Airstrip One

Rattlesnake Realism

Niall Ferguson had pitched his flag in Churchillian stance on the cover of this week's Spectator and asked a question that exercises this blog more often than not:

Yet the question that continues to trouble me, 18 months after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, remains: What was in it for us? To put it more precisely: in what respect, if any, was and is Britain’s support for American policy in our national interest?

Ferguson charts a slavish devotion of the present British administration for the United States, under the guidance of that moral ideologue, Blair, whilst placing it within a larger narrative of a 'special relationship' in decline. The decline of Britain, engineered by the United States, is a high note of nostalgic tragedy, since the 'special relationship' was never closer except when we could rely on the Republic as a trusted sidekick in its own hemisphere. However, his dislike for Blair undermines the historical perspectives, since the relationship between Britain and the United States has proved far more volatile than the article's descriptions

Ferguson stalls after he has set out his brief from the School of Decline, and demonstrates why that group formerly known as the Right remain paralysed when confronting the changes that have taken place since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, you could argue this is the latest example of formerly sound individuals melting into the soft left, and confusing the hell out of the Conservative Party. Are they, aren't they?

Ferguson argues that there are no longer any connections between Britain and the United States, except for the establishment and the elites. Popular attitudes are European, as his stylised family shows:

But it is certainly not true now. Travel to the United States and then to the other European Union states, and you will see: the typical British family looks much more like the typical German family than the typical American family. We eat Italian food. We watch Spanish soccer. We drive German cars. We work Belgian hours. And we buy second homes in France. Above all, we bow before central government as only true Europeans can.

These attitudes (reinforced by the scientific evidence of the poll) are sufficient reason for calling time upon this Alliance. The unspoken conclusion is that our future and our foreign policy should be 'European', a direction that is most comfortably embodied by our Prime Minister.

It is unclear whether Ferguson views this anticipated convergence with Europe as a desirable alternative to the 'special relationship' or as the gloomy final chapter in Britain's long decline. His article does not really suggest that he views the Blairite years as bad for us although the comparison between British and American conservatism naturally favours the latter.

This is just part of a fundamental divergence in popular culture which increasingly makes a nonsense of the special relationship. Combining as it does religious fundamentalism, economic individualism and red-blooded patriotism, the American conservatism so vividly described by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in their book The Right Nation simply has no counterpart in this country. British Tories are a beleaguered minority, vainly trying to preserve a few picturesque pastimes and landscapes from the depredations of New Labour’s corrupt and cynical party apparat.

Ferguson's manufactured controversy is cynical. No debate is stimulated and he proves unable to provide an alternative. His article will provide succour for those on the soft left who masquerade as Tories and argue that accommodation (read submersion) within Europe is providential; as they try to win an election on the platform of Blairism without Blair.

There are two morals that can be drawn from Ferguson. One is that the quisling right no longer exists; they all belong to the Left and should be condemned as such. The other is that an independent British foreign policy will depend, indeed demands, a resurgence of muscular conservatism at home, based upon "economic individualism and red-blooded patriotism".

(23.12, 29th September 2004)

The Lesson of Klinghoffer

With the increasing number of pleas for Kenneth Bigley's life, all sound individuals would hope that he is reunited with his family and released by the terrorists. However, treading in dangerous waters, one wonders why the only one damned is Tony Blair.

Richard Bigley has called on the Prime Minister to resign and has blamed him for the fate of his brother. Understandably, the family want everything possible to be done in order to save the life of their kin. However, this has led to a mistaken conclusion: that the fate of their brother lies in the hands of British politicians. It does not: it lies in the hands of terrorists located in Iraq, who are using their power to kill him, as a political weapon.

He reiterated his plea for the Government to send a communique to the terrorists, but accepted that it should not negotiate. He said: "I never would and never will request that you negotiate with bad people." But he added that the Government could send a fax with a comment such as "have a nice day" or "have a bad day". He concluded: "Ken will come home to us all. Ken is only a little person in this whole affair."

Given the past record of Zarqawi's group and the murders of the two American hostages captured alongside Kenneth Bigley, the above statement is insupportable. There is no evidence that communication with these murderers would facilitate the release of Kenneth Bigley. Their previous actions have shown that they are blind to the ties of family or friendship.

The 'mercy missions' may achieve the objective of obtaining Kenneth Bigley's release and let us hope that they do. However, that release by Al-Zarqawi will be sanctioned for political advantage, clothed in sanctimonious and hypocritical rhetoric. This is not the "Iraqi resistance with a human face"; it is a reminder that people like these threw a cripple off a cruise ship in order to appear merciless.

When faced with such extremism, politicians do not have the power to save even a single life. That remains the preserve of the terrorists.

(23.15, 27th September 2004)

Autonomy

A report in the Turkish paper Zaman states that the three Shi'ite provinces under the control of British forces wish to become an autonomous region, modelled on the Kurdish grouping:

Three Shiite provinces under the control of British forces in southern Iraq followed the example of the Kurdish region in the north and applied to the Bagdat (Baghdad) administration in order to be recognized as an "autonomous territory".

The local administrators of Basra, Amara, and Nasiriye agreed that they wanted to unify and be granted autonomy. Basra Governor, Hasan Rasid reported that they sent their demands to interim Iraq Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. This development, confirmed also by the speaker of the parliament in Amara province, increases the disintegration anxieties of Iraq.

There are a number of ways that this development could be interpreted: a sense of Shi'ite community, fostered by the British or the Iranians (or both); a prelude to a disintegrating Iraq, grabbing local control in order to preserve power through control of the sea-port, if the centre does not hold; a vote of confidence in the prevailing power structure, and exercising their voice in a potentially federal Iraq. Whatever the motive, an automous Shi'ite grouping hastens the departure of British troops.

The Iranians are raising their profile on the border and probing the resolve of the new government with the arrest of Iraqi fishermen; or were they checking for the SAS? Basra airport has clean sewers and is nearly operational. (Will there be customers given the security news?). The Kiwi deployment of light engineers has also ended.

An article on the not-so-good situation in Basra and Allawi's visit can be found here with further insight on how the Iraqis learn democracy:

A steady flow of people is passing through the gate. One man complains to an official that he has not been allowed to cast all his family’s votes as they used to do under Saddam. One person, one vote, he is told.

(22.49, 26th September 2004)

Playing it safe

Charlie felt that the voters were safe with his domestic fantasies and eschewed any foreign adventures. The Iraq card was played, with the shadow of the hostage burying the conference in the headlines. Most people don't care about why we went to war in Iraq and those who do are committed to either of the left-wing alternatives: Respect or the Liberal Democrats. Asking for an apology from Blair was an ace for the base.

Charlie knew what voters didn't want to hear, so he didn't say anything:

One issue that failed to make it into the speech was the European constitution and the single currency - both of which Labour have pledged referendums on.

Even the Lib Dems will sacrifice Europe if that's what it takes to get power.

(22.57, 23rd September 2004)

Some Heartless Comments about Bigley

Even I felt sick at the thought of the threatened beheading of Kenneth Bigley. I still however have to run a normal service, and point out an awful truth - that neither pro or anti war spokesmen will.

The problem for poor Mr Bigley is not that Americans or British are in Iraq, but that Kenneth Bigley is in Iraq. Kenneth Bigley took a risk by working in Iraq, we all take risks but this was a far bigger one. I hope he and those who've put themselves in a similar position are being suitably compensated by their employers.

The anti-war side do not want to point to Kenneth Bigley's responsibility for his situation because this would throw away the massive propaganda coup that the ordeal is providing - after all they can now say that Britons are more at threat because of Iraq. This is true, but the Bigley case is not an illustration of this - it is more dangerous for Westerners to go to lawless Muslim countries not for Westerners in general.

The propaganda boon is doubled with America's refusal to free the women prisoners despite Iraq's promise to do so (although they would be free if an American hostage would have been freed - Kenneth Bigley's relatives don't vote in American elections). So much for the Anglosphere. Or for that matter Iraqi sovereignty.

The pro-war side do not want to point out Kenneth Bigley's responsibility because there is a logical corollary here. That is that Westerners should not go to Iraq. Western forces have failed to provide law and order (I don't care about ex-Canadians driving around Fallujah last year - I'm talking now), but that is pretty much what the anti-war side predicted. The problem is more acute. Foreigners should not go to Iraq, and it is highly likely that they won't go. If there are no foreigners then there's no economy. That's not exactly a success.

Time to go home, time to go home.