Posted on 11/15/2006 2:36:11 PM PST by Incorrigible
BY JAMES LILEKS
Surely the Democratic victories brought long faces to the terrorist schemers: If the United States bolts out of Iraq as quickly as now seems possible, al-Qaida will be left without a plan for the occupation. They'd anticipated taking power in '08, after a protracted leeching of American resolve -- but now?
Al-Qaida lacks the boots on the ground to perform the nationwide slaughter required to sunder a nascent democracy. It's one thing to ask your patrons for more bullets; it's quite another to request overnight delivery of the backhoes for mass graves. Must not show lack of foresight.
Heads will roll! More than usual, anyway.
Then again, disaster may not befall Iraq. It may suffer more of the targeted, telegenic chaos that makes for dandy CNN reports, but the nation might still be stabilized -- if we reach out to new partners. And if you believe Tony Blair, those brand new pals would be Syria and Iran.
Yes, Blair's gone wobbly. Some sort of political bird flu has killed all the hawks and replaced them with creatures that mill around civilized capitals making cooing noises and fleeing in panic when someone toots a car horn.
Said the PM: "A major part of the answer to Iraq lies not in Iraq itself but outside it, in the whole of the region where the same forces are at work and where the roots of this global terrorism are to be found."
He has a point, but one might suggest that waging proxy war on the U.S. and the Iraqi government ought instead to be rewarded with a few Tomahawks in the summer homes of senior mullahs.
That, however, is the history of this war -- half-measures, squandered momentum. One side carefully calibrates how much psychological distress may be exacted in interrogations, and the other calibrates the centrifuges that will make the nuclear bombs.
One small problem for Blair: Iran, according to the Telegraph newspaper, is actively involved in selecting the next batch of al-Qaida leaders. Put that together with another revelation from Britain: Al-Q is intensifying its efforts to assemble nuclear material -- 2005 alone saw 16 thwarted attempts to smuggle plutonium and uranium, and we may presume the terrorists tried more than 16 times.
Negotiating with these cheery lads would be like sitting down with the Mafia to discuss the future of trash hauling, except that Tony Soprano doesn't peel off banknotes to fund suicide bombers. Tony wants to live. Our enemies think the Bada-Bing is in heaven.
Blair put his finger on something, though. Where should all the healing begin? Why, in the locus of all injustice, of course: "We should start with Israel/Palestine. That is the core."
The persistence of this delusion -- that the capitulation of Israel will end the problem -- cannot be explained. Somehow decent and rational people believe that indecent and irrational men will agree to forgo their hatreds for the mundane work of building a civil society.
Blair continued: "We should then make progress on Lebanon."
We should indeed. We should also cure cancer and invent cold-fusion hovercars and petition McDonald's to make Shamrock Shakes all year 'round; that doesn't mean any of it's likely.
This doesn't mean you can't talk. Behind-the-scenes chats with the mullahs to spell out consequences and requirements would be fine. But coming cap-in-hand looks weak, and the Iranians may well think that if you've doffed your hat, you won't need your head. Allow us to help you with that.
Future historians will be baffled: "They said they were going to destroy you; why didn't you do anything?"
Well, there was this politician who sent some naughty e-mails, and that seemed terribly important at the time. Some sixth-century Romans would probably understand; the rock in the sandal can be so vexatious, you forget all about the hordes massing on the plain.
But it's still dispiriting to see Blair wobble with such vigor. What's the saying? As the Anglosphere goes, so goes the Anglosphere.
Paging John Howard of Australia; Mr. Howard to the courtesy phone.
Nov. 15, 2006
(James Lileks can be contacted at newhouse@lileks.com)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
Ok, I know I said I wasn't posting on this thread again, but some things are just too inaccurate to avoid comment!
"Before 9/11, Blair was on the skids"
Err, no. Actually that was three months after a general election in which he won a second term with a landslide majority of 169.
"The WOT and George Bush gave Blair 8 more years in power"
Are you for real? It's a novel argument anyway, that's for sure! You're seriously arguing that Blair's association with Bush's foreign policies has been an electoral advantage for him?
"It didn't make him any less of a Left wing nut job that a healthy Margaret Thatcher couldn't have arm-wrestled into a richly deserved oblivion."
Well, at least you end with some accuracy!
"I am not anti-British - but the Brits have become increasing leftwing: George Galloway, Red Ken Livingston, some wacko members of parliament, the BBC, etc."
Thanks for your reply. My previous comment was aimed more at Brian Allen, who consistently posts rabidly anti-British rants to these boards.
I disagree that the British have become 'increasingly leftwing'. In fact, if you contrast the situation in 1979 (pre-Thatcher) with today, the reverse is apparant. Tony Blair's accomplishment in the Labour Party was to actually make it electable again, by means of shifting it to the right and away from it's more socialist roots (although he still refers to himself as a socialist).
I wouldn't disagree with your characterisation of Ken Livingstone or George Galloway, but these are not modern politicians, they are remnants of the 1970s Labour Party, dinosaurs that are as yet not extinct. And they have always held the same views.
There are politicians in America who hold fairly left-wing views however and who get elected to public office. If I were to characterise the whole American people on the basis of Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi etc, that would be as inaccurate as what you are doing here.
When I see the anti-American demos in London, I get the impression that millions turn out - and that the government is terrified of its Moslem inhabitants. Am I wrong?
I'm not sure which demos you're referring to.
There was a huge demo before the Iraq invasion against the war which attracted somewhere in the region of 1 million people. I wouldn't particularly characterise it as 'anti-American' though, the focus was on the involvement of British troops, although the issues do tend to get intertwined.
Aside from that, I'm sure there have been demos against US + British foreign policy (if that's what you mean by Anti-American), but not on that scale - a few thousand at most.
Thanks so much for the pings, CD, they are much appreciated. Bump for later reading.
Boy that is one dumb article.
Some of them, yes. A lot of the others were doing their best to pull the legs off of the table from day one.
What a load of nonsense you talk. The utter tripe kind.
Yup. IMO, it enabled him to reach out to the Tory voters and MPs and play them against the disaffected lefties who didn't think he was radical enough. " may have started out Labour, but I am macho now!"
And victory or not, Tony was definitely facing quite a bit of unhappiness from within his own party.
At any rate, he definitely was a Billie and Hillary butt-boy, which made his instantaneous conversion to Bushman quite ironic, IMHO. Now, he's slowing going back to his original coloration.
Plus, plus, I hate the guy, OK?
"Yup. IMO, it enabled him to reach out to the Tory voters and MPs and play them against the disaffected lefties who didn't think he was radical enough."
But no Tory voters actually voted Labour on that basis, mainly because the Tory policies (in foreign policy terms) were exactly the same.
So there was no votes gained by Blair for following the foreign policy that he did, but definately some lost in 2005 (and a few specific seats) due to Labour voters defecting to the Lib Dems/indpendents.
"And victory or not, Tony was definitely facing quite a bit of unhappiness from within his own party."
Not in the time period you reference. I mean, apart from the hardcore left wing dinosaurs, but they always hated him. And he always treated them as utterly irrelevant.
"At any rate, he definitely was a Billie and Hillary butt-boy, which made his instantaneous conversion to Bushman quite ironic"
Not really. In Blair's world view, his support of US foreign policy under Bush is a logical extension of and entirely consistent with his support of US foreign policy under Clinton. It is essentially pragmatic rather than ideological.
"Plus, plus, I hate the guy, OK?"
And so say all of us.
Plus, plus I really really frickin' hate the guy, OK?
Bump
Such as? Why don't you try to calmly respond, if you are capable.
a waste of my time
Actually, it looks like we've gone wobbly on Tony Blair.
Because you are soooooooooooooooooooo much smarter than the rest of us.
It is indeed a delusion, of Hitleresque proportions. "The Jewish problem," I believe it was called awhile back. Blair had a nice ride on American coat-tails but, once a lefty, always a lefty I guess.
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.