ARmy Rumour SErvice

Joseph Loconte: No Iron Lady This Time Around
Joseph Loconte is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a commentator for National Public Radio, and editor of "The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler's Gathering Storm". This essay is adapted from an article in National Review Online.
To measure the political and moral terrain traversed since Great Britain’s Falklands War against Argentina — yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the conflict — recall the debate in the House of Commons on April 3, 1982. The BBC just aired an audio version of the event, and it is riveting stuff: It reveals a democratic government fully awake to the dangers of unchecked aggression.

The scene is the day after the neo-fascist regime of General Leopoldo Galtieri seizes the Falkland Islands, a British dependent territory in the south Atlantic. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher calls an emergency meeting of Parliament to denounce the invasion in no uncertain terms. “It has not a shred of justification,” she says, “and not a scrap of legality.” Despite warnings that a military response could prove unworkable, the Iron Lady vows that the islands will be liberated by the British Navy.

The mood in the House is one of outrage, not surprising given the fact that 1,800 British nationals have lost their freedom overnight. What startles the listener, though, is that the anger turns quickly from the Argentine junta to the British prime minister: The administration should have discerned Galtieri’s intentions and acted preemptively to protect British citizens. Julian Amery, a Conservative MP, accuses the Thatcher government of relying naively on diplomatic gestures despite early signs of Argentine belligerence. The administration, he says, “confuses diplomacy with foreign policy.”

Even more astonishing is the response of the opposition party. Labour MPs, one after another, complain bitterly that the government failed to muster an appropriate show of force at the crucial moment. Edward Rowlands calls it “reprehensible” that military action was not taken despite “a number of telltale signs” of imminent aggression. Michael Foot, the Labour-party leader, goes even further. “So far, they [the hostages] have been betrayed,” he says, “and the responsibility for their betrayal rests with the government.” The House, it seems, grows red hot with its reproach.

Though there’s political posturing afoot, the net effect is to help marshal national resolve. Parliamentarians of all stripes berate the Argentine dictatorship as a regime of torture and mass executions. They agree that a failure to use force to protect British interests would signal impotence to the agents of lawlessness and terrorism. “If you tolerate one act of aggression, you connive at them all,” warns Conservative MP Edward du Cann. “We have nothing to lose now, Mr. Speaker, but our honor.” Labour MPs are no less hawkish — or jealous for British sovereignty. When Margaret Thatcher tells House members that Britain has taken the matter to the U.N. Security Council, for example, opposition members can be heard howling in disgust.

In view of Britain’s slavish diplomatic response to Iran’s seizure of 15 of its sailors and Marines, the Falklands debate sounds like a surreal tale of a nation that existed a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Nearly two weeks into this standoff, Britain still has not warned Iran that the seizure of its crew in Iraqi waters represents a grave violation of international law. Despite threats that the hostages could be put on trial, despite evidence that they’re being coerced into making false “apologies,” the Blair government has set no date for their release. It has failed to secure a United Nations resolution condemning Iran, or a pledge from the European Union to impose sanctions unless the servicemen are freed.

Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage of this crisis probably leaves the typical Briton more suspicious of his democratic government than of the Islamo-fascist regime in Tehran. We learn that there is a “dispute” over whether the British crew was found in Iraqi or Iranian waters while on patrol under a UN mandate. We’re told that Britain’s Ministry of Defence “claims” that its GPS system shows the crew was operating in Iraqi waters. But based on BBC reporting, the average viewer probably wouldn’t know that Iran “corrected” its coordinates when confronted with the GPS data. Neither would he know that the Iraqi foreign minister has told his Iranian counterpart that the British seamen were indeed in Iraqi waters when captured.

No wonder, then, that a recent opinion poll by the Telegraph suggests widespread public ambivalence about this crisis. If diplomacy fails, more Britons — 48 percent to 44 percent — would oppose military action against Iran than would support it. More than one in four respondents think Britain should apologize to Iran and ask for its captives back. The BBC’s “Have Your Say” comment blog was stacked with jibes like this one: “What is the way out of the Gulf crisis?” asks Asif of London. “Leave the Middle East and take America with you.”

I was at Westminster last week, watching Tony Blair field questions about the standoff with Iran during his weekly question time in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, there weren’t many questions to answer: Conservative-party leader David Cameron seemed almost embarrassed to raise the topic. When Cameron asked about the rules of engagement for the British seamen, Labour MPs moaned with indignation. Blair failed to make clear that under its severely restricted U.N. mandate, the British crew was lightly armed and not permitted to fire unless fired upon first. The House quickly moved on to more pressing matters — like treatment delays in the National Health Service and the condition of British seaside resorts.

“Admiral Lord Nelson must be revolving in his grave,” complained Melanie Phillips, conservative columnist for the Daily Mail. “There is no sense of urgency or crisis, no outpouring of anger. There seems to be virtually no grasp of what is at stake.”

Twenty-five years ago, during another act of lawlessness by a brutal dictatorship, virtually the entire political class of Great Britain knew exactly what was at stake. Led by Margaret Thatcher, they found the moral mettle to act on those convictions: the Argentine aggression did not stand. That Britain no longer appears to exist — an impression her enemies are putting to the test.

Andy,

I've been hugely suspicious of U.S / Israeli stance* towards Iran for years...ask Arik in the Op Persian Freedom thread.... .....I'm sure a lot of people with axes to grind would be just delighted if we took a more Iron Lady stance.....whereas personally, the idea of British servicemen dying to advance the cause of a secure Israel ( by attacking Iran) revolts me even more than our guys being regarded as " the US Army's Gurkha Brigade"

The current incident and the Argentine unprovoked invasion of British dependency 25 years ago are in NO WAY similar and it is a deliberately slanted parallel.

> Keep cool, use the head not the heart
> Count to ten - in Farsi if need be.
> DON'T let people who do not have this country's best interests at rock bottom manipulate us....

This is whole thing has more of the reek of the Gulf of Tonkin than Op Corporate.

(okay PTP....box, climbing...)


Don Cabra

* and let's get real - it is the same thing.

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by drammy

No, Sven, it is you who is looking at the wrong information.

Your chart is merely of 'foreign born' people. That is not a good definition of immigrant, nor does it take into account the millions that the government simply does not know about (it cannot even trace criminal illegals, let alone honest illegals).

Would you class Mohammed Sidique Khan as a true Brit?? I would not, and yet he was born in this country. In other words we have a whole raft of second and third generation immigrants in the UK who are still immigrants, and should be classed as such. These are people who would vote us out of our own country, given half a chance, in much the same way that the Palestinians would shove every Jew into the sea, given half a chance.

As I said, we have just under 30% immigrants in this country, and when we hit 51% it will be time to look for a new house and home in Outer Mongolia.


DR

When that person gets their citizenship - and Yes Steven, I am saying He is wrong

Are you sure Sven?
You did not answer my question - would you class Mohammed Sidique Khan as a true Brit??



DR

Originally Posted by Sven

I do apologise for missing out Your question Drammy.

Saddiq Khan was a British citizen, just as much of one as Harold Shipman, Donald Neilson or Peter Dinsdale - all mass murderers and all, unfortunately, Yorkshiremen.

I cannot see how, just because a person has committed some heinous deed, You wish He or She was not of Your nationality.

But then, Khan wasn't white was He

You completely fail to see the difference between these crimes, don't you.

Saddiq Khahn committed this heinous atrocity because he was a Muslim and because he did not identify himself with either Britain or the British people. in other words, he was still a foreigner - an immigrant.

And this is not just my opinion, it was Khan's opinion. He said:


'Our religion is Islam - obedience to the one true God, Allah, and following the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad... This is how our ethical stances are dictated.'

In other words, the 7/7 bombing was done in the name of Islam.


'Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.'

Note that Khan's (Islamic) clan are 'my', while everyone else is 'you'. In other words, despite you trying desperately to make him British, Khan was not one of us - not a true Brit by any means.

http://www.j-n-v.org/London_Blasts/M...iew_050902.htm



This is significant, because we have a completely new genre of hatred and murder. There was always robbery, greed, sex, mindless violence, as you have pointed out, but now there is sectarianism and inter-culturalism to contend with.


DR

Here is what Senator Fred Thompson has to say about this episode. He is my choice for President in 08 - if he decides to run.

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.

And why shouldn't he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.

The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.

Tony Blair doesn't appear to be in much of a mood for celebrating. I don't know how he could be, given the troubling spectacle of British soldiers shake the hand of their kidnapper as a condition of release. In the old days, they would have kissed his ring -- but wearing Iranian suits and carrying swag more appropriate to a Hollywood awards ceremony may have been as embarrassing. Ironically, Blair's options are fewer by the day as his own party moves to mothball the British fleet, once the fear of pirates and tyrants the world over.

Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?

Ahmadinejad must be particularly pleased to see "deep thinking" journalists making the case that American actions in Iraq were the true cause of the kidnappings. To believe this, all you have to do is ignore the history of the Iranian Revolution, which has been in the extortion business ever since it took power. Between the 1979 American embassy crisis in Tehran and the seizure of Israeli soldiers last year by Iran's Hezbollah proxies, there have been more than a hundred other examples.

If you include the imprisonment of pro-Democracy dissidents and non-Shi'a Muslim minorities within Iran, the number reaches easily into the tens of thousands. The dwindling and persecuted Christian population of Iran, I suspect, found little joy in Ahmadinejad's explanation that he was freeing his victims as an "Easter gift."

It is critical that we see this incident as part of a long pattern of behavior -- that will continue as long as the current leadership is in power. More importantly, it will escalate unimaginably if Iran achieves nuclear status, and with it the ability to hold millions rather than individuals hostage.

I have no idea if Ahmadinejad and those who put him in power really believe the Shi'a Twelver doctrine that they can spur the messiah to return by triggering Armageddon. You have to admit, though, that the possibility that they look forward to entering paradise as martyrs would make them a whole lot scarier as a nuclear power than the USSR ever was.

There is hope, though. The Iranian people are not an anti-Western horde. They're an educated and freedom-loving people for the most part, and reformers there have been begging us for support and sanctions that would weaken the ruling theocracy. Instead, they've just seen the Iranian dictatorship successfully bully the West into impotent submission. This is not a good thing.

We need to understand this and use every means at our disposal, starting with serious and painful international sanctions, to prevent Iran's rulers from becoming the nuclear-armed blackmailers they want to be. Unfortunately, we are hearing demands that we abandon the people of the Middle East who have stood up to Islamo-fascism because they believed us when we said we would support them.

If we retreat precipitously, the price for that betrayal will be paid first in blood and freedom by the Iranian people, the Kurds, the Afghanis, the secular Lebanese, the moderates in Pakistan and the Iraqis themselves. And America's word may never be trusted again.

Right now, the pirate Ahmadinejad is clearly more confident about the outcome of the Global War on Terror than we are. That ought to give us pause.

Thanks for that T6...... the situation is just so embarrasing, compounded by apologists claiming it was a ‘victory and revisionists blaming it on either the Americans or the Americans.

Utterly, utterly pathetic.

I don't see this incident as a humiliation, the captured servicemenen behaved correctly all along, they are now free.
Perhaps they shouldn't have been put in the situation in the first place, but they were.
If you think Britain is spineless and the Armed Forces gutless, just remember incidents such as the Apache incident in Afghanistan not so long ago or indeed any of the daily contacts British troops deal with in current operations worldwide.

You're only as good as your last fuc4 up.