Meacher flips

Bob,
What the Observer article makes me wonder is:- what opposition forces in the south of Iraq? It’s simple enough to link the Observer’s account of the plan to what happened in Kurdish Iraq, much of which was of course already de facto free of Saddam (and thriving as a result), but less clear for the south. There, the US and British forces fought their way north quite unassisted by any kind of indigenous force. If the Observer story is to be taken seriously (and it’s loaded with caveats and unnamed sources – they have probs of their own with it) it’s as one option among others that the US were looking at.
On the subject of Meacher, well, you can’t blame a politician for trying to build a base in some putative post-Blair Labour world, but I don’t particularly feel that he believes what he says here, again assuming he’s been quoted with any kind of accuracy. Although he says he’s not a conspiracy theorist, he IS giving some support to the theory that the US knew 9/11 was coming but let it happen for their own purposes. And he is pretending that only the US pursues its strategic objectives in the world. One wonders what he makes of Chinese support for North Korea! Then there’s his use of the European meaning of ‘neo-Conservative’ which Kristol and others have been rather vainly trying to fight off of late (the interpretation of neoconservatives as a species of rabid Goldwaters, rather than the extremely loosely connected group of former left-wing writers and journalists and scholars that you find when you actually look at Wolfowitz, Kristol et al). The neocons’ take on Islamic terror has been adopted by the Bush administration, but regrettably not their take on economics, where he seems happy to spend his way through a recession in pure Old Labour style.

As I said at Harry’s place, it’s a bit like discovering that David Icke impersonated a government minister for seven years. Come to think of it, maybe Meacher’s one of those lizard-people…

The Bush Administration is just, well, awful. There is absolutely no long-term (much less short one) vision in almost any of their policies. Everything appears to be short term, “What will the polls say next week?” policy with little regard for the future of the country.

It IS too closely tied to corporations and conservative special and powerful interests. Nearly all of their policies ignores anything beyond a narrow constituency. Lip service is paid for those oustide of that narrow band of groups.

But . . but . . but . . . every time I listen to elements – and not just a small fraction – on the liberal/left spout this absolute nonsense of the neocon Pax Americana secret plan, of how Wolfowitz and Libby and Perle and gawd knows who else – secretly (or not to secretly) – issued this or that conspiracy to take over the Middle East or Asia or whatever, I recognize that for all of its failings (see above), we must not – cannot – permit the liberal/left to capture the White House. No. We can’t.

Too many – NOT all – on the liberal/left still think it’s September 10. The next day never occurred; or, if it did, it was not a group of radical Islamists driven by some ancient vision of driving infidels and westerners out of their holy lands. It was somehow either a smaller part of a larger plan or a pretext, an excuse for that larger plan to be enacted. That the response to that day is not driven by a sincere concern for our and our allies safety, but an rationale to put into action some Protocols of the Learned Elders of Neocons.

Whooey.

Steve MG

Martin:
What would it take to disprove your argument?

Who specifically do you think possibly allowed the attacks to occur? Give me some names.

We’re talking about dozens if not hundreds of people here. This isn’t a grassy knoll second shooter sneaking behind a fence. This would have to include not only dozens or hundreds of individuals directly involved, but hundreds more indirectly involved. All working in unison, all keeping it quiet – never telling their spouses or friends or neighbors.

Never in the history of mankind has such an endeavor been successfully accomplished. No documentation, no leaking, no snitching. This is like the Wannsee Conference times a thousand and with no records.

Geez, these neocons are some smart sunavabitches.

SMG

Bob:
Hmm, it’s hard to argue against Blair’s remarkable political judgements and acumen. He’s been, as they say over there, spot on. The Labour Party – or at least the Arthur Scargill/Tony Benn wing – was wrong during the Cold War; perhaps, they’re wrong again? Hell, Red Ken? John Pilger? I know those fine men are wrong.

I have to disagree with the “lies” accusation. Seems to me that the tide is, perhaps, slowly turning in his direction re the BBC flap. Slowly, not perhaps enough to save him. But one never knows (the late Dr. Kelly supported regime change, no?)

It seems to me that Blair endorses (implicitly if not explicitly) the Tom Friedman argument re Iraq. The only hopes of helping the moderate Islamists to defeat the radicals is to provide a safe harbor for them to point to. The radicals can (and have) point to the corrupt and authoritarian western-supported regimes and say, “Aha, this is what you’ve done. You’ve sold out our people and our riches to the Crusaders, to the infidels”.

They (the radicals), of course, don’t have the solution to the fundamental problems confronting the Islamic world. Or, at least, one that actually works in a modern world. But, they do offer an alternative. They can point to a glorious past that somehow seems possible to attain again if the infidels and sellouts are removed. This, I think, appears to be their appeal.

A successful, democratic Iraq can possibly provide the answer to this challenge. It’s certainly better than any alternative. Can we run? Or do we destroy them all? No in either case.

Islam must save itself; it must be won from within. We can only help at the margins. Iraq may be one of those self-help lessons.

We face two direct threats: state-sponsored terrorism and rogue terrorism. The former poses the greatest direct threat to us. Marrying radical Islamists with modern technology and the tools of mass destruction poses the most dangerous threat we have faced since the Cold War. Indeed, perhaps worse than the Cold War since the MAD doctrine seems to have no effect on those who laugh at things like “material determinism” and “dialectical materialsm”. Although, I guess they believe history is on their side.

Obviously, we cannot defeat all of the rogue terrorist groups in the Islamic (and non-Islamic) world. But we can (and must) defeat the states that sponsor these groups. We must prevent these nations from helping those terrorists to achieve the reach and capability of destroying not just buildings, but cities.

That, I think, is what Mr. Blair sees. Correctly, too.

Leaders of great vision – especially when they take their party or movement in a direction against its wishes – are often denounced by those who disagree with that policy. I think Blair is one of those types; you, obviously, do not. History will tell – not today’s public opinion’s poll.

Cheers.

Steve

Martin Wisse:

“Everything else Meacher said is obvious to anybody following the news.”

Not so. I follow the news, and the only thing obvious to me is that Meacher’s gone bonkers.

Martin:

“No, I’m not saying there was a conspiracy of hand rubbing neocons letting the planes through so they could start their grand crusade; all I’m saying is that there are genuine concerns about the conduct of the Bush administration and that these should not be dismissed out of hand, like Chris did.”

Is that really all you’re saying? I don’t know; your earlier post seemed to go a little bit further:

“Personally, I would not be shocked too much if the attacks were allowed to happen, though atm I’m not convinced they were.”

Could that loud whirring sound be a frenzy of backpedalling?