'We are at war'

The Spectator ^ | Friday, 15th February 2008 | Melanie Phillips

[FreePoster]

Professor Gwyn Prins, one of the authors of the RUSI report made a most important point on the Today programme (0830) when he observed that 'we are at war', although we are behaving as if we are in peacetime. This is undoubtedly true and is the source of so much of the current confusion (Guantanamo, 42 days, etc) and wholly inadequate government and establishment response to the Islamist threat. As the report asks:

Is there any longer a clear distinction between being at war and not being at war? A declaration of war is almost inconceivable today, and yet both our defence and security services are in action against active forces, abroad and at home, at this moment.

The resulting confusion and unease, the report suggests, has produced

uneasy similarities with the years just before the First World War

Too many in that establishment cannot get their heads round the fact that, while what we are up against is not war as conventionally understood, ie aggression between states, it is much more than terrorism (not to mention ‘crime’ as the government would have it) because of the strategic goals, which are the overthrow of the west. Partly because the establishment persists in thinking that as this is such a preposterous proposition (how can people stuck in the 7^th century possibly ever overthrow the most powerful civilisation in the history of the planet? Too ridiculous for words, dear boy!) it could never happen and therefore should not be taken seriously, and partly because that establishment is so terrified by the implications of a religious war of cultural conquest that it takes refuge in a myriad different fatuous other explanations for what is happening.

The real problem, as the report says, is that there is no common agreement about the existence, nature or priority of the threats that we face, a lack of consensus which leaves us open to ambush.

A vicious circle has thus been set up. There is no coherent and comprehensive mechanism for the analysis of risks and threats within government that the electorate can see to exist, and so rely on. When the unexpected occurs, the response to it is likely to be incoherent and ad hoc: short-termist and uncertain. This encourages government to ‘spin’ and manipulate, to cover the shortfall in real strength and coherence with public relations ploys. This will play into our enemies’ strengths.

And at the very core of all of this lies the deepest problem of all – the fact that in Britain we no longer know what we are. With confidence in our cultural identity all but destroyed, we cannot defend that identity any more. That’s what has to be addressed. That’s why multiculturalism is so lethal for us. That’s why the Archbishop’s comments were a declaration of national suicide. The report suggests ways of addressing these core issues by taking security out of the arena of party politics. Can this be done? Is there the political will to do it? Or are we trapped in a vicious circle as a result of the very collapse of national self-confidence that the report identifies?

[redpoll]

You know, on a very different subject, this is the reason why I chose to be a conservative. Here we are having this pleasant conversation using reason, historical references, a pride for our Western culture, and polite discourse. I would doubt if one in a thousand liberals know anything about the history of Islam, or their own culture, for that matter.

I’ve seen what goes for discussion on the Daily Kos and Democrat Underground. It makes me proud to be on this side of political dialogue.

This period of vacillation will be temporary if folks like you and I are out there. Keep up the good fight, my friend.

[JasonC]

Agreed.

[SwankyC]

With confidence in our cultural identity all but destroyed, we cannot defend that identity any more.

...thank a liberal today