[whataretheysaying] Mary Madigan: Queing up on the road of good intentions

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Mary Madigan:
Queing up on the road of good intentions
http://whataretheysaying.powerblogs.com/posts/1151259336.shtml


   I've often commented that of all nations, Britain is the most
   incompetent when it comes to fighting terrorism. They [1]encourage it,
   they [2]appease it, and if they do decide to fight it, they inevitably
   fight it by [3]targeting innocents in a blind, [4]misguided outburst
   of rage.

   They currently believe that appeasing and tolerating Islamist
   extremism within their borders is a good idea. They believe that this
   tolerance, plus efforts to win Muslim hearts and minds will have a
   positive effect in the war against terrorism. They believe that having
   a favorable attitude towards Muslims will make Muslims love them.

   They don't. [5]Muslims in Britian are the most anti-western in Europe.

     Public opinion in Britain is mostly favourable towards Muslims, but
     the feeling is not requited by British Muslims, who are among the
     most embittered in the western world, according to a global poll
     published yesterday.

     The poll, by the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project,
     asked Muslims and non-Muslims about each other in 13 countries. In
     most, it found suspicion and contempt to be mostly mutual, but
     uncovered a significant mismatch in Britain.

     The poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of
     Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's
     London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice.
     Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and
     Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and
     about the same as in France.

     Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims
     as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%),
     Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

     By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a
     "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of
     westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent.

   The Brits mean well, but, like creating fine wines and tasty cuisine,
   fighting terrorism just isn't something they do well. But they're such
   nice people. Why do they always goof this up?

   The NY Times magazine article, [6]After Londonistan, has an answer.
   Patience and forbearance.

     MacShane is basically counseling patience, as many in Britain's
     government do. A month before the July 7 attacks, Britain's Joint
     Intelligence Committee made the judgment that "there would probably
     be a successful attack of some sort in the U.K. in the next five
     years." Today, British authorities are not much more confident of
     thwarting all plots, so they have erected a line of defense that is
     absorptive, not pre-emptive. It rests on harmony between social
     groups and on the country's ability to suffer atrocities from time
     to time, as it did during the heyday of the I.R.A., without
     escalating unrest or oppression, or the rise of extremist parties.
     Britain is now betting that the country will retain its
     historically bottomless reserves of sang-froid in the face of a
     threat that is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the threat
     of the I.R.A.; that there is something in the makeup of Britons
     that makes them more stoical than, say, Americans in New York about
     bombs going off; that the quiet tenor of the British fight against
     Islamist terrorism thus far is a sign of good manners and
     forbearance, not of abject fright or sneaking sympathy; and that
     Britain in the age of the Diana funeral is the same country it was
     during the blitz.

     It's a risky bet.

   They want to fight terrorism by tolerating it? That's not just a risky
   bet, it's a losing one.

   Many Brits do believe that the stoically tolerating abuse is a form of
   bravery. This works in some situations, like during the Nazi
   Blitzkrieg. But it makes no sense when dealing with terrorism.
   Stoically tolerating abuse only makes sense when your enemy is larger,
   smarter or more powerful than you are. It's an idiotic strategy to use
   againt an enemy who is smaller, stupider and much weaker, as the
   Islamists are.

   The enemy in Britian is hiding in plain sight, the police know where
   they live, but instead of adopting a zero tolerance attitude towards
   extremism, instead of plainly enforcing the rules and expecting
   everyone to follow them, British politicians tolerate terrorism while
   demanding that the population accept abuse, death, and mutilation
   graciously.

   This doesn't lead to "harmony among social groups".

   We learned a few decades ago that stoically tolerating crime leads to
   more crime. It's no coincidence that stoic and tolerant Britain also
   has an over-the-top crime rate, while forebearance-free America's
   crime rate has fallen.

   We also know that tolerating terrorism leads to more terrorism. I'd
   guess that, if they continue to follow this course, Islamists will win
   significant political power in Britain, as the IRA did. Winning
   political power is extremism's goal. The IRA was also smaller,
   stupider and weaker than the Brits, but they won their little war.

   When good intentions lead to an inevitably bad result, maybe it's time
   for a change.

References

   1. http://whataretheysaying.powerblogs.com/posts/1137693144.shtml
   2. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N38/ira.38w.html
   3. http://larkspirit.com/bloodysunday/
   4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4726613.stm
   5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1804078,00.html
   6. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/magazine/25london.html