Letters to the Editor | 21 April 2007

US and them

Sir: David Selbourne seems to suffer from tunnel vision in his analysis of failing US imperial ambitions (‘No more Pax Americana’, 14 April). He seems to believe that Islamism is its undoing and makes no mention of nationalism — a far more potent force.

American imperialism is being resisted in Latin America as well as in the Middle East, and the common thread is nationalism, not Islamism. Paranoia about Islam is as widespread throughout the West as it once was about communism, but viewing either of these phenomena as monolithic is much too simplistic. The vast majority of Muslims around the world are concerned with local problems and have no interest in coercively spreading Islam. It is only the depredations of countries like the US, UK and Israel that have given some temporary succour to a small minority of Islamic extremists. If we began to treat Muslim nations with respect instead of as economic prey (or worse), the Islamic threat would rapidly disappear. Events continue to show that such an approach is anathema to Bush and (excuse my spelling) Toady Blair.

Geoffrey McDade
Montreal, Canada

Sir: David Selbourne’s comparison of the misfortunes of George III and George Bush is historically groundless. The American rebels, representing about a third of the population of the colonies, won because they secured naval and military help from the French, Spanish and Dutch. This tipped the scales; Britain temporarily lost maritime supremacy and in 1779 was threatened with invasion. The Iraqi insurgents have no such allies.

A better historical analogy can be made between Bush’s misadventures in Iraq and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. The common ingredients include hubris, slipshod intelligence and a complete ignorance of the passion which animated those who resisted.

Lawrence James