Bush and Blair didn’t lie

Perhaps Bush and Blair were wrong to believe that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction in spring 2003, just before they invaded Iraq.

But so what?

The only realistic alternative to regime change in 2003 was the collapse of the UN sanctions regime, leaving Saddam able to resume his weapons’ programmes and pursue his goal of uniting the Middle East by force under his leadership. This would have meant new wars against his neighbours and the destruction of Israel and, if it had succeeded, would merely have been the prelude to a wider anti-Western onslaught. The use of the terrorist threat to dissuade the US or Europe from countering the Iraqi advance would have been a necessary part of Saddam’s strategy.

The notion that, because Saddam and the Islamists had different ideologies, they couldn’t cooperate against a common enemy is ridiculous. Look at the British antiwar movement for example: here atheistic socialists and Islamists work together very effectively. In the Second World War, capitalist America and socialist Russia were on the same side against Nazi Germany.

Of course, one can object to various elements in the scenario painted above – but it doesn’t stand or fall on the question of whether Saddam had WMDs in January 2003.

It seems to me that, not really knowing what was going on inside Iraq, the intelligence services made what they hoped were educated guesses, which, in turn were interpreted by the politicians to build their case for war.

The reason the antiwar party makes so much of the WMD issue is because they want to believe – and want us to believe – that the whole terrorist threat is a yarn concocted by the forces of darkness (Zionists, neo-cons, the CIA, whoever) to justify their plan to take over the world and force everyone to drink coca cola, hold endless elections, etc. Following the collapse of the Cold War, we are told, the United States’ military-industrial complex needed an enemy to prevent world peace breaking out; since there were no real enemies, they have invented one in the shape of radical Islam and the danger of nuclear terrorism. By drumming into people’s heads the idea that Bush and Blair “lied” over the WMDs in Iraq, the notion that “we” are the victims of a manipulation by sinister hidden forces is insinuated into public discussion.

The problem with this theory is that radical Islam clearly does exist and, judging by the words and deed of its leaders, is indeed totally hostile to democratic values and ready to use “any means necessary” to smash them. Just let this subversive thought insinuate itself into your mind and the terms of the discussion start to look much more favourable to the pro-war party.

Crisis? What crisis?

One and all, the men and women of Britain’s chattering classes believe the current American administration is irrational about terrorism and wrong about the Middle East. For them, the current Islamist jihad is either a fantasy contrived by the neo-cons to further their hidden agenda, a minor irrelevance or a legitimate response to the oppression of Muslims, which would go away if Israel did not exist.

What this shows is that the time has come for the said classes to shut up for a moment and do some serious thinking. An excellent way to begin would be to read Walid Phares’s new book Future Jihad. This is the best survey I have yet read of the key issues raised by the jihadist threat to the West: the motivating ideology and theology, the powerful forces - including oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Iran - promoting the new jihad, jihadi war strategy and the concerted and effective effort to undermine our countries from within, notably through control of Middle East studies.

As Phares makes clear, the dividing line between “moderates” and “extremists” in the Muslim world does not run through the apparently very diverse Islamist camp, but between that camp as a whole and non-jihadist Muslims. Thus attempting to set “moderate” jihadists such as the Muslim Council of Britain or the Muslim Association of Britain against “extremists” such as al-Muhajiroun is to fall straight into a well-laid soft cop/hard cop trap.

As he explains on page 45, “In the years after the collapse of the caliphate [in 1923], three currents emerged from the ashes of the world official body of jihad; one that rejected it and adhered to international law; another one that ignored the debate while adhering practically to the new international community; and a third, the jihadists, which resuscitated it, reshaped its doctrines, and wages wars and conflicts in its name.” MAB, the MCB and al-Muhajiroun all fall into the third category. This is a vital point to grasp if an effective defence against jihadism is to be mounted.

Another sensitive but vital issue Phares focuses on is the domination of academic Middle East studies by jihadis and their sympathisers. As he points out, journalists and politicians learn their ways of reading reality from their academic teachers. In today’s universities, the impact of direct influence through funding is, of course, multiplied by the “anti-imperialism” of many academics who will support, by acts of commission and omission, anything, including jihadism, if it provides a platform for attacking the “empire” or the “system”.

Does anyone know of a serious academic survey of the current state of British Middle Eastern studies? If anyone does, please let me know!

French counter-terrorism expert says: line on Iraq makes no difference

[From an article entitled Jihad in the Suburbs: The Revolt in the Paris Suburbs is Only the Beginning by Ronen Bergman - source: Honestly Concerned daily mailing 26 November 2005
section 3, Item 2 - CM]



"At the end of last week, the French were notified of a "Red Alert" - the highest level warning, from concern with a wave of al-Qaeda attacks. Christof Shabu, the head of French counter-terrorism, told [Israeli newspaper] Yediot Ahronot that the terrorist groups may not have been behind the outburst in the suburbs, but they are going to profit from it. Shabu rejects the argument that France had not been attacked because of its policy on Iraq. He says there are hundreds of terrorists in France and the reason there have been no attacks is because of the French success in thwarting them." (My emphasis - CM)

Clash of civilisations

Ridiculing the French is a time-honoured British sport, but I have to say that a lot of Anglo-Saxon comment on the recent riots in France strikes me as misguided. I have, for example, even come across claims that France is getting its just reward for pursuing a policy of multicultural relativism, although, in fact the French have been remarkably resistent to multiculturalism, refusing to collect “ethnic” statistics, for example. Others see the fault on the other side, arguing that it is France’s “republican” refusal to recognise difference that is the problem. If only the “minorities” were recognised as such, then they would be happy.

In reality, the specifically French characteristics of the riots are of marginal importance. In all our countries a dangerous fusion is taking place between common criminality and Islam. Of course, large-scale criminality and the creation of no go areas are a problem, regardless of religion. But Islam renders the problem both worse and, as things stand, insoluble. Firstly, it rationalises the mindset of the rioters. They consider themselves to be oppressed because, to make their way in Western society, they would have to conform to certain norms of behaviour restrictive of their “freedom”. Islam tells them they are justified in despising our society, insisting that non-Muslims have no rights, only the obligation to provide for the welfare of the Muslims; indeed it is a duty of the pious Muslim to put the Kafirs (us) in our place.

But then the real killer kicks in: the prevalent refusal throughout the Western world to accept the notion that some sets of beliefs are incompatible with others, and more specifically that Islam is incompatible with Western civilisation. By deciding that we mustn’t and can’t reject antisocial behaviour if it describes itself as Islamic (and are outraged, for example, when Islamic “spiritual leaders” such as the murderous Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin get their just deserts), well, we give thugs a permanent get out of jail card.

The no go areas on the ground are a reflection of no go areas in the public debate. And this is why Muslim leaders are so determined to control the terms of public debate; if non-Muslims ceased to be intimidated, those leaders' control over their own flock would begin to disintegrate too.

Moreover, by focusing on a common problem, Britons, French and Americans could find common ground again.

Next post on Friday 25 November

Christianity and science - some questions

What led to Western science and the prosperity and hope it brings to billions? According to Professor Rodney Stark, it was not the heritage of the Greeks or the Enlightenment, but Western Christianity. His argument is that the Christian belief that nature and its laws are the “handiwork of God” – a belief dependent on a specific conception of the single creator, different from that held by Muslims - has been essential to the scientific adventure. Stark provides evidence that much received wisdom about alleged clerical obscurantism – such as the claim that, before Columbus, the Church believed that the world was flat - is simply false. He analyses a list of 52 historical scientific superstars and finds that only two of them – Paracelsus and Halley – were religious sceptics; most of the others were devout Christians (His list divides 50/50 between Protestants and Catholics, incidentally, thus demolishing another myth.)

The book chimes in with my current mood, inspired not so much by the attractions of Christianity as by decades of involvement in the anti-Mosaic Left (not the atheist Left - Islam and paganism attract sympathy in these circles - it is only the Judeo-Christian trend they reject). Here, a stubborn refusal to face facts and the idea that the mere assertion of the will can override material constraints are the norm. Generally speaking, socialists believe that nature can be bullied into changing. If we all together say something is so, it will be so; that is what the Socialist Workers Party are claiming when they urge people to “End World Poverty, Sign the Petition”.

The SWP are, philosophically speaking, objective idealists. That is to say, unlike subjective idealists (post-modernists), they do not hold that each individual creates his or her own world. Objective idealists believe that only the man of destiny, the leader, has that power – and has it only insofar as others adore him and accept his will as their own. The justification for the leader’s claim to leadership is that deep historical or natural forces – the “class” or the “race” - speak through him. by compelling universal obedience, the leader will release these forces from the captivity of material reality. The Judeo-Christian tradition, which posits a God-created objective material world, is the great antagonist of both subjective and objective idealism.

Idealist modes of thought are widespread today; has the situation got worse since the 1960s? Do people need a correct “idea of God” if they are not to slide into superstition? I find much recent and current evidence suggesting this might be so.

Italy shows the way

As the global intifada spreads to the towns and cities of Europe, an unusual show of support for the target of the original version, Israel, has taken place in the Italian capital Rome. Responding to an appeal from Il Foglio, a newspaper partly controlled by the wife of Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, between 10 and 15,000 people turned out for a torchlight procession on Thursday, 3 November to protest against the recent threat by Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map”. The rally, which ended with the singing of the Israeli national anthem, drew broad support from the Italian political class – even the far leftist leader Fausto Bertinotti felt obliged to explain his absence in terms of positive support for a two-state solution.

The Iranian regime responded by summoning the Italian ambassador to explain his country’s insolence in finding fault with Ahmadinejad’s ravings; in the Islamist way of thinking, non-Muslims do not have the right to comment on anything Muslims may say or do.

So, bravo Italy! But what about the rest of us? Who is going to organise similar actions in Britain? This will not be the last such blatant threat, for the simple reason that “anti-Zionism” - the belief and claim that the existence of Israel is the cause of every problem - is the mainstay of what passes for thought among the political and religious leaderships of the Arab world and Iran. The more pressing the problems, therefore, the louder the incumbents feel obliged to shout against Israel, to head off any challenge to their utterly failed ideas and policies.

Here in the West, very many people claim to be in favour of a “two-state solution”, that is an Arab state alongside the Jewish one. However, every even vaguely informed person knows full well that this is not the goal of the main Palestinian organisations, who either call for the outright destruction of the Jewish state (Hamas) or see a Palestinian statelet as a first-stage towards that destruction (PLO, Fatah). So, if they really mean what they say, “two-staters” have to recognise that Israel faces real threats to its existence and the well being of its citizens, against which it has to employ appropriate force and repression.

Pressure to come out in support of Israel’s right to exist will effectively put the “two-staters” on the spot about the discrepancy between their preferred “solution” and their present blanket approach of placing the whole burden for progress in the peace process on Israel. Once this middle ground begins to shift, then the whole terrain of debate about the Middle East will start to shift with it.