13 October 2006

British Army Chief Endorses Crusade Against Islam

Britain’s new chief of the general staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, in an interview in the Daily Mail made two interesting concessions about the "War on Terror". The First, a concession that the Occupation of Iraq is a failure. Contrary to the assertions of the British government, he argued that the British presence in Iraq, "exacerbates the security problems...Whatever consent we may have had in the first place...has largely turned to intolerance," and that "the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them".

The analysis is hardly startling - it is self-evident - were it not for the fact that this is being said by the Chief of the British army. However there was also another frank admission that the war on terror is being fought against Islam, "We can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life". This is far more significant because The Chief of the British army is acknowledging that this is a crusade against Islam.

It is clear from his comments that he perceives the British mission as opposing Islamism, yet the Saddam Baathist regime was secular; it is the present Iraqi government is Islamist. Thus we can infer that the British mission in Iraq is to oppose the Iraqi national Government.

5 comments:

George Carty said...

I suspect that he said "Islamist" while meaning "neo-Kharijite"...

Babak said...

Interesting term George, do you think it appropriate? The Wahhabis have been liken to the Kharijite but if that is your meaning why not say Wahhabi? Or perhaps your definition is wider?

It is quite apparent that the Occupation is currently fighting the Shia and opposing Shia governments, the use of the phrase "wherever we go next" is a thinly veiled reference to Iran. Then of course there is the comment "Islamist challenge to our society" this sounds rather pervasive.

The government has referred to the Iranian government, Hezbullah and Hamas as Islamists; I think it extraordinary if he was not using the term in that sense.

George Carty said...

It is clear from his comments that he perceives the British mission as opposing Islamism, yet the Saddam Baathist regime was secular; it is the present Iraqi government is Islamist. Thus we can infer that the British mission in Iraq is to oppose the Iraqi national Government.

Most Americans believe that their way of life is the best, and that everyone in the world wants the American/Western lifestyle. I suspect that other Westerners (including the Blair government) has bought into this idea, which was the basis of how the 'liberation of Iraq' was sold.

The French had a more accurate perspective of the situation in Iraq (and the Middle East in general). The neocons were right that the French opposed the invasion of Iraq primarily because they wanted to see Saddam stay in power, but they were wrong that this was due only to their corrupt oil deals.

The real French motivation for supporting Saddam in 2003 was "Better Saddam than Shari'ah!"

Babak said...

'The real French motivation for supporting Saddam in 2003 was "Better Saddam than Shari'ah!"'

I would agree, yet can you explain why you think this?

P.S. My apologises for not attending to this blog much of late. It is Ramzan, but you know that.

George Carty said...

I would agree, yet can you explain why you think this?

Because when France's former colony Algeria had its first (and only) free elections in the 1990s, a landslide Islamist victory was the result (which was later invalidated by the military, with French and US support).

I'm sure that the message the French drew from this episode was "don't support democracy in the Middle East, as the people will elect Islamists."