then it is essential that they have confidence in that strategy. They have to be sure that American actions in the Middle East will not unnecessarily increase radicalism among British Muslims.
So far, the Bush administration has failed in its first and most obvious strategic task: that of splitting the opposing camp. By deliberately obscuring the differences between Sunni religious extremists, Arab nationalists, Shia religious parties, Iranian nationalists and Palestinian radicals, the administration has done the gravest disservice to America and its allies.
In place of a comprehensive diplomatic and political strategy, the administration, aided by Tony Blair, the British prime minister, has advanced the promotion of democracy. But there is nothing to suggest that democratic institutions necessarily act as a barrier to extremism, especially when to socio-economic weakness is added a sense of national humiliation.
Promoting democratic development can be part of a strategy, but not if it is used as an excuse to ignore the other parts. Improved western security is essential and, in certain cases, preventive military action and assassinations directed at terrorist planners in the Muslim world are also justified. But in the end, defeating the terrorists, whether in the Middle East or the Muslim diaspora in Europe, is dependent on Muslim help. Gaining new Muslim allies is therefore a central part of any effective counter-terrorism strategy.
Ever since September 11 2001, Iran has been a potential ally in the fight against the Sunni extremists; but the present US approach to Iran has acute limitations.
By failing to offer serious incentives to Iran, Washington helped ensure the failure of the European attempt to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme. By trying to influence Iranians not to vote in restricted but still relatively free elections, Bush helped ensure a high turnout and the victory of an anti-American candidate. And by trying to block the planned gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to India, the US is rejecting an opportunity to give Iran a greatly increased stake in regional stability and peace.
In the American intellectual establishment, there are now signs that the bloody quagmire in Iraq is leading to greater wisdom. To turn this into a radically different US strategy in the Middle East will be extremely difficult in terms of US domestic politics. But this is absolutely necessary if the US is to retain the ability – and the moral right – to ask British citizens to die for that strategy.
What's more, if we fail to secure enough unicorns on which to ride into battle, we're doomed, doomed!
Revoke the Western Civilization Privileges of People Who Sympathize with Terrorists or Lose the War.
The problem there is we are short on virgins.
I prefer the thin back the fanatical herd approach.
Uh, it's all Bush's fault?
See, I knew I could understand a liberal editorial if I just
tried.
I have never posted whose fault everything is and I won't start now.
How can you write such nonsense while your hands are raised in surrender?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Thanks for the advice, pal. Now go back to your cubicle.
ML/NJ
Why the restraint?
I figger they deserve one last opportunity to get with the program before we snuff their cancerous culture from the the body civil. I know, I'm a softie. :-)
So far, the Bush administration has failed in its first and most obvious strategic task: that of splitting the opposing camp.
Bush's goal is to destroy the opposing camp not merely split it.
By failing to offer serious incentives to Iran, Washington helped ensure the failure of the European attempt to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme. By trying to influence Iranians not to vote in restricted but still relatively free elections, Bush helped ensure a high turnout and the victory of an anti-American candidate.
The last thing we need to do is appease a tyrannical dictatorship. Relatively free? That's a joke. Elections are either free or not free. No election can be free when the people are under the thumb of a dictatorship. The vote was high for the same reason 100% of Iraqi's voted for Saddam. They knew it might be their last vote if they voted otherwise.
In the American intellectual establishment, there are now signs that the bloody quagmire in Iraq is leading to greater wisdom.
Quagmire? We are forcing the enemy to use resources in Iraq and Afghanistan that it would otherwise use on American soil. That is not a quagmire but a success. This is another poor attempt to compare this war to the Vietnam war.
"By failing to offer serious incentives to Iran, Washington helped ensure the failure of the European attempt to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme."
And by failing to offer serious incentives to North Korea, Europe helped ensure the failure of the American attempt to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. /sarc
I read the rest of this article with interest to see where the Bush administration has 'gone out of its way' to obstruct improved understanding. Although the accusation was made once or twice after the above reference, the author didn't elaborate. I wonder why not?
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.