It has taken too long, but it is starting. Courtesy of Harry's place, we bring you Tony Blair, ladies and gentlemen, in yet another very fine speech:
"This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core. By this I don't mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Koran.
But in order to do this, we must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress; that if only we altered this decision or that, the extremism would fade away. The only way to win is: to recognise this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas, in which it operates, as linked; and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists."
There's more. On the domestic front:
"There is an interesting debate going on inside government today about how to counter extremism in British communities. Ministers have been advised never to use the term "Islamist extremist". It will give offence. It is true. It will. There are those - perfectly decent-minded people - who say the extremists who commit these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. And, of course, they are right. They are no more proper Muslims than the Protestant bigot who murders a Catholic in Northern Ireland is a proper Christian. But, unfortunately, he is still a "Protestant" bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.
Yet, in respect of radical Islam, the paradigm insists that to say what is true, is to provoke, to show insensitivity, to demonstrate the same qualities of purblind ignorance that leads us to suppose that Muslims view democracy or liberty in the same way we do.
Just as it lets go unchallenged the frequent refrain that it is to be expected that Muslim opinion will react violently to the invasion of Iraq: after all it is a Muslim country. Thus, the attitude is: we understand your sense of grievance; we acknowledge your anger at the invasion of a Muslim country; but to strike back through terrorism is wrong.
It is a posture of weakness, defeatism and most of all, deeply insulting to every Muslim who believes in freedom ie the majority. Instead of challenging the extremism, this attitude panders to it and therefore instead of choking it, feeds its growth."
And grow it has. Not without help, or a common outlook. Which is why the stakes are so high. Which is why "Bad Philosophy" more generally is part of the issue:
"Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy. Which brings me to the fundamental point. "We" is not the West. "We" are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. "We" are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.
This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.
And this is why the position of so much opinion on how to defeat this terrorism and on the continuing struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East is, in my judgement, so mistaken."
There's much more, and it's excellent. Head over to Harry's for the link and some thoughts.
Three words for you Yanks if you want to produce political leaders who can speak like this, because overall the historical record is not promising: institute Question Period.
What a fantastic speech, he's saying everything that needs to be said, and saying it bluntly, calmly and logically. Very, very impressive, kudos to Tony Blair.
This is the defining struggle of our age, and it's nice to know that leaders like Tony Blair still understand what that means.
Blair said so?
Oh goodness, there's little I would like more than seeing Britain finally emerging from the swamp of political correctness.
A) With such great speeches as this, why isn't Blair more popular in Britain?
B) I think President's Questions (as well as Secretary's Questions) would be a big, big, BIG advantage for the United States. The problem with the idea is who organizes the opposition questions? There is no Shadow Cabinet in the United States... how do you stop it from becoming pure heckling? (Granted, there's a lot of heckling in PMQ... but there's some serious questions too.)
It would also make C-SPAN worth watching, which right now it isn't. PMQ can't go on forever the way House and Senate hearings can.
[Some Honourable Members] Hear. Hear!
And much thumping of desks. Oh, drat. I nearly forgot. That was considered unseemly and they now merely applaud.
The real problem is that most post-moderns have the attention span of a fruit fly and no vision beyond their next orgasm.
How many heard Blair's speech? Or any of Bush's better ones? Hey honey get a life ... I'm on my way to the mall.
It was de Tocqueville who said:
bq. a nation cannot long remain strong when every man belonging to it is individually weak; and that no form or combination of social polity has yet been devised to make an energetic people out of a community of pusillanimous and enfeebled citizens.
And Jefferson who said:
bq. if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was and never will be
Barzun is right about decadence. The only question is whether that decadence applies to the "welfare democracy" (his term) or to western civilisation in general. The first might be cause for great optimism; the latter for great pessimism. It is, however, much to soon to tell.
What a great speech from a great man.
As a Yank, I'm very thankful for having an ally like Blair. Believe me, we are thankful for his and your support. His eloquence is inspiring.
Great words from a welcomed ally. The vast majority of Americans recognize and appreciate how important the UK is to America. Our cultural and economic ties are very strong and should continue for the lifetimes of anyone reading this blog. Tony Blair was right on in this speech and we need more like it.
An article with a detailed discussion on the future of terrorism in Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq.
He's no imam.
Simply wrong on the Koran.
WWIV can't end until Islam is no more: the end will be very much in the mold of Japan, Shintoism, and the collapse of belief in September 1945.
Islam is simply NOT the ROP. Wahabbis are their Protestants: they've had their reformation -- not one that the infidel can tolerate.
Wahabbis are to Infidels as:
SD to Jews;
Owner to Slave;
Top to Bottom.
Undoubtedly Tony Blair is a Godsend as an ally and this is a fine speach. It is nearly Churchillian. Words do not win wars. How far is Britain willing to go to halt Iran's nuke program? How far is the US willing to go? This is what really frightens me. I don't think we will do more than threaten and bluster. Israel, on the other hand will act - a fine kettle of fish.
On a lighter note the eloquence, or lack thereof, of American Presidents is noted. Not every nation can claim a Winston Churchill.
While Wahhabis certainly are one of the Islamic Reformation movements of the 18th C., they weren't the only ones. Nor are they necessarily the last. Most Wahhabis--i.e., the majority of Arabs living in the Gulf States--are not terrorists, though some like to conflate them as such.
Blair's speech is superb. I'm pointing it out to my Muslim Arab friends--including Wahhabis--as a truer voice of what the issues are.
Blair talks a good game. However in practice he is one of the worst panderers to Islamism/Salafism/Qutbism or whatever you wish to call it.
*Blair's government banned Winnie the Pooh's Piglet from Government Offices (Muslim take offense).
*Blair's Wife Cherie led the fight to allow Muslim girls to wear the jilbab in public schools, thus encouraging Muslim extremism and separatism.
*Blair's government banned the Union Jack from Prisons as Muslims take offense.
*De-facto Sharia law already exists in majority-Muslim areas, with the Blair Government's connivance.
*Polygamy is tolerated, and various Blair ministers have floated trial balloons legalizing it.
But worst of all, Blair tried, as a pandering measure, to pass a Blasphemy law that would make offending Muslims a criminal offense drawing serious jail time. Defeated by one vote, Blair has vowed to take it up again.
Blair is also incorrect in characterizing this fight as "for civilization" instead of a war between civilizations. Broadly speaking, Huntington is correct, and that can be seen by the death sentence awaiting the Christian Convert in Afghanistan. Even the "Independent Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan" has called for the man to be put to death because it is the basic requirement of Sharia.
Sharia itself is absolutely and fundamentally incompatible with Western Civilization. How can you have a complete set of Laws handed down directly from God unchanged and unchanging, with Laws made and amended by men?
Blair like Bush believes Muslims are merely extra-colorful Methodists. They are not and the base philosophical and existential assumptions of devout Muslims are IMHO radically different from those in the West, Christian or not.
You can't and on Sharia alone (excluding terrorism) Blair's argument falls flat.
Canada has a Question Period, but no great speakers. Even Trudeau wasn't very good.
By the way, an earlier version of this comment was "denied for questionable content" because my URL contained "blogspot".
When will Tony Blair go on trial?
Where will his trail be ? the Haugue? or The Royal Courts Of Justice?
Will the cabinet be tried seperately ?
TheCse are the questions of democrats and civilised citizens.
These are the questions of angry people who can't spell. The above post is a nice example of what we call a drive-by. I'm leaving it here because, as an advice columnist once wrote, nobody is ever entirely useless; they can always serve as a bad example.