Norman can’t get enough T.W.O.T.
Further criticism of the foreign secretary regarding the phrase ‘war on terror’ – from Richard Beeston:
On substance his argument is flawed. As Osama bin Laden made clear in his statement this week, the al-Qaeda leader, his No 2 and his global organisation are alive and well. Bar some inauguration surprise, the fugitive Saudi terrorist is likely to see off Mr Bush, who steps down on Tuesday. Al-Qaeda and its offshoots are still well armed and funded and running operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South-East Asia and North Africa, not to mention mainland Britain. Since 9/11 they have succeeded in attacking targets across the globe – Bali, Madrid, Jedda, London, Istanbul, Baghdad, Algiers, Islamabad and Amman to name a few. They are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, mostly fellow Muslims.
Mr Miliband cited General David Petraeus, whose tactics are credited with turning around the situation in Iraq, as a commander who understood that America could not kill its way out of the problems in Iraq.
That is true. But what America did do under Mr Bush and General Petraeus was commit tens of thousands more troops to the battle and win over the support of key elements in the local population. The Americans, with their new Iraqi allies, then dismembered al-Qaeda in Iraq in a series of decisive military actions.
Clearly if there are moderate, biddable elements in the Taleban, in Hezbollah, in Hamas or among other militant groups around the world, then the governments concerned should act to engage them. But let us not kid ourselves about al-Qaeda and its allies. We may not want to call this a war but they do.
As I hinted at before, shelving the term “The War On Terror” has nothing to do with whether or not it’s an apt phrase and everything to do with the fact that it’s part of George W’s toxic legacy: our own governments invading our privacy, suspending civil liberties, criminalizing entire communities, an illegal war, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons abroad and torture. Which politician would want to be associated with such a miserable failure?
As for Richard Beeston’s article, a few points. In spite of what our friends in the “only democracy in the Middle East” would like us to think, Hamas and Hezbollah have no link to Al-Qaeda. There was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to our attempts to liberate Iraqis. I’d be more inclined to take his paranoid ramblings about the Al-Qaeda boogey-man apparently now stronger than ever hiding in every dark corner of the world if he could tell his Islamist from his arse.
Norman loves T.W.O.T.
Product naming is a really big money spinner these days so I’ve been kicking a few ideas around. I think Thalidomide would be a great name for a sedative, Hindenburg would a brilliant name for an airplane and last but not least there’s Titantic which has a lovely nautical ring to it, perfect for a cruise ship. Now, I know what you’re going to say. All those names I just mentioned are associated with some disaster or other. Well, yes but all of those happened ages ago and I’m sure noboby remembers them now. Anyway, here’s Professor Norman on why he thinks “The War on Terror” (T.W.O.T) is an apt phrase for a justified war.
In today’s Guardian David Miliband takes his distance from the phrase ‘war on terror’. While conceding that it had some merit, he now thinks that ‘the notion is misleading and mistaken’. Reporting on his piece elsewhere in the paper Julian Borger calls it a ‘comprehensive critique‘. If ‘comprehensive’ just means that the foreign secretary has assembled a few arguments against the phrase ‘war on terror’, then OK. But the trouble is, his arguments aren’t compelling.
The first of them is that talking about a war on terror gives a spurious unity to a number of disparate groups and thereby helps the efforts of those intent on unifying them. The only unity the phrase implies is the one that in fact justifies it: namely, that the groups concerned are terrorist groups, that they have adopted terror as a political method. Otherwise they can be as disparate as you want. The same reasoning as David uses here could have been used to discourage anyone talking about fascism (I mean real fascism) between the wars. Apart from this, there is a certain other unity behind much recent terrorism – Islamist politics. That doesn’t mean a total sameness, but it’s a feature hard to overlook.
Second, David says that the offending phrase ‘implied that the correct response was primarily military’. No, it didn’t. (a) If this were so, you’d have to believe that a war on drugs, or on crime, or on corruption, was primarily military – which people usually don’t believe. (b) Even if we take something closer to war in the standard sense, it doesn’t follow that non-military means of fighting it aren’t important. Wars of liberation from tyranny, for example – they could not be won without social and political measures, campaigns, forms of cooperation and persuasion.
Third, David writes:
We must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, for it is the cornerstone of the democratic society. We must uphold our commitments to human rights and civil liberties at home and abroad.
Indeed. But it is no part of the logic of the phrase ‘war on terror’ that we should compromise these values and practices. The war on terror can be fought while upholding them. And it is being fought on behalf of them.
Norm clutches at straw.
Norman wonders whether President Obama and his new administration will be pro-Zionist or pro-Zionist.
Warning: If you try this at home, Norman will shriek hysterically that you are a self-hating-Judeo-Islamo-fascist-liberal anti-semite.
Straws in the wind? This one:
Senior British sources say that although the new president is expected to make a decisive break with the past by withdrawing troops from Iraq and closing the Guantánamo prison camp, he is likely to reinforce Mr Bush’s staunch support for Israel…
And this one:
She [Hillary Clinton] acknowledged… that many past presidents, including her husband, had tried and failed to solve seemingly “intractable” problems in the Middle East. “The President-elect and I understand and are deeply sympathetic to Israel’s desire to defend itself under the current conditions, and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets. However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian costs of conflict in the Middle East, and pained by the suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” she said.
“This must only increase our determination to seek a just and lasting peace agreement that brings real security to Israel, normal and positive relations with its neighbours and independence, economic progress and security to the Palestinians in their own state.”
Asked if she would be willing to engage directly with the Islamic extremists controlling Gaza, Mrs Clinton replied: “You cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognises Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements. That is an absolute. That is my position and the President-elect’s position.”
Or merely fuel for speculation, as this suggests?
Obama will have to choose between the lady at his State Department and the left-wing talk-at-any price wing of his party. No one can guess which this most opaque of all new presidents will choose.
And another straw in the wind?
Iranian demonstrators burned photographs of Barack Obama today as they protested against America’s inaction over Gaza.
