This is the third piece in the series exploring the neocon “mode of thinking” based upon Tony Blair’s essay. The first piece can be accessed here. The second piece is available here.
What becomes evident is that, though other factors exist for violence, for Blair, they are trivial compared to the threat of Islamism. Be it extremism of other faiths now, or Christian barbarity of the past. “We are dealing with the present” we are told. And in the present, we have the Boko Haram and ISIS.
Blair writes that they are fanatic, and “thus it is hard to envisage compromise with such people. They have no reasonable demands upon which we can negotiate.” Therefore there is no alternative except to fight such people:
“At a certain point, once they know superior and determined force is being used against them, some of them at least may be prepared to change.”
In other words, take a leaf out of Israel’s book and bomb the people into compliance. Ironically, a month after Blair writing his neocon manual for World War III, ISIS have been negotiating with States and releasing prisoners whilst the Boko Haram have negotiated a truce and have agreed to release the imprisoned girls.
The feed for these groups are the “spectrum”. And herein lies Blair’s blatant imperialistic design. “Islamism” he defines as a “politicisation of religion to an intense and all-encompassing degree”. It is an ideology and a theology derived from Salafist thinking, he claims. It isn’t. An analysis of contemporary Islamic political movements (most of which are reactions formed in the colonialist/Nation State paradigm) is beyond the scope of this piece however, suffice to say, an outright rejection of an Islamic political and military ascendancy denies 1300 years of Islamic history in which Islam ruled through the Caliphate. The existence and the preference for a khilafa within the Islamic paradigm is a position adopted by all four mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
This is the second piece in the series exploring the neocon “mode of thinking” based upon Tony Blair’s essay which outlines dangerous policies and provides for a blueprint for perpetual war. The first part can be accessed here.
Deflecting Foreign Policy
For Blair, the elephant in the room, Western foreign policy, has little to do with the violence in Iraq. The previously peacefully coexisting Sunnis and Shia, are now, post-Iraq war, at each other’s throats. Perhaps the incident of 19th September 2005 can shed some light on this. On this day two undercover British SAS operatives, dressed in traditional Arab garb who were planning to set off bombs in the main square in Basra coinciding with a religious event, were caught in the act, imprisoned and then broken out of the police station by the British army.
The leading thinker and linguist, Noam Chomsky, writes,
“By now, Shiites and Sunnis are the bitterest enemies, thanks to the sledgehammer wielded by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney… and others like them who understand nothing beyond violence and terror and have helped to create conflicts that are now tearing the region to shreds.”
Source: the Guardian
Despite the fact that Tony Blair has lost credibility amongst the masses, his Tony Blair Faith Foundation has operations in 30 Middle Eastern and African countries where it exports his thinking and has recently discussed domestic policies which strike a disturbing semblance with existing strategies in place. As such I felt it necessary to write a series of pieces on Tony Blair, the neoconservative “persuasion” embedded in his rhetoric, and his declarations which are reflected in his recent essay and which seeks to implement more broadly the contemporary neocon Western foreign policy.
The “Original Neocon”
The public refutations and exposes of neoconservatism during the 2003 Iraq war rightfully condemned the idea and its proponents surrounding George W. Bush like Paul Wolfowitz to the point that it became even more recluse than the natural propensity of neocons to disguise their policies.
During that time, it was not the likes of Douglas Murray, but Tony Blair who supported and implemented neoconservativism in his foreign and domestic policies. Tony Blair was in fact ahead of the neocons and for one commentator, he was “the original neocon”. William Kristol, the inheritor of Irving Kristol’s neocon legacy, approvingly said of Blair,
“Blair was one of the first world leaders, I think, to really grasp what had happened on 9-11 and its implications, that we were in a global war in terror, that we had to transform the Middle East, the whole thing… I think after the attacks in July, Tony Blair has now gone the next step.”
In an interview with Panorama, Kristol gave his conclusion on him: “I think Tony Blair is a kind of neoconservative, despite himself”. Recently, when Blair tried to remove himself of blame from the Iraq war, calls were made for him to be removed as a (laughable) “peace” envoy. However this shifting of blame was not dissimilar to the behaviour of the US neocon architects of the Iraq 2003 war. William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz also distanced themselves, blaming the current state of Iraq on Obama for failing to intervene.
There is no mention of “terrorism” or “extremism”. Such is the reporting of a Royal Marine who is alleged to have sought to join the “Peshmerga/Kurdish Militia”– epithets which neatly omit a key point to support a disjointed, contradictory fight on terror- amongst the “militia” are PKK fighters and trainers. The PKK is a “terrorist organisation” proscribed by the UK, EU, NATO and the US. The US in 2007 considered (as usual) air strikes on bases run by the PKK whilst Gordon Brown, pledging full support to “suppress the PKK”, said that he condemned “absolutely and unequivocally the terrorist violence of the PKK”. The then Foreign Secretary stated,
“I call on the international community to be unequivocal in its condemnation of PKK terrorism”.
The police are reported to have investigated a 22 year old who was on a one way ticket to Turkey. To clear the air, the Daily Fail kindly informs its readers that the soldier is, “not Muslim”. The Muslim minority may breathe a sigh of relief, and withdraw their fingers about to type various apologies from their keyboards. According to the report in the Independent,
“US officials said the man was believed to have been in contact with a Kurdish group that had links in Turkey and the city of Irbil, where the headquarters of Peshmerga units fighting Isis are based.”
More power. And if we recall from my piece on human rights and the damaging impact of neoconservatism in Britain, we will come to realise that power is a pursuit before which principles, liberal or conservative, fall by the way side.
Around April 2014, William Shawcross had written to David Cameron asking him for more powers. David Cameron has now announced new powers which will give the Charity Commission sweeping prerogatives to freeze charity bank accounts and suspend or remove trustees. There have been charities which have been investigated for over a year only to then be cleared of problems; if the charity cannot operate during the investigation the damage to the reputation of the charity will be immeasurable, and more fundamentally, it will inhibit charitable acts which the charity is engaged in such as humanitarian aid in critical, dire areas of the world, the impact of which will be catastrophic for the needy. With the direction given by the new Commission chief executive Paula Sussex that charities should not be given the “benefit of the doubt”, the ease with which such powers will be used, is a cause for consternation for those involved in the third sector.
The key issue is the belligerency with which the Commission has been behaving. It is the cold war tactics which have been employed by a body at the head of which is an ideologically motivated individual whose views on Islam and Muslims in conjunction with his pro-Israel, Zionist stance, which is a matter of concern. In an earlier blog on Shawross, I highlighted how discriminatory his view were. He has described the UN as “lynch mob” for condemning Israeli violence and gone on record to state that,
“Europe and Islam is one of the greatest most terrifying problems of our future, I think all European countries have vastly, very quickly, growing Islamic populations…”
In a previous blog I applied Clarke’s test of an “orchestrated plot” to neocons to ram the Trojan Hoax fiasco in the Muslim minority to achieve the broader aims of cementing the neocon PREVENT strategy into legislation. Anyone with a general awareness of the policies being employed by the government at the foreign and domestic policy level can clearly see this. The neocons are resurgent.
A recent report shows that there was a “coordinated plot” between Ofsted and one of Michael Gove’s “model superhead”, Rachel De Souza which resulted in the particular schools having advanced time to prepare for the inspections. Michael Gove has said that his ideal schools policy would be to clone De Souza 23,000 times. Continue reading