In today's installment, we focus on Sir Simon Jenkins. He was The Times editor in the 1990's and now writes for them whenever he wants. And as an established journalist, he clearly has the right
bona fides...by that I mean, the "left" bona fides.
He asks:
"Has the West misjudged the fault line of an impending conflict? Its global strategy under George Bush, Tony Blair and a ham-fisted Nato has declared the threat to world peace as coming from nonstate organisations, specifically Al-Qaeda, and the nations that give them either bases or tacit support. Western generals and securocrats have elevated these anarchist fanatics to the status of nuclear powers."
So, let's disregard the fact that Osama Bin Laden had been
pursuing nuclear ambitions, how should the West treat non-state actors with nuclear ambitions? Other than really really seriously....
"Policing crime has become “waging war”, so as to justify soaring budgets and influence over policy,"
No you have it the wrong way around you idealogically blinded fool.
Activist judges in the US have constantly frustrated the Bush administration by attempting to treat non-uniformed terrorists caught on the battlefield as matters for civil courts, granting these "freedom fighters"
rights they certainly don't grant
their captives. Judges in in Britain have been getting their knickers in a twist of the apparent
lack of human rights that these "urban insurgents" are subjected to.
Making it a "criminal issue" is a power grab from the judiciaries in some cases to make what was traditionally treated as a military matter, treated as a civil issue. How many more buses and tubes do you want blown up in central London before these budgets are justified?
"Terrorists, wherever located and trained, can certainly capture headlines and cause overnight mayhem, but they cannot project power."
Hmm *scratches head*...let me recall a day, not so long ago in 2001, I think it may have been a Tuesday morning in September when some unbearded cuddly wuddly huggy bears from Saudi Arabia executed a plan hatched in a cave in Afghanistan, and devastated central Manhattan, New York, United States, some 10,000kms away. I'd call that projecting power, but hey, I'm not a journalist, so what would I know?
"On Thursday Gordon Brown told his troops in Afghanistan that “what you are doing here prevents terrorism coming to the streets of Britain”. He cannot believe this any more than do his generals. "
Well:
a: that's a
bit late to be asking that question and
b: again, how many more bombs have to go off in central London before these people start taking it seriously?
"Afghanistan poses no military threat to Britain."
See Manhattan, NY about that one....
"Rather it is Britain’s occupation and the response in neighbouring Pakistan that fosters antiwestern militancy in the region"
Yep, root causes ya see? If we weren't there, 7/7 wouldn't have happened, Bali wouldn't have happened, Madrid wouldn't have happened, etc, etc etc ad infinitum. If only we responded with hugs instead of guns, maybe the Taliban could love us?
"Rather than calming other foes so the West can concentrate on the conflicts in hand, it is pointlessly stirring Russian expansionism to life."
So, supporting Georgia (however half-heartedly and without actually committing to anything other than stern words) is "pointlessly stirring Russian expansionism"?
"There is no strategic justification for siting American missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is nothing but right-wing provocation."
Ah yes indeed. The ever present bogeyman of "right-wing" provocation". And yes, I would consider the imminent threat of an Iranian nuclear tipped ICBM as a good justification for putting missiles into Poland and pretty much anywhere else. Oh, and as a bonus, maybe upping the ante to the Russkies as well, suggesting that maybe central Europe is, you know,
out of bounds...
"Nato’s welcome to Georgia and Ukraine, for no good reason but at risk of having to come to their aid, has served only to incite Georgia to realise that risk while also infuriating Moscow."
Really??!?! Do you think that maybe the sovereign will of the populations and democratically elected governments of the Ukraine and Georgia may have
wanted to join NATO? I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there, that maybe they wanted to join NATO to stop the Russkies doing what they did to Georgia? No, it's clearly Bush and his evil cohorts, US imperialism, blah blah blah.
"Russia is well able to respond recklessly to a snub without such encouragement, so why encourage it?
A "snub"? That justifies
over 100 odd Russian tanks rolling into your country??!? I didn't realise the rules of war had changed to justify military action due to a "snub".
Strangely enough, despite Sir Simon being unable to write without left-tinted glasses, I do agree with the broad thrust of his article and the final line:
"For the West’s leaders at present, mistake has become second nature."
Amen to that.
This makes me distinctly uncomfortable:
