Tony Blair: "Not One Inch."

Tony Blair conducted a press briefing today and came out with his strongest performance as of late. The Guardian was live as the briefing went on and mostly stayed away from snark (though not completely). Some highlights:

"Whatever excuse these people use, I don't think we should give one inch to them" he continues. "September 11 for me was a wake-up call - a lot of the world woke up for a short time, then turned over and went back to sleep again", he says.

I don't believe that this is arguable. Even here, in the months following September 11 (and isn't nice that he doesn't use the shorthand? I for one can't stand the contraction.) we were told by our president to go shopping! for freedom while our media quietly removed all visual reference to the attacks. Many in the antiwar crowd began to down play the attacks, some going so far to consider September 11 not a really big deal anyway.

"It's an obscenity to say it's concern for Iraq [that] drives these people to terrorism," he goes on. "We shouldn't allow them a vestige of an excuse."

It is difficult to dispute that the attacks in Madrid and London didn't have at least some intention to strike at and sway US allies in Iraq. The Madrid bombings did in part contribute to the defeat of President Aznar, although I contend that he lost the election by insisting that ETA was responsible in the face of evidence linking the attacks to an al Qaeda-linked group.

Again, correlation does not prove causation and for my taste it is way too simplisme to think that Iraq alone is responsible for the recent attacks. But let's assume that the London attacks, at least, are a direct response to British activity in the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. If we can agree that we are in fact in a war "on" (name the euphemism of your choice) we should be able to agree then that this was a logical, though clearly weak counter attack from al Qaeda or its proxies.

The logic here is startling. Mike White of the Guardian puts to Blair the argument that since there has been an attack on London, and the attackers want Britain out of Iraq, that this is a reasonable point at which to start talks:

"They do, like the IRA, have negotiable demands - get out of the Middle East," says the Guardian journalist.

Now how Mr White knows what is on the mind of the latest bombing cabal, I have no idea. Possibly from a staffer or two? Hmmm? Blair makes the mistake, as does Bush often, in contending that there are no demands from al Qaeda and its clones. What is at issue is whether or not the West is about to cede to those demands. The proper answer to Mr White's question is to ask why he is so quick to offer surrender to the Islamofascists.

If "moderate" Muslim leaders are telling the truth, the vast majority of Muslims wish to live in peace, in a modern world, having good diplomatic and economic relations with the rest of us. Why would Mr White want the West to flout the wishes of the vast majority of Muslims in order to appease what every expert is calling a tiny minority that "doesn't speak for Islam?"

Where Western leaders fail in convincing skeptics is precisely at this point because their reasoning doesn't make sense. I suspect that deep down they feel differently, but there seems to be too many experts advising that the argument must not show any realization that the enemy is thinking. When we hear bin Laden say that he struck the US (partly) because American troops were garrisoned on Saudi Arabian soil, it serves no one to dismiss that claim as wrong. It isn't wrong. It's just nonsense. US troops were in Saudi Arabia as a result of provocation and invasion of US allies by Saddam Hussein and not out of American imperialist ambitions.

The way to answer those who contend that a complete US withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula would ipso facto stop all attacks is to say that the West will not and must not recede from the rest of the world, just as nations throughout the Eastern and Third Worlds will not cease to commingle with our nations and cultures just because some fanatics wish it. Taken to its logical conclusion, bin Laden's demand would not cease until every infidel is off "Muslim land," as if the very concept was worthy of consideration. What then? Would Muslims be required to leave Western "Judeo-Christian land?" Would they go? Or is this demand just a pathetic way of weakening resolve in the west against Islamist imperialism? The answer to that question is painfully obvious.

We live in an integrated world and we must learn how to deal with each other. This may or may not be a clash of civilizations, but it certainly is a clash of cultures; the two cultures at war being that which sees the interweaving of these cultures to be an ultimately good, if sometimes painful, development; and that which believes that this integration is evil and bent on the ruination of the Muslim world.

The general criticism of Americans is that we know so little about other cultures. I'll take that, even though I'm willing to bet that your average American is more willing to learn about different traditions, religions and histories than your average jihadi. Speaking for myself, if East and West were to go back to being twain, not only would I miss baba ganouj, but my daughter would have to give up at least fifty percent of her friends. Now, however, war critics are getting close to making the argument for Americans--and our allies--to forsake contact with other nations. It's the whole "we have no business being there in the first place" argument. These are generally the very same people who advocate an open immigration policy.

So the question comes down to one of intent. Do we stay and further the cause of greater interrelations of cultures or do we concede defeat and withdraw behind fortified borders? Tony Blair is right when he answers "not one inch."

Comments

[Maggie]

Wonder how hard working Brits are going to feel about some of these bombers being on the British dole.

I know I was angered when Hillary spoke out in favor of illegals getting college aid. Even if they were brought here by their parents, by the time they're 18 and college aid they are responsible for their own actions.
They should attempt to legalize before applying for aid IMHO. Otherwise they are criminals ... just like their parents ... not abiding by our laws.