He gets it

dominic lennon

Dare I venture to suggest Lord Pearson of UKIP?

Austin Barry

"It is because (inter alia) they have lost faith in their own culture, are in thrall to an ideological aversion to war, have lost the moral capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, victim and aggressor -- and above all because they are terrified of the Islamic world and respond to its terror by appeasing it because moral courage is a rare commodity and a religious war is a fearsome thing."

Spot on.

He forgot though to mention the huge, growing, seething fifth column of Muslims investing the cities of the West - a candid step too far perhaps, or the implication of the coy and fugitive "inter alia"?

Adrian

That last paragraph "Why, indeed, have western leaders not told their people the truth..." is the best section but appears to be missing from the online version.

Adrian

It would be ironic and very worrying if that section has been removed for telling too much of the truth... the whole point of the article!

Simon (aka piggy kosher) UK

This will mean having to faithfully and accurately retell the whole sorry narrative of Islamic expansionism and Jihad, Western appeasement and its root cause, communist infiltration of our most vital structures and bodies, A suicidal overwhelmingly pro- islamic immigration poilcy, the importation of vicious anti semitism imported by these muslims, and the entire massive historical injustice done to the Jewish people in their own homeland since 1921 to appease a totally alien and malign world view.
The massive islamisation of Western society and its attempts to stifle free speech in those nations who have been most open to dhimmification.
All this will have to be told, bravely and unflichingly.
Dont hold your breath Mel, Im not.

jonnyjackhammer

Then spell it out Mel cos I honestly don't believe I'm naive about Islam, and for what it’s worth, I usually agree with your analysis. However, I don't think the war in Afghanistan is on balance worthwhile. What does victory look like? Even if you can define it can we realistically get there? Please tell me! Why don’t we just cut our links and concentrate on our own “indigenous” problems? Was it Mao who said you should only fight wars you know you can win? I understand the nukes in Pakistan domino theory. However, perhaps we just need to let Afghanistan run its course and take sever military action if we are militarily (rather than ideological) threatened at a later date. Fighting ideology, ignorance and primitivism is best done on our terms not theirs.

Peter T

We are members of a culture which places tolerance above most other qualities. In doing this we are now tolerating the spread of intolerance present in the religious fundementalism spreading and from the Middle East. We are tolerating evil.

Mike_W

Islam is the problem, not Islamism.
Islam is the problem, not the Taliban or Al Quaeda.
Even as the West allows millions of Muslims to immigrate and Islam to fester within its borders, the West sends troops to far off Afghanistan to fight the boogymen Taliban.

What a joke.
The Taliban are simply good Muslims defending Islam according to strict interpretaion of Islamic law.

Why ARE we fighting in Afghanistan when Britain itself these days is regarded as a central hub for Islamic terrorists and many thousands of good and devout Muslims with a bent towards violence against the despised kuffar are plotting on your home soil against you, Britain?

If the Western leaders are serious about identifying the enemy, here's a clue: it is Islam.

JayBee

I agree with Mike_W, we would be better off protecting our country by bringing our troops home and protecting our borders. History shows that you can only afford foreign adventures when the homeland is secure. No more islamic immigration is the best way to protect ourselves.

In the Wilderness in America

Melanie, thanks for printing Lord Robertson's speech.

How can you have moral courage when you don't know the difference between right and wrong? The answer to that question is the tragedy of our times.

Lord Robertson: "...moral courage is a rare commodity and religious war is a fearsome thing."

By your standing up, Lord Robertson, and informing those who will listen that this is indeed a religious war, you have demonstrated that rare moral courage. We will need plenty more Lord Robertsons to take on the Talibans and al Qaedas of the world.

Time is running out, and we are being corroded from within by processes such as sharia. However, Churchill in 1940 faced a potential catastrophe just as great if not greater. The British and American spirits rose up then and defeated the scourge of Hitler and Mussolini. Those same spirits over the the subsequent course of the Cold War defeated communism.

It can be done. Hopefully, another Churchill and FDR and Reagan and Thatcher will emerge.

Dixon

Mike_W
March 18th, 2010 7:47pm:

I agree with most of what you say, but to answer the question you pose thus:

"Why ARE we fighting in Afghanistan when Britain itself these days is regarded as a central hub for Islamic terrorists and many thousands of good and devout Muslims with a bent towards violence against the despised kuffar are plotting on your home soil against you, Britain?"

The answer is: because however many jihadists we may have in our midst, they do not as yet have the scope to set up and train at extensive military encampments, in the use of firearms, explosives, chemical weapons and military field operations...they have to travel abroad to do that, which the DID in Afghanistan before 2001 and DO in the Pakistan badlands and WILL in Afghanistan again if we allow them to. That is why so many British passport bearers have ended up in US custody at Guantanamo, Baghram and elsewhere. Because they need to go abroad to camps to congregate and train effectively. Whereas, so long as they cannot, even their best efforts to do so here, such as their camping in the Highlands or engaging in comical "exercises" in a city park, end up being rumbled by our police and security services.

Michael B

Bingo, spot on!!!

Jez

It's this that did it Melanie;

http://www.wharf.co.uk/2009/11/focus-the-terrible-toll-of-bla.html

"A few miles away, across the channel, the conflict for Europe was raging. The Germans had breached the Maginot Line in May and the first raids had hit London *but complacency was still rife*. Evacuee children were beginning to drift home."

Looking at various sources, there was a complete lack of will to fight this enemy from the majority of people in the country.... until this incident (and many after it).

You're not going to get the same reaction from the public with things that are happening in Afghanistan maybe.... and if something horrific happened here due to a terrorist outrage(God forbid) then the seperate cultures / communities here may well turn on each other.

Not good.

john Norman

Islam, imperialist Islam, has always been the problem. Only a 5th columnist Left does not wish to know. And will do its darndest to sink us with our hands chained behind our backs.

Truthtriumphs

Mike_W

Exactly right---- the problem is Islam, and unfortunately, our politicians either don't see it, or see it and are too afraid to articulate it.
The problem in the UK is exacerbated because the Labour Party is drunk on power, and so its prostitution for the sake of the Muslim vote is worth selling the country down the river.

kate b

The Churchills of today are the children of parents who can counter the trash taught in schools and misinformation foisted upon them by CBBC/BBC and other media.

William Boyd

You ask in time honoured mailese fashion 'where, oh where is the Churchill of today?'

To be found (oh to be found oh) wherever a columnist is to be found who advances the view that essentially the Afghan conflict is a tribal conflict of shifting loyalties impossible to settle by imperial powers and directly echoing the well known (oh so very well known oh) view of Winston Churchill himself for example extracted here at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/tribal/churchill.html and which concluding paragraph, essentially sympathetic as one can imagine the young Winston would have been, to the warrior culture of the Swat valley concludes with this picture:

"Then the Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir holds to-day: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet. And the young men hearing these things will grip their Martinis, and pray to Allah, that one day He will bring some Sahib -- best prize of all -- across their line of sight at seven hundred yards so that, at least, they may strike a blow for insulted and threatened Islam."

(erm ... like 'Martini' is more a kind of a gun than a dinner hour cocktail if you happen to be wondering oh)

Thus young Winston and I think a mature Winston writing today would have recommended some realistic and achievable policy goals in Afghanistan 1 getting rid of Al Qaeda (done) 2 negotiating with the Taliban to see they remain got rid of (not done) 3 and while we're at it why not a little deal of some kind say keeping them in power in return for abolishing the opium crop since they're the only ones able to accomplish this (hell why not oh).

Shame about women's rights and the stonings and so on oh but that's their problem right oh?

Eddie

We should be in Afganistan for sure - but ONLY to stop terrorism festering. The way they run their wasteland of a godforsaken country is up to them, so all the feminists and PC merchants should stop trying to change the place in Hampstead-istan. So what if they execute people by stoning? So what if they force 13 yr old girls to marry their uncles? I couldn't give a proverbial... Their country. BUT it's our business if they threaten US. Which Al-Q does. We should start buying all their opium, for a start to make them richer - money talks, especially amongst tribal bandits which these people are.

The BIGGEST disgrace in Afganistan is the notable absence from the fray of all our great EU 'friends' - the French, Italians, Spanish etc who are wont to lecture the British so much about being better Europeans, then get a traditional case of COWARD-ITIS whenever they are asked to help out defending Europe from terrorism, whilst sitting in their offices counting EU grant money. SHAME!

Mike_W

"So what if they execute people by stoning? So what if they force 13 yr old girls to marry their uncles? I couldn't give a proverbial... Their country."

- posted by Eddie

And that is exactly why the West is doomed.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

Dixon, Good question to ask.
First at all the British need not to send troops to Afghanistan and other places but protect their country from the "Underworld Islamic Mafia" who are growing fast and living happily in their society

Eddie

Mike W - not it isn't. It's called not imposing 21st century values on backward 3rd world places - AND being practical and realistic. I do not agree with tolerating that nonsense here - but then the USA executes people and most black people there luve in third world conditions and plenty of 12 year old girls have sex and become mothers.

How do we stop terrorism affecting us? We fight hard and do deals in Afganistan.

We in the West have SERIOUS problems with parenting, messed up kids, divorce, single mother disaster families - so who are we to say our uber-feminism is correct when one sees the fragmented and fractured families it creates?

Terrorism is the issue - and how to stop it. And also why our EU 'friends' are such cowardly hypocrites. Stick to the issue Mike-W.

steve

To compare the current situation with 1940 is to completely trivialize the threat posed by Nazi Germany. Neither the Taliban or al-Qaeda are remotely in the same league. The threat of terrorism is not the same as the military threat posed by a modern industrial power. How about some perspective. I'm also curious why Melanie hasn't commented on this story that appeared in her own newspaper?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256898/Karzai-cozies-Ahmadinejad-Iran-accuses-US-playing-double-game-Afghanistan.html British troops are dying to defend that government?

Murgatroyd

The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

This is a message which should be repeated ad nauseam until the politicians, the generals and the general public understand what it is we are up against.

And the posters above who suggest concentrating on problems at home are on the right track.

Eddie

The war in Aghanistan IS winnable - and we are winning by stopping terrorism. It is NOT a traditional war, and that is why people think it's 'unwinnable' - there'll be no VE day style stuff. There'll always be the Taliban and bandits and tribes and bombs. Preventing terrorism is our victory - and we have done that more than we know.

And the alternative is just being an appeaser and coward - and allowing terrorist plots to be planned in Afghanistan which then cause mayhem here. Do all the appeasers want that? These people are JUST like appeasers in the 1930s - especially the French socialists, blaming all terrorism on us instead of the terrorists! Wrongheaded in the extreme.

Jerry

People are opposed to war because the number of children available to send to war are declining. Everyone faces the same dilemma? Does the group profit from the loss of a few individuals who are sent to its defense? Does the group husband its resources or expend them? This determination is made on the basis of perceptions that are ephemeral and thus subject to social influence. Parents are logically unwilling to send their only child or one of their two children to war without the feeling of extreme threat. Thus, everyone is right. The threat of extremists is too small to convince such parents until the threat is so great that even the parents agree to go to war. If Britain waits long enough, everyone will be willing to go and fight, but it will be too late at that point to win.

Mailman

Well according to Paxman we are in afghanistan to protect our way of live?

Funny, I thought we were there to deny terrorists safe haven and the ability to conduct operations unhindered.

Of course the side benefit of that is to bring peace and prosperity to a stone age country (and maybe drag them in to the 21st century as well).

I think though that the real problem is that over the course of the last 40-50 years the back bone of Western Civilisation has slowly but surely been replaced by soft white mushy stuff.

Mailman

phil

Where, oh where is the Churchill of today?-- how many times have I asked the same question here ?it is a demoralising battle in a state where it is the lefties who have the energy to whinge and make the most stupid and need I say ill thought comments.The average person says nothing or echoes what he heard in the pub or read in the guardian/independent."Mind your own business and do nothing " that is the order of the day here. Even Prince Charles has said do not tackle louts (right I suppose )but how sad.
-----------
Live in a neighbourhood where the bully rules the roost and everyone assumes I will be alright jack if I say nothing -well you will not ,and that is the wider world today /Watch question time every week and you will see the largest applause is always reserved for those who mock authority with little brain and lots of noise .Lord Robertson is exactly right ,but I fear we will go down the road with the lemmings watching the Israelis fighting the last battle for the West , and pathetically against a foe who is useless apart from killing people including themselves -they have nothing to offer this world except misery so I support every word that Lord Robertson said ,thankfully real Brits still live .

phil

I have read some subsequent posts since my last was written and I am astonished that so many do not realise that the battle is not to stop stoning per se ,but to stop the country giving in to the taliban and al quaeda -yes that is where 9/11 emanated from and 7/7-wake up guys ,we are there to protect our safety not teach a country how to run itself, although it is part of the problem .Wars have moved on from spears and arrows and are now fought under different conditions and you need to believe we are in one up to our ,you name it !!

Matt

In this benighted kingdom
Is a disconnect troubling me:
Those who can see are powerless,
And those with the power will not see.

So beware the men of the crescent
(Confess the truth who dares)
When they call you 'friend' it’s a means to an end,
For they see your land as theirs.

Jersey

Too early seen unknown, and known too late.

The Bard

Penny

Along with Dixon's and other assessments, I would also add that there is a psychological effect at play here. Wars aren't only fought on battlegrounds.

The Taliban is just one group with an extremist Islamic mindset - there are so many others. If we leave Afghanistan without finishing the task, we are saying that the West cannot win. In my view, this sends out a psychological boost to terrorist groups all around the globe who are seeking the Caliphate. The 'victory' of overcoming Western forces may well cause them to press on in their cause with renewed vigour.

We could test the waters; if the British Islamist groups claim that they're rising up because of our foreign policy, and we pull out for any reason we face a number of hypothetical outcomes:

1)That the Islamist rhetoric concerning foreign policy will cease and all will be well - although a withdrawal may also send a message that their threats and actions played a part and can be used again when necessary.

2)For those British Islamist groups who use 'foreign policy', but in reality seek the Caliphate, then a withdrawal from Afghanistan sends the message mentioned above: "We cannot win against terrorism and threats of terrorism". Might that not endanger us even more?

As for 'Churchill' types, perhaps Douglas Murray might be a candidate? He seems to speak with a directness that is rare today.

Tiberius

The Churchill of today doesn't have to be a man, Melanie.

If the current crop of politicians can't hack it, there seem to be plenty of journalists who might.

A naturalized Mark Steyn as Foreign Secretary; Simon Heffer as Home Secretary; Jeff Randall as Chancellor and of course Jeremy Clarkson at Transport.
Michael Gove has already taken the step, and could be left in post to sort out Education.

This might only slow up humanity's disintegration into the fate of H G Wells' Eloi, but it's perhaps worth more than a passing thought.

davidka

The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. agreed but does that mean we should pull out?
no it does not.
some will say that we defeated nazism so how come we will not defeat the islamists?
Well nazis vanished and became german citizens and gave up their supremacist ideology.
But the taliban can never give up Islamic ideology - even if they were to mutate towards a moderate Islam, the embers of religiuos extremism would soon reignite and spread like wild fire through their minds.
Islamist ideology cannot be 'conquered' only at the very best, contained, and so as with tiny Israel the struggle will be eternal.

davod

Great minds think alike. Paul Bremer had these words about Europe and Afghanistan for the Stanford Review:

"Afghanistan was always going to be a more difficult case than Iraq. On every important metric, the situation there is more challenging: In Iraq, 70% of the population is urban; in Afghanistan only 30%. Iraq has long had one of the region’s largest and best educated middle classes. Iraq’s literacy rate is above 75%; in Afghanistan it is only 30%. Iraq benefits from important natural resources—water, arable land, oil and gas. Afghanistan is still largely agricultural. The Afghans have no historic experience with centralized rule; Mesopotamia has been ruled from Baghdad for millennia.

The Obama administration, after considerable internal debate, has arrived at a reasonable policy for defeating the extremists in Afghanistan. The key to securing the country is securing the South, particularly the Southeast. And the key to securing the Southeast is defeating the Taliban. The President deserves credit for deciding to replicate President Bush’s Iraq strategy by sending more troops to the fight in Afghanistan. He has been less successful in persuading our NATO allies to contribute more troops to the effort. It was a mistake to tie the surge to a self-imposed deadline for the withdrawal of the additional troops. That only encourages our enemies to outwait us.

The struggle for a secure Afghanistan will be measured in years, not months. The US government needs continually to make the stakes and the difficulties clear to the American public."

"Both the Pope and Huntington are correct. It is a fact of history that Europe is based on Judeo-Christian values. But Europe seems unwilling, or perhaps afraid, to acknowledge this reality. European bureaucrats omitted any reference to it in their draft “constitution,” reflecting a willful disregard for the continent’s intellectual, moral and spiritual roots.

Meanwhile, many Europeans are proud that they are evolving into a “post-sovereignty world,” one in which the nation state disappears and citizens are called upon to shift their allegiance to the ephemeral “Union.” Not surprisingly, almost all European nations have substantially reduced defense spending. If you don’t know what you stand for, you cannot easily figure out how to defend it.

European countries have a large, and in most places, growing Muslim population. The vast majority of these men and women are not terrorists. But as events have shown, there are among them extremists who reject everything the West and Europe stand for—the separation of Church and State, universal suffrage, women’s education, free trade unions, a free press. And especially democracy which the extremists such as Al Qaeda define as “a new religion that must be destroyed by war.”

Europe also faces a demographic time bomb. The population of every major European country is falling. This will place unsustainable burdens on the elaborate and expensive welfare programs built up over the decades. As the Muslim populations grow in proportion to overall populations, it is vital that Europe find a way to integrate peaceful Muslims while defeating extremists.

For all of these reasons, the Atlantic Alliance, so long the keystone to American and Western security, will find itself under significant strain in the years ahead."

cityca

It was the Labour government who deliberately instigated open doors and open borders, allowing in many more Muslim immigrants than we can actually cope with.

Now they have votes and wield power, all of our politicians are too terrified to alienate Muslims lest they vote them out.

Never mind about the war in Afghanistan. We have an increasingly unwinnable war here in the UK, unless a politician with balls comes to light.

Mark

The rationale for UK forces being in Afghanistan was shown up to be wholly specious when the July 2005 bombings took place. Those who would wish to destroy us are in our very midst, here and now, and need to be dealt with accordingly. Afghanistan is simply a venue for the Islamists to fight the west, and clearly is one where they have the home advantage. The real fight needs to be carried out in this country.

Eddie

I agree cityca - but ALL givernments have allowed too much immigration and then mismanaged it by following the discredited and damaging creed of 'multiculturalism' which is the polar opposite of 'integrationism'.

It makes me very angry that so long as someone in the UK has a religion and preferably a brown skin, their extremism (fascism indeed) does not get condemned at all - oh no! It gets PRAISED and funded by councils, schools, universities, government local and national, as being part of the mission to 'celebrate diversity'. If I were a memeber of the Taliban I would be very confused why these Westerners thought allowing Muslims to be extremist and backward in the UK is not a policy promoted by them in my own country.

Time to stop giving ANY special treatment to people JUST because they are ethnic and religious methinks...

tt

In Israel

The leader of the free world

Mr Netenahu

Tancred

Wow.

At last a politician who "gets it".

Tancred

I wonder why so many politicians cannot join up the dots and yet the "man on the Clapham omnibus" has no difficulty?

Could it be that they do and that another agenda, an anti-British, anti-West and anti-White treacherous agenda, is running?