No retreat, no surrender

THE argument the London Underground bombings would not have occurred, or would have been far less likely to occur, without the US-led intervention in Iraq is so weak as barely to need refuting. In the first place, anybody who tells you they know conclusively why the Islamists perform the monstrous deeds they do is bluffing: the Islamists' own statements of why they do what they do, and what they hope to achieve by it, are an impenetrable mish-mash containing elements of, among other things, religious fanaticism, anti-Semitism, pseudo-political polemic and a bizarre historical revenge drama stretching back to the Crusades. Second, the suggestion that what happened in London on 7/7 was blowback for Iraq conveniently overlooks a long sequence of Islamist outrages – including the Bali bombing, which claimed 88 Australian lives – that preceded the Iraq campaign and go back at least as far as the first World Trade Centre attack in 1993.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that the war in Iraq and its messy aftermath have made us even more of a target for the Islamists. Should this increased risk have deterred us from acting to overthrow Saddam Hussein? Isn't that perilously like saying, "Don't do anything to upset the bully"? How weak would we have become if we tailored our foreign policy to pacify the Islamofascists or, once they struck at us and slaughtered our innocents, meekly did what we thought would settle them down again – never mind the huge loss of life that would likely attend our premature withdrawal from Iraq?

Such policies, of course, have a long history. They are known as appeasement. By 1940, the British Government's policy of appeasing Germany had reached a point where, had it been allowed to go much further, a second Dark Age might have descended upon Europe and lasted decades. Then, as now, there were plenty of appeasers among the intellectuals who either could not see what is involved in a confrontation between democracy and fascism, or did not understand that, once in such a confrontation, you do not remain aloof from the struggle because you don't happen to like the team in charge of your own side. But the vast majority of members of the so-called Great Generation decided they were not going to live within the borders laid out for them by the bully, because that would be no life at all. Instead, drawing upon their profound belief in the values of the free society, they themselves made a line in the sand. Events since 9/11 have thrown out the same challenge to us that Nazism posed to our grandparents and great-grandparents. The question is: have we multiculturated and relativised ourselves so successfully that we can no longer assert their values, or match their courage?

When John Howard addressed that idiot reporter, who asked Tony Blair if "his" policies were responsible for the bombings, I was blown away by the reply:

"Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder."

Now that's LEADERSHIP!

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.