Tony Blair’s defiant and inspiring refusal to appease Saddam or to minimize the risk of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction is beginning to have an effect. Check out this classic Guardian piece by Martin Kettle. It basically concedes the argument:
Most serious people will probably accept, separately, these three grim propositions: first, that we face an undefeated terrorist force which will take any opportunity to kill as many of us as possible at any time; second, that Saddam’s Iraq will develop any lethal weapons that it can and will use, or threaten to use, them if it possesses them; and, third, that our future security depends, among other things, on doing everything we sensibly can to prevent terrorists from acquiring lethal weapons of the kind which Iraq and others possess or would like to possess.
This is progress. It also means that one liberal writer in the Guardian has come to the conclusion that vast swathes of the anti-war left are simply not serious people. He’s right. Then the catch. Washington, according to Kettle, isn’t engaged in this strategy:
Washington’s attention is not on al-Qaida, as the chairman of the joint chiefs, General Richard Myers, admitted recently. On proliferation issues, the administration’s conscious rejection of multilateral approaches on everything from nuclear missiles to handguns is a given. The Middle East peace process is parked well off the highway, and America seems incapable of rational discussion of its own relationship with Israel. The drive against Iraq now has little context other than itself.
This strikes me as a very weak argument. What evidence is there that the U.S. is no longer serious about al Qaeda? Why would it even be in Bush’s interest to ignore it? On proliferation, the administration’s intent in North Korea (even if one disagrees about methods) couldn’t be clearer. And Israel? Why is that relevant here? The good news from this piece is that finally – finally! – some people on the left seem to have grasped that the Saddam-al Qaeda combination is simply something no sane Western government can tolerate. The mere possibility of it should be enough to stir action. But the loathing of Bush and American power then clouds the judgment. But why should it? If Blair is right, shouldn’t the Brits be begging the U.S. to wage war on their and Europe’s behalf? Shouldn’t the Germans and French as well? There comes a point at which anti-Americanism is also anti-Europeanism, in as much as it threatens the security and future of all of Europe. I hope it doesn’t take a calamity before the Europeans understand this.
The Dish 