The End of an Era

After 38 years, the British Army is ending its operation in Northern Ireland. When it began in 1969, the Army expected to be in the provinces for mere weeks. That low-intensity conflict certainly helped shape the British military and establishment, in ways that are affecting us today. Perhaps most importantly, the establishment showed a willingness to try and meet the IRA and others halfway, a willingness that is now on display towards Islamists in Britain.

Better Days Ahead for London

Having finally finished Melanie Phillip's Londonistan (I'll try and get a review up tomorrow), I'm hard-pressed to predict a bright future for either Britain or London. However, Emily Henderson, New Criterion's perceptive and endlessly amusing summer intern, provides hopes for a slight improvement: Conservative Boris Johnson has entered London's mayoral race. Admittedly, I'd be hard-pressed to pick this particular Johnson out of a lineup, nor was his name a particularly significant one to me prior to today, so in accepting this as a positive development, I have to take Miss Henderson's word.

But let's be entirely honest. Almost anything is an improvement to London's present Lord Mayor, the ultra-leftist Ken Livingstone.

This Really and Truly Galls Me

Michelle Malkin caught a story that truly sticks in my craw: in Britain, education bureaucrats have proposed striking from the curriculum the requirement that students be taught about Sir Winston Churchill; they also proposed that more "relevant" topics such as global-warming be taught. Needless to say, Churchill's grandson, Tory MP Nicholas Soames, was furious; he said that “It’s total madness. The teaching of history is incredibly important. If people do not seem to care about the country in which they live, the reason is that they don’t know much about it.” I entirely agree with you, sir.

According to the Sun, though, Winny isn't the only figure of historical import facing the axe: off the mandatory list are Stalin, Hitler, Gandhi, MLK, the War of the Roses (probably an unheard-of event to my American readers), Elizabeth I, and Henry VIII. So perhaps facing the axe was a bad pun.

This simply forces the question of what will students be taught in their history classes? All of these figures (save perhaps MLK) are crucial in the development of modern Britain, and one would think indispensable components of a true education. The Sun doesn't highlight exactly why WSC should be cut, I'd be interested to know. Perhaps because tenacious fighters who doggedly insisted that Britain never never never give up, or noted that "an appeaser is one that feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last," or who rightly said that a fanatic is one who "won't stop talking and won't change the subject" might complicate the process of British submission to Islam. You know, restore their stiff upper lip and all. I'm truly aghast.

My Third Russian Post of the Day

Captain Ed caught something I missed, namely that within the Russian expulsion of four British diplomats last week (which at the time he called a controlled escalation) was an act of brinkmanship, an attempt to force Britain's hand through economic pressures. However he notes that this may backfire, leaving Russia worse off than before. Putin may be crazier than most of us gave him credit for.

Oh and speaking of tonight's theme, "colonial mindsets," a century ago, few nations would have been impudent enough to use Britain's commercial interests against her. For one related example, read up on the Opium Wars.

Another Reason to Love the New Criterion

I had a little fun with British terminology yesterday, specifically 'yob.' Now someone at the New Criterion (one of their interns I believe), takes aim at the root cause of all this, the British welfare state. A curt, but interesting read.

Vlad Putin, meet Melanie Phillips

In the latest round of the Russo-British extradition spat, Vlad Putin blasted Britain's demands for the extradition of ex-KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi in light of long-term British opposition to the extradition of some thirty individuals taking refuge in London whom the Kremlin would like to speak to. No doubt these include some of the plutocrats accused of plotting the overthrow of the Putin regime.

British columnist-turned-author (most recently of the invaluable Londonistan) Melanie Phillips also noted that phenomenon, though in the context of repeated British refusals to extradite terror suspects not only to Middle Eastern countries but also to other nations such as France.

Both Putin and Phillips, an unlikely pair of commentators on two variations of the same theme, both have their reasoning; one is convincing, one is diametrically opposed (and incorrect). Putin attributes the British refusal to extradite anyone within their own country to a "colonial mindset;" in reality, he couldn't be more wrong. This refusal, as Phillips convincingly documents in Londonistan (specifically its second chapter, "The Human Rights Jihad"), is based in a muddleheaded attachment to "human rights law," one symptom of the intellectual and moral rot that has begun consuming the UK from within. I won't attempt to replicate Phillips' explanation in depth, read it yourself. But I'll try and give some of the highlights. First of all, the British refuse to extradite a suspect to any country where they may be subjected to torture or "degrading treatment," as well as opening refugee status to anyone who might be at risk of "harm" in their home country - the equivalent of hanging out a "Terrorists Welcome" sign. Phillips goes into far greater depth, but as I said, read it yourself.

What all of this really means is that Putin's explanation couldn't be more wrong; this isn't a colonial mindset so much as a post-colonial mindset, the antithesis of a colonial mindset.

Dumbest Comment of the Day?

And no it's not from a Congressional Democrat!

Rather, the winner is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Lavrov had the temerity to claim that the recent tit-for-tat expulsion furor between his country and the United Kingdom was the product of Gordon Brown's ascension. Not the fact that the Russian government killed Alexander Litvinenko and won't admit it while stonewalling an extradition request. Nope, it's all Gordon Brown's fault.

Russia's nearly as thuggish as it ever was back in the bad old days of the USSR, and many of the old institutions are back, albeit under new names. It's subscription-only now, but there's a worthwhile piece on Putin-worshiping youth organizations with more than an eerie resemblance to the Young Pioneers of old. Murdering dissidents and playing coy about it is old hat, no doubt something Putin picked up while working at the KGB (indeed, the Litvinenko assassination strongly resembles that of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in London in 1978, also using poison).

It also prompts another question: when are we going to stop deluding ourselves about the nature of the Russian government and start treating them like the autocratic thugs they are?

What the Hell?

Are the British thinking? Apparently one of their jailed jihadis whiled away the hours by building a jihad website - as he was imprisoned in Britain's "most secure" facility. Wow.

Brown's Got it Right

British PM Gordon Brown often says things related to terrorism and Iraq that I don't agree with. But this time, he's right: Britain would be targeted by al Qaeda regardless of the war in Iraq.

As for the continuing presence of UK troops in-country, the PM also wisely rejects any "artificial" timetables. Again, bravo. Churchill once characterized Britain's policy on the frontier as "butcher and bolt;" today many in Britain would prefer the second part only (and I don't want butcher, just pacify).

Britain Stirs

Many people I've talked to (I hesitate to say experts, because that assumes previous examples) about the seemingly unstoppable collapse of Europe have said that any reaction will not begin with the government but with the common people.

Apparently that's happening in Britain, where as the BBC reports more than 255,000 people have signed a petition on 10 Downing Street's website stating their opposition to the mega-mosque planned for East London. This is the same mosque that will overshadow the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in 2012. Some officials quoted in the article are engaged in the usual games, claiming that it's "only" going to cost some 75 million pounds - not the 100 million that critics claim, rather than answering real questions about the project. And of course London's Red Mayor, Ken Livingstone, is on the side of the Muslims. The BBC also mentions the group behind the project, Tablighi Jamaat, without ever mentioning its ties to terrorist groups and the fact that some jihadis captured in Afghanistan were recruited by them. Typical.

The petition itself can be found here, though only British citizens can sign (and if you are and you haven't, I urge you to do so). Ironically, the petition's text calls for more money to be spent on the NHS. So let's not go forward with a development that will provide a meeting place for terrorists, but let's just import more from Pakistan!

But hey, it's a start.

Brown Americanizes Britain

New PM Gordon Brown has floated a series of "reforms" designed to introduce "accountability" into British government; these would include

giving members of parliament the final say on declaring war and the ratification of international treaties, allowing US-style confirmation hearings for certain public officials, consulting with the public and other political parties on a possible "British Bill of Rights and Duties" or a written constitution, moving election days to weekends and creating a national security council. Some of the reforms address complaints made over Britain's commitment of troops to the Iraq war; others continue the governing Labour Party's turn toward US-style political and administrative institutions. All appear to be in response to criticisms over Labor's apparent centralization of power.

Yikes. They're facing the prospect of a low-level (or worse) civil war and Brown's suggesting they essentially hamstring their ability to wage such a conflict effectively. Our founders gave the ability to declare war to both chambers, understanding that a more deliberative body than the mob-like mass of the lower house. Of course Britain long-ago unjustly castrated their House of Lords, many of whom must be spinning in their graves at these recommendations.

J.A.R. means "Republican" - but could also be "republican" or "reactionary." Brown wants to take Britain down a dangerous road; a complacent government and seething masses in the street isn't a good time to be introducing these sorts of reforms.

Prince Harry's Shoutout to his Men

From the concert for his mother at Wembley the other night, Prince Harry acknowledged his band of brothers currently serving in Iraq, lamenting the fact that he wasn't there. Worth watching. Note too the enthusiastic reaction from the crowd.

Were we fighting a human, civilized foe, no doubt Harry would be over there. The prospect of his being taken prisoner, however, is too much. Remember, when royalty were captured on the battlefield in earlier ages, they were treated as royalty.

Britain's Vanishing Military

Some MPs are voicing concerns over declining enlistment rates in all branches of the British military; among the cited reasons are "heavy workloads, frequent overseas deployments and impact on family life." No doubt.

Truly gone are the glory days of British arms. Presently, troops can look forward to tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere lasting months and with many comforts while off-duty. At the height of empire, enlistment was something like ten (fifteen?) years, and deployments on far-off posts in unhealthy climes (India, West Africa, etc.) were measured in years. During the Napoleonic Wars, sailors of the Royal Navy could go years without setting foot on dry land (and could go almost as long without their food being refreshed).

I've begun to think that war debts and a whiny Left (including the transmission of various nationalist doctrines into colonies) were only two of the most obvious causes of the decline of empires post-1945. Other under-studied causes could very well include the development of communication technology and rise of the welfare state. The second of these meant that men had a choice between starvation and service (which often wasn't a whole lot better). The former meant that overseas policy was conducted more cautiously by government bureaucrats rather than those on the front line. If he'd been blessed (cursed?) with satellite communications, no doubt Clive never would have fought Plassey. Instead, when England next heard from him, he'd annexed a large swath of India on his own initiative. It used to be that when troops were deposited on some distant shore, they acted as they saw fit until such time as they perished or received further "orders" (often hopelessly obsolete) from Europe. Compare that to LBJ's micromanagement of Vietnam!

What does this all mean? Perhaps national service (broadly construed) should be made a prerequisite for welfare benefits. Of course that would be seen as aimed at the lower classes, which is unfortunately true. A culture of public service needs to be inculcated into national elites, so that they too do their part (though aristocratic officers were often far more trouble than they were worth). Perhaps I am just a man born in the wrong time.

Mayor Livingstone: Muslims More Law-Abiding

"Red Ken" whitewashes Islamic terrorism, gives cover to extremism.

Thoughts on Glasgow and London

While no one is talking about the race of the two (?) thugs who rammed their SUV into Glasgow airport, it's pretty obviously Islamist terror; even the New York Times (!) admitted as much, reporting that bystanders heard one of the two men shouting "Allah, Allah!" while throwing punches and on fire. This last point makes me wonder whether these were wannabe suicide bombers whose nerve failed, or whether they were "homicide" bombers who were just incompetent.

I'll also be interested in the specific demographics of these two plus anyone arrested in connection to the unsuccessful London car bombings. Were these Arabs, "Arabized" South Asians, converts? Immigrants or citizens? Homegrown or veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan, or Chechnya? Based on bitter experience, I'd suggest the following profile: Pakistanis corrupted by Wahhabism, likely British-born, and perhaps not with any real experience of jihad but no doubt influenced by al-Qaeda (Lord Stevens, Britain's terror chief, said as much).

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has shown that he like his predecessor can string words together, proclaiming that "We will not yield, we will not be intimidated and we will not allow anyone to undermine our British way of life." But, and pardon me for being so damnably contrarian, isn't the reality that homegrown terrorists (as was the case in the 7/7 bombings, several other thwarted plots, and likely this one as well) have come to be in part from an undermining of their British way of life? That mushy multiculturalism has already taken hold to such an extent that these immigrants (or their children) can reject a British identity and wrap themselves in an Islamic, often Wahhabist, identity and ideology? What Brown should have said is that they will not be intimidated and they will work to restore their British way of life.

Bombing Thwarted in London

You've heard about it by now, I hope: police have located and disarmed one (two?) car bombs in London. This comes on top of a post on a jihadi website, promising attacks. PJM has a good roundup here.

Of course the Left believes it's just a story, just trying to scare the people. Islamic terrorism = bogeyman.