MI-5: There's Too Many Of Them...

"When people argue that the War on Terror "cannot be won by military, only by political means" they often exclude from consideration any political decisions which would deprive threats of their force-generation mechanisms or their means of command and control. Jihadi cells were allowed to flourish; operatives allowed to come and go; recruitment was permitted, sometimes openly in mosques because political considerations required that these activities not be impeded. Operational necessity often creates contradictions with the most cherished political institutions of a democracy that are very hard to reconcile. But that does not mean the contradictions are not real.

The "political" challenges facing the West are not only about setting up "democratic institutions" in the Middle East, or forcing Israel to accomodate Palestine. They also have to do with finding ways to shut down enemy force generation mechanisms without instituting an authoritarianism or creating a domestic tyranny. But the problem won't be solved until it is squarely recognized as needing a solution.

One of the most worrisome effects of the political decisions that the Counterterrorism Blog regrets is that it may have allowed terror groups to obtain "authority supremacy" within the Muslim communities in Britain, which occurs when a group of citizens fears and respects a shadow government more than it does the legitimately constituted and elected authorities." [ Bingo. -ed. ]

Warren On Robert's Anglosphere

"His main point is that the Anglosphere determined the course of history through the twentieth century by standing united against Prussian militarism in the First World War, Fascism in the Second, and Communism in the Cold War. In each case, the Anglosphere stood nearly alone, with no reliable allies elsewhere in the world, only clients and dependents. As we pass into the 21st century, we face a fourth great test, against what has been called “Islamofascism”. Will the Anglosphere again stand united, in defence of the West?

Roberts takes this as an open question. He is distressed by demographics, and by “multiculturalism”. Massive immigration of Muslims and others from dysfunctional Third-World states is transforming our societies, especially in leading urban centres, and meanwhile our educational systems have “progressed” to reflect a demented cultural relativism, in which our own English-speaking heritage is disowned, barbarous ideas are substituted piecemeal, and a void is created into which all kinds of horrors may be sucked.

We are no longer assimilating immigrants, and winning them over to our language and outlook; we are instead surrendering everything we stand for.

Yet the Anglosphere is still there, as evidence the British and Australian allies the Americans found when something had to be done about Iraq. Canadian troops in Afghanistan represent at least a tip of the hat to our own best national traditions, in which we were always rather proudly first in the trenches, and first up the hill.

Nor, of course, is systematic unhelpfulness from our nominal allies in Continental Europe something new. We have a history of having to protect them from each other, or liberate them, again and again, while they mutter about the distastefulness of “Anglo-Americanism”. But someone has to play adult in the planetary kindergarten.

You must know history, to see a way forward; you must ask the “What if?” questions. Without a strong, essentially united Anglosphere, the world would be a much nastier place, even than it is today. It is time we English-speakers got our act together. Again. And I think, time we started inviting India to the show, for it is emerging as another English-speaking centre on the scale of a new America."