The Centre For Social Cohesion

I am reminded of how, in the eighties, public outrage among left-leaning liberals and socialists in Britain at the stationing there of cruise missiles subsided as the success of President Reagan’s strategy of outfacing the Soviet Union began to pay off, and unrest within the USSR and its satellite countries at the Soviet regime began to become ever more discernible.

Something similar appears to be happening in respect of international and domestic opinion towards the legitimacy of the US invasion of Iraq. What that is goes well beyond simply a subsidence of opposition to its continued military presence there.

It now turns out that, in 2003, even Iran, like Libya, may have decided to end its nuclear weapons programme over fear of a US military strike against it were it to press on with that programme. Of course, what is actually going on in Iran in terms of its nuclear aspirations remains unclear. So again, the US does well to retain standing nearby its current massive floating military arsenal ready to take action against Iran at any time the need becomes apparent.

That same willingness to threaten, and if necessary apply, sanctions against Islamic militancy appears to be paying wider dividends in regions beyond Iraq and the Middle East. A case in point is the decision by the Muslim Council of Britain taken at the weekend to discontinue its boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day.

Its rhetoric remains laughingly disingenuous in so far as it claims, quite untruthfully, that its initial opposition to the event was borne out of that day’s alleged lack of inclusiveness. See Harry’s Place for details.

It would appear what finally brought the MCB to heel was a speech given just over a year ago by the then Communities Secretary of State Ruth Kelly in which she made plain that the government would no longer have dealings with any self-styled representatives of the British Muslim community unwilling to play their part in helping promote social cohesion by their refusing to participate in events such as HMD. It was the prospect of loss of power, influence and government cash that brought about their change of mind. Perhaps, it was also a sense people were just getting fed up with their constant Islamic victimology, exemplified by their obscene allegation when they initially decided to boycott HMD that a holocaust the government was ignoring was that being perpetrated against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank by the Israelis.

As I say, actions speak louder than words, and doubtless it was the intention to convey just such an unspoken message that lay behind the Bush administration’s choice of Annapolis as venue for last week’s Middle East Peace conference. For that seaport is the home to the US naval military academy and it was the US navy and marines who, nearly two hundred years ago, defeated Islamist militancy off the Barbary Coast.

The symbolism contained in that choice of venue for the conference has been well explained by Raymond S. Kraft in a piece posted at the weekend on the website Family Security Matters. Kraft writes:

‘I think this symbolism is important. Very important…It was the United States Navy and Marines that Presidents Jefferson and Adams sent to stop piracy of the Barbary States, projecting enough American military force to subdue the Pashas and Deys of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers, halfway ‘round the world…. I think the choice of grounds at Annapolis, rather than Camp David, and rather than West Point, or the White House, or Paris, or Oslo, is a very specific reference to President Jefferson, President Adams, and the American victories in the wars against the Barbary pirates two hundred years ago.

‘It is called “sending a message”, to Iran specifically, and the rest of the Middle East in general. And the diplomatic world sees it with perfect clarity, even if most of the news world and punditry do not. We did it once, in the days of the tall ships and muzzle loading cannon, we can do it again, in the days of stealth bombers.’

A year before that recent posting, Raymond Kraft posted another blog in which, better than in any other piece of which I am aware, he spelt out the moral justification for the US having gone to war against Saddam and for being willing to take further military action against the regime in Iran, if necessary. He wrote:

‘If the Precautionary Principle requires extraordinary measures to protect against the uncertain possibility that at some time in the near or distant future Global Warming might become a serious problem, does not the Precautionary Principle compel, with even greater urgency, extraordinary measures to protect against the certainty that in the near future Islamic regimes under the political control of Jihadist radicals will acquire nuclear weapons which they intend to use against Israel and the West, unless prevented from doing so? Does not the Precautionary Principle mandate that we do whatever is necessary to protect America, Israel, and Europe, from the threat of a radicalized Middle East bristling with nuclear weapons, and with its hands on the oil pump handles?….

‘If the long-term threat of disruptive Global Warming at some indefinite future time calls for implementing the Precautionary Principle, surely the near-term threat of a Middle East bristling with nuclear weapons and churning with Jihadist ambitions must mandate the implementation of the Precautionary Principle. Better safe than sorry. A stitch in time saves nine.’

As I say, it is just possible to see the beginnings of a silent reassessment within the West of the merits of the whole Bush doctrine. Not that those previously most vocal here in their opposition to that decision will ever openly admit that they were wrong to oppose that decision. But their diminishing protests at the action and at America’s continued presence in Iraq will prove eloquent testimony to those revised opinions. As I said at the start: actions speak far louder than words, including, as in this particular case, inactions.