30 march 2004
It has been an eventful month, from the terrors of Madrid's 11M to the anniversary of the Second Gulf War. Today provided yet more reminders that for free nations, the battlefront and the home front are the same: a half ton of ammonium nitrate discovered in metropolitan London, with eight subjects of the Crown taken into custody; while in Manila, four acolytes of Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf were seized, along with enough explosive to have killed hundreds in a reenactment of the horror in Spain.
Wretchard of The Belmont Club sees a silver lining in today's developments.
The Islamist losses in both Britain and the Philippines are likely to be felt keenly by the Jihadis. The British appear to have rolled up a widely deployed network of sleepers; prized assets. The Philippines for its part took down a cell which contained core members of the Abu Sayaf, including the sadistic man who killed Guillermo Sobero, a simple tourist visiting the Islands, as he pleaded for his life. The plan to terrify America's allies into leaving Iraq appears to have failed for now despite the best efforts of the Jihadis. And for this paltry result they have paid in their dwindling seed corn. They must be now asking themselves how the British and Filipinos knew enough to foil their plans.
Let us hope that he is correct.
This has also been a month for statesmen, who are distinguished from mere politicians by an ability to see beyond the moment and to grasp what is at stake in this war.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a strong defense of Coalition action in Iraq:
It is because it was in March 2003 and remains my fervent view that the nature of the global threat we face in Britain and round the world is real and existential and it is the task of leadership to expose it and fight it, whatever the political cost; and that the true danger is not to any single politician's reputation, but to our country if we now ignore this threat or erase it from the agenda in embarrassment at the difficulties it causes. […]
Everything about our world is changing: its economy, its technology, its culture, its way of living.
If the 20th century scripted our conventional way of thinking, the 21st century is unconventional in almost every respect.
This is true also of our security.
The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.
It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed.
But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it.
President George W. Bush, speaking two weeks later:
[T]here is a dividing line in our world, not between nations, and not between religions or cultures, but a dividing line separating two visions of justice and the value of life. On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, “We choose death, while you choose life.” We don't know if this is the voice of the actual killers, but we do know it expresses the creed of the enemy. It is a mind set that rejoices in suicide, incites murder, and celebrates every death we mourn. And we who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions. We do love live, the life given to us and to all. We believe in the values that uphold the dignity of life, tolerance, and freedom, and the right of conscience. And we know that this way of life is worth defending. There is no neutral ground — no neutral ground — in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death. […]
Many coalition countries have sacrificed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the fallen soldiers and civilians are sons and daughters of Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We honor their courage, we pray for the comfort of their families. We will uphold the cause they served.
The rise of democratic institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq is a great step toward a goal of lasting importance to the world. We have set out to encourage reform and democracy in the greater Middle East as the alternatives to fanaticism, resentment, and terror. We've set out to break the cycle of bitterness and radicalism that has brought stagnation to a vital region, and destruction to cities in America and Europe and around the world. This task is historic, and difficult; this task is necessary and worthy of our efforts.
read the rest »
Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar:
Spain has been one of the most active nations in the battle that democracies are waging against terrorism. This should continue to be the case. The defense of the liberties we enjoy is not just a fight for the United States or the United Kingdom to wage against their enemies. Terrorism hits wherever it can. There have been victims of many nationalities in New York, in Bali, in Mombasa, in Casablanca, in Istanbul, in Karbala—and in Madrid. No one is safe from terrorism, and no one should pretend that he is safe. Very recently, German and Dutch engineers were murdered in Iraq, for the crime of trying to lay pipes for drinking water. Terrorists have already threatened France for trying to ban wearing religious symbols in schools.
Ours is a battle between freedom, democracy and civilization, on the one hand, and terror on the other. If on September 11 we were all American, on March 11 the whole world was Spanish. Let's maintain this spirit. We cannot just abandon this battle; it is everyone's fight. […]
ETA or al Qaeda—the difference is important, to be sure, but the response to what has happened should be the same: firmness, political unity and international cooperation. Each and every democrat in the world was on those trains in Madrid. It has been an attack against all of us, against everything we believe in, and against everything we have built.
It is precisely for this reason that we must not send out confusing messages, messages that induce people to believe that we have to make concessions to those demanding that we kneel before bombs. This is not the moment to think about withdrawals of troops. And much less when the terrorists, with their message of death and destruction, have demanded that we surrender. To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard:
One of the front lines in this unconventional war is Iraq where terrorists seek to destroy the freedom offered by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Whether you agree with the decision to invade Iraq or not, there is no denying that there is a job to be done to ensure that the Iraqi people have a future. […]
One of the freedoms we want for the people of Iraq is the political freedom we enjoy in Western democracies. It is the same freedom that ensures a healthy and robust debate on issues of national security and foreign policy in Australia, the U.S., the U.K. and throughout Europe.
But that freedom will never be delivered in Iraq if groups like al Qaeda have their way. Their mission is to overthrow moderate Muslim governments and replace them with repressive, Taliban-style regimes. In Iraq they seek to choke off freedom before it can take hold.
I recall, as though it was yesterday, being in Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. I remember the sense of outrage and disbelief. But most of all I recall the immediate and resolute determination to stand together against this global threat.
The threat remains.
Secretary of State Colin Powell:
President Bush has stressed that states supporting terrorism are as guilty as terrorists themselves, and he's right — they are. But we were never so unimaginative to think that one approach would work in dealing with all cases. That's why were determined to make best use of the reputation of American and coalition power to achieve goals without necessarily having to use force.
What do recent decisions of the Libyan Government tell us about that effort? What do less dramatic but still noticeable changes in either policy or body language in certain other Middle Eastern countries tell us? I think they tell us that we understand well this first basic principle of diplomacy.
Diplomacy, then, if I may spell it out in a phrase, is the combination of power and persuasion, the orchestration of deeds and words in pursuit of policy objectives. Now, every true diplomat knows this, but not everyone's a diplomat. Some have recently argued that Libya’s recent decision to turn away from weapons of mass destruction is an interesting thing, but they see it in terms that remind me of an old beer commercial: “tastes great/less filling, tastes great/less filling.” Did they do it because of force? Did they do it because of diplomacy?
And of course, in almost every situation I deal with, it’s not either/or. Diplomacy isn't the opposite of force. Diplomacy without power is just naked pleading. Power without diplomacy is incomplete. Libya's change of heart, in my judgment, wouldn't have happened in the absence of American power as a backdrop. But policy success also required American and British skills at persuasion. In this case, the combination of power and persuasion is what worked.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
The more one studies terrorism, the more one becomes convinced that the approach to fighting it that had evolved over several decades wasn't working. That strategy was essentially to treat terrorism as a matter of domestic security; to combat it through national and international law enforcement techniques; and to try to take defensive measures against terrorist attacks. From the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, to the first World Trade Center attack, to the Embassy bombings in East Africa, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole — that was the pattern. Reasonable people have to conclude that the value of that approach had diminished over the years.
It had become increasingly clear that we could no longer afford to treat terrorism as a manageable evil — that we needed an approach that treated terrorism more like fascism — as an evil that needed to be not contained, but fought and eliminated. […]
The global war on terror will, in fact, be a long, hard slog. Victory will require a sustained effort, over many years, to root out terrorist networks, deny them sanctuary, disrupt their financing, and hold to account states that sponsor or provide sanctuary to terrorists. But I am convinced that victory in the global war against terrorism will require a positive effort as well.
We need to find creative ways to stop the next generation of terrorists from being recruited, trained, financed and deployed against free people. For every terrorist that coalition forces capture, kill, dissuade or deter, still others are being recruited and trained. To win the war on terror, we must also win the war of ideas — the battle for the minds of those who are being recruited by terrorist networks across the globe.
Read them all.
« truncated view
|
|
your e-mail address will not be displayed.