Sunday, October 10, 2004
The foolishness of Claire Short
Claire Short, most of you know, was a member of Tony Blair's cabinet who resigned over his government's decision to join the Coalition of the Willing. Whatever the merits of the Iraq war, its critics have generally conceded that it is appropriate to wage war against al Qaeda, who have declared war against us. Claire Short, however, believes that al Qaeda's cause is "just":
The Times article does not disclose the "book by a US intelligence analyst" that Short says she has been reading, but it is almost certainly Imperial Hubris, by the formerly "Anonymous" CIA station chief Michael Scheuer. If it isn't, I would be interested in knowing what other book she is reading. If I have guessed correctly that Short is reading Imperial Hubris and is influenced by it in the way she says, she is surely one of the most deeply silly people ever to serve in the cabinet of a great democracy.
Scheuer does in fact assert that bin Laden argues that al Qaeda's jihad is permitted by Muslim law because it is defensive. Scheuer also makes the point that any number of American policies have made bin Laden's argument more credible with the masses of the Muslim world, among them the coalition's invasion of Iraq, which Scheuer deplores. But for all his complaining that we in the West misunderstand Bin Laden, Scheuer never argues that bin Laden's war is just in either its aims or its means. Indeed, according to Scheuer, bin Laden's war aims are specific, breathtaking in their scope and brutality, and beyond any possibility of justice:
Claire Short thinks that these aims are "just"? Even if one might open-mindedly consider the justice of a couple of them in the spirit of walking in the other guy's sandals, how can annihilation of Israel or the installation of Taliban-style government from the Atlantic coast of Africa across Central Asia to the South Pacific be a just war aim, whether or not popular in the Muslim world? Expansionist, nationalist fascism was quite popular in Europe 70 years ago, stewing as it did in a pot of imagined grievances, but popularity couldn't make it just. What is it about Islamic fascism that so moves the romantic soul of the Western Left?
Short's stupidity in claiming justice for this cause is so arresting that one might well ask why Tony Blair put her in his cabinet in the first place.
In the interview with the English-language Gulf News, Short said she had been reading a book by a US intelligence analyst that painted a sympathetic picture of the Al-Qaeda chief.
“The author says Osama Bin Laden considers it a war, a defensive jihad, because the people in the Middle East are being crushed and destroyed and their resources, their oil, misused and they have got to defend their civilisation and their religion,” she said.
“So I think the killing of civilians is always wrong, all the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings said it was wrong, but I think the cause is just.”
The Times article does not disclose the "book by a US intelligence analyst" that Short says she has been reading, but it is almost certainly Imperial Hubris, by the formerly "Anonymous" CIA station chief Michael Scheuer. If it isn't, I would be interested in knowing what other book she is reading. If I have guessed correctly that Short is reading Imperial Hubris and is influenced by it in the way she says, she is surely one of the most deeply silly people ever to serve in the cabinet of a great democracy.
Scheuer does in fact assert that bin Laden argues that al Qaeda's jihad is permitted by Muslim law because it is defensive. Scheuer also makes the point that any number of American policies have made bin Laden's argument more credible with the masses of the Muslim world, among them the coalition's invasion of Iraq, which Scheuer deplores. But for all his complaining that we in the West misunderstand Bin Laden, Scheuer never argues that bin Laden's war is just in either its aims or its means. Indeed, according to Scheuer, bin Laden's war aims are specific, breathtaking in their scope and brutality, and beyond any possibility of justice:
Bin Laden's foreign policy goals, if they may be so termed, are six in number and easily stated. First, the end of all U.S. aid to Israel, the elimination of the Jewish state, and, in its stead, the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state. Second, the withdrawal of all U.S. and Western military forces from the Arabian Peninsula -- a shift of most units from Saudi Arabia to Qatar fools no Muslims and will not cut the mustard -- and all Muslim territory. Third, the end of all U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fourth, the end of U.S. support for, and acquiescence in, the oppression of Muslims by the Chinese, Russian, Indian and other governments. Fifth, restoration of full Muslim control over the Islamic world's energy resources and a return to market prices, ending the impoverishment of Muslims caused by oil prices set by Arab regimes to placate the West. Sixth, the replacement of U.S. - protected Muslim regimes that do not govern according to Islam by regimes that do. For bin Laden, only Mullah Omar's Afghanistan met this criteria; other Muslim regimes are candidates for annihilation. (p. 210)
Claire Short thinks that these aims are "just"? Even if one might open-mindedly consider the justice of a couple of them in the spirit of walking in the other guy's sandals, how can annihilation of Israel or the installation of Taliban-style government from the Atlantic coast of Africa across Central Asia to the South Pacific be a just war aim, whether or not popular in the Muslim world? Expansionist, nationalist fascism was quite popular in Europe 70 years ago, stewing as it did in a pot of imagined grievances, but popularity couldn't make it just. What is it about Islamic fascism that so moves the romantic soul of the Western Left?
Short's stupidity in claiming justice for this cause is so arresting that one might well ask why Tony Blair put her in his cabinet in the first place.
0 Comments:
