British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in Los Angeles on the final leg of a U.S. visit, called Tuesday for a broad reappraisal of the West's strategy for fighting extremism in the Middle East, saying that the battle would not be won by force alone.
...
"My argument today is this: We will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are evenhanded, fair and just in our application of those values to the world," Blair told an audience of about 2,000 at a lunch sponsored by the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, a nonprofit organization.
Blair said he was urging a dramatic change in the approach taken by Western nations to the volatile region, saying that greater efforts are needed to engage moderates in the Muslim and Arab world who might work alongside the West against those he described as radical, reactionary Muslims.
"Unless we reappraise our strategy, unless we revitalize the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect to the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win. And this is a battle we must win," he said to applause from many in his audience.[link]
Now, what to do about those reactionary conservatives? You know, the ones that love a good war but can't seem to see past the next few months or years...
Posted by Geoff
5 comments:
How is that any different than what Bush has said?
You can't force peace on these people, but you have to convince them that it's the best path to take. I think that if you and those who think along your lines would not worry so much about reactionary conservatives and worry more about how to solve the problem, we might get somewhere.
You can't tell me that all Muslims hate Jews, and you can't tell me that all Shiites hate Sunnis, and all Muslims hate America, because it's not true. But you have to get rid of the small minority that is more willing to blow itself up than talk about the problems between all of the parties involved. And that small minority, as we can see, causes a lot of problems.
And here are his further remarks, in the same speech:
"What is happening today out in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and beyond is an elemental struggle about the values that will shape our future.
It is in part a struggle between what I will call Reactionary Islam and Moderate, Mainstream Islam. But its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.
The root causes of the current crisis are supremely indicative of this. Ever since September 11th, the US has embarked on a policy of intervention in order to protect its and our future security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. Hence the broader Middle East initiative in support of moves towards democracy in the Arab world.
The point about these interventions, however, military and otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually "regime change" it was "values change".
What we have done therefore in intervening in this way, is far more momentous than possibly we appreciated at the time.
Of course the fanatics, attached to a completely wrong and reactionary view of Islam, had been engaging in terrorism for years before September 11th. In Chechnya, in India and Pakistan, in Algeria, in many other Muslim countries, atrocities were occurring. But we did not feel the impact directly. So we were not bending our eye or our will to it as we should have. We had barely heard of the Taleban. We rather inclined to the view that where there was terrorism, perhaps it was partly the fault of the governments of the countries concerned.
We were in error. In fact, these acts of terrorism were not isolated incidents. They were part of a growing movement. A movement that believed Muslims had departed from their proper faith, were being taken over by Western culture, were being governed treacherously by Muslims complicit in this take-over, whereas the true way to recover not just the true faith, but Muslim confidence and self esteem, was to take on the West and all its works."
Then there is this excerpt from Michael Barone's blog at USN&WR, where he talks about the long view..
"Pitt's farsightedness reminds me of George W. Bush's attempts, even in adversity, to forge long-term solutions rather than short-term patchwork. It has been on display in the past three weeks as Israel has responded to attacks by Hezbollah. There are many points of similarity between Pitt and Bush. Both had fathers who held their executive positions before them, and both faced circumstances different from those their fathers had faced and responded with different policies, designed to provide long-term solutions. Both were bitterly and vituperatively opposed by the political opposition and much of the chattering class of the day. Both were criticized for violating civil liberties as their countries faced unprecedented dangers--attacks from revolutionary France and Islamofascist terrorism. Pitt died shaken by the news of Napoleon's victory in the Battle of Austerlitz; Bush will surely leave office with the work he had undertaken not yet completed."
So, yes, Blair identifies the importance of a "renaissance" of strategy to help win the war, but recognize that he is firmly on the team. And, success, or victory, in this struggle will be measured in years, if not decades. And Bush told us so at the outset.
My POV on this frame is that we need to look long-term and not piss people off too much, whenever we can. And I know that sounds sissy but it is a valid opinion and an important consideration for the long-term. It is the pissing people of thing - those in the middle – that, I believe, plays a large part in breading terrorist. You have to take threats out, but you must avoid making new ones when possible.
I think that recently we, the West, have been reacting to terrorism in an aggressive way in order to maintain our image of strength. We've abandoned the quest for the hearts and minds of the rational middle ground you speak of (the ones who don't hate each other) and we're turning them against us. Meanwhile we are empowering the extremes of both ends.
I doubt the neocons, and at times Bush, think this way.
We're reacting the way that we are because they flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and intended to fly one into the Capitol Building. Lest you'd forgotten.
You've got to stop thinking that this is our fault, because that's exactly what they want you to think. They want us to disagree, they want you to think that we're being too brutal, and they hope that people on my side give in to the caterwauling from your side. Because then, they can rebuild their strength and attack us again. And again. We can do that vicious cycle, or we can beat them now. I say now.
I'm talking more recent than 911. But thx for your opinion.
Post a Comment