They opted to bomb, it had better work

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 10/10/2001 | Simon Jenkins

[Pokey78]

So it must be done the old way after all.

The faces of Britain’s rulers on Monday night said it all. They had lost the argument. Sitting in Parliament they looked haggard and wretched. Tony Blair thumped on yet again about Osama bin Laden being a fiend and a monster. Everyone chanted that bombing should be “proportionate, measured, targeted”, knowing that this was beyond their control. Clare Short’s face was a picture of misery. She must now excuse the civilian deaths, the laying of cluster mines, the airborne terror for which she is responsible as a War Cabinet member. How skin-deep is humanity when the guns begin to fire. Whenever Americans start bombing, Britons dive under a blanket of Churchillian waffle.

Britain is not at war at present, any more than it was at war during the IRA bombing of London or after bin Laden’s previous attack on New York’s World Trade Centre. To describe what should be a relentless campaign against criminal terror as war is metaphor abuse. By hurling resources and media attention at some distant theatre, it deflects effort from the domestic front. It also insults those who fought and died in real wars, when territory was threatened and states were at risk.

For the past three weeks, the case against bombing was marshalled in every capital in the world. It was advanced in Washington itself by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Tony Blair’s every waking hour was devoted to it. His round-the-clock diplomacy was to build up the case for “cunning not killing”, not in the Middle East but in Washington. He was sincere but eventually he lost.

We need hardly repeat the argument. For the West to extract bin Laden from his lair before winter is near impossible. While his networks and cash could and should be choked, regional diplomacy should use every conceivable means to get others to extract him. The heat should be put on every ally. All back-channels and bribes should be activated. September 11 had yielded an unprecedented “coalition of the willing” across the Middle East. Give it time to work, not just three weeks. Do not give up when the Taleban are showing some sign of wobbling if not collapsing.

Above all, the argument said, do not bomb. Do not raise expectations of military success. Bombing would not deter a new atrocity, only make it more likely. Bombing would achieve little in a land of hand-to-hand combat. It would kill civilians and risk the security of cross-border platforms for special forces. It would turn hesitant new friends into sullen old enemies.

Round every table the argument raged, with Britain on the side of common sense. But once the bombers were in place, there was a dreadful inevitability to the outcome. As in Iraq, air forces can play all the best overtures to war. They promise to kick butt and whup ass. They would avenge America for the World Trade Centre. They would have the tabloids purring, speech-writers drooling and liberals trapped by their vitals. As for consequence, that was for politicians and wimps.

There is a fond belief in Downing Street that Britain has “influence” in Washington. It does not. Britain has the leverage of a comfort blanket. Now that sophistication has lost out in Washington, Britain must toe the line like an obedient junior. Indeed to prove its loyalty, it must bomb first. So much for influence.

In his desperate speech on Monday, Mr Blair played a cheap card. He depicted opponents of the bombing as being soft on bin Laden and the Taleban. Was he not an opponent himself just a week ago? Like the tongue-tied, fencesitting religious leaders who met him that day in Downing Street, he merely demonstrates Britain’s subservience to America. How can Britain ever hope to join a panEuropean foreign policy on this performance? Those who disagree with Mr Blair are not on the side of bin Laden and the Taleban. They disagree over means, not ends. Britain is now committed to bombing Afghanistan to the next stage of the war, an obscure destination. In comparison, the bombing of Beirut, Tripoli, Baghdad, Mogadishu and Belgrade seem shrewd and calculated. Some pundits are explaining that the bombs will enable a special forces base to be set up to capture bin Laden. How rearranging the rubble of suburban Kabul achieves this is a mystery.

If I were special forces, I would be far more worried if the bombing led to a withdrawal of logistical support by neighbouring states. I would be alarmed at the mission creep which already has the Americans requesting an extended war against other states in the region. I would want no return of the old CNN ritual of whooshing rockets, screaming rioters and wailing women. I would be appalled at Donald Rumsfeld mimicking Moscow’s boast, that we can “forget about exit strategies; we are looking at a sustained engagement”. When American Defence Secretaries ignore exit strategies we can bet the exit will be fast.

The bombing is not military but political. It is revenge, no less ferocious for being postponed. It will probably freeze the Taleban in their hold on power as long as it lasts, as is usual with bombed regimes. Nor is global terror deterred by such onslaughts, least of all the new suicidal terror. Bruce Hoffman of St Andrews University, in his recent and prescient Inside Terrorism, cites the conclusion of a 1996 US government paper, that neither sanctions nor military action had ever had an effect against state-sponsored terrorism, except to be counter-productive. The growth of religious fanaticism and chemical weapons, he said, renders this policy failure extremely dangerous.

In retrospect, the lack of follow-up to the 1993 New York bombing, given the evidence revealed at the trial, was criminal negligence on the part of Western Intelligence. So too was the refusal of later Sudanese help against bin Laden. Yet somehow a thundering blitz of Kabul atones for these mistakes.

For a moment this past month, we saw a new wisdom. Washington seemed to realise that the Muslim world resented its decades of mistreatment. A moment for possible rapprochement was at hand. The horror of September 11 meant that East might join West in one humanitarian cause. When Mr Blair has not been on helium, he too seemed to glimpse that new dawn. He surely cannot see it now.

The past fortnight has been a battle of new guard against old. Those who wanted to concentrate on counter-terrorism, covert operations and “coercive diplomacy” and who protested that bombing would endanger their work, have lost. Those who wanted a reprise of Baghdad and Belgrade, who wanted to play to the gallery with things that go bang on television, have won. The old guard have triumphed. They must now deliver, as must those who kowtowed to them.

The Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, must show how his Tomahawks will really help to find bin Laden. He must bond with the bandits of the Northern Alliance as his predecessor, George Robertson, bonded with the Kosovo Liberation Army. Mr Blair must explain how firing missiles at empty hillsides will enhance his world congregation of virtue. Jack Straw must construct a puppet regime in Kabul more secure than that left by the Soviet Union. They must all explain how they will prop up a new regime indefinitely, or risk losing the “war” all over again.

From these people we want no nonsense about precision weapons and surgical strikes. Bombs miss targets. Only infantry can shoot straight. We want no weasel words about “no quarrel with the Afghans”. We want no fake dismay at a surge of anti-American riots, at British contracts cancelled, hostages taken and lives put at risk. This is the course on which the Government is set. When it bombs people, the innocent get hurt and the rest get angry.

Aerial bombardment is never proportionate, measured or targeted. It evolves a logic of its own, an escalation of horror similar to that unleashed by the terrorist. Like all distant and indiscriminate violence, it breeds a violent response. It is the dumbest weapon of war.

At present the bombing is likely to increase anti-Western hysteria in the Middle East and dissolve Mr Blair’s coalition. We can only hope that it at least installs “our” villains in Kabul, and one day captures bin Laden. It had better.

_{simon.jenkins@thetimes.co.uk}

simon.jenkins@thetimes.co.uk

[The Vast Right Wing]

Perhaps appeasement is genetic. I mean, churchill was half american so he could overcome the urge to appease.

[Liberals are Evil Socialists!]

What a load of liberal plop.

[dighton]

Estrogen out of balance, I'd guess.

[Gordian Blade]

Only infantry can shoot straight.

Only infantry can occupy territory, but even they sometimes shoot the wrong target. Stonewall Jackson's own men shot him by mistake. That one sentence shows that the author didn't think about the topic for more than one second, then he just let his left-wing reflexes take over.

[Pipers]

Churchill lost the Empire. Period. Blair is a jack@ss who is going to sink the rest.

[Malesherbes]

I would expect this screed to appear in the Guardian or some other left-wing fishwrapper, not in the Times.

[colorado tanker]

Looks like the London Times is as loony left as the New York and LA Times. By the way, who said all we're gonna do is bomb? I didn't hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair say that??

[RogueIsland]

I just read this thing, beginning to end, and all I can say in response is "Huh?" Weird article, like it was written by a Benzadrine addict on a caffeine binge. It's almost like what you'd get if Jack Kerouac had become a British journalist.

[stevem]

This is a pretty humorous article. While it may seem that Blair will follow any leadert that shows a direstion, he has been doing yoeman's work this last few weeks. People that allow terrorism to go unchecked in an effort to save their worthless lives for another day or week are quislings of the first order.

...proportionate, measured, targeted... THIS sounds very much like an ALGORE tax cut.

[Thud]

Idiot. Next he'll tell us that automatic weapons are too indiscriminate, then that only knives can be sure of hitting just the right target.

I.e., only politically correct weapons may be used. I remember how the US Army's pre-war infantry branch chief, a guy named Lynch, was so in love with the cult of the rifleman that he had all automatic weapons removed from rifle company and platoon TO&E's.

First we get air supremacy by bombing the air defenses. Then we insert the light infantry.

And he wants everyone in Afghanistan to starve too. We have to get air access to the place to fly in food for the starving population, which means eliminating everything which can shoot down large slow-flying transports carrying the food. He hasn't made that connection yet because he is a fool.

[Alberta's Child]

In retrospect, the lack of follow-up to the 1993 New York bombing, given the evidence revealed at the trial, was criminal negligence on the part of Western Intelligence.

There may be a lot of nonsense in this article, but this item here should be repeated ad nauseum for the next thousand years. On September 11th, the U.S. simply paid the price for its own negligence. How could we have been so damned stupid?

[tiki]

Could this be why Britain didn't fly the second night? And why they widely publicized it?

[1stMarylandRegiment]

How could we have been so damned stupid

Who was in the White House and what did he know?

[Alberta's Child]

It's easy to blame Clinton, but that is a cop-out. You had Federal prosecutors, judges, jurors, etc., all of whom knew that these Islamic terrorists had every intention of attacking the World Trade Center again.

If these people are not made to answer for their negligence, there is no doubt in my mind that we deserve another black eye. It's much easier to "turn Afghan rubble into smaller pebbles" than to address the real cause of this problem.

[Ricktex43]

To describe what should be a relentless campaign against criminal terror as war is metaphor abuse. OK, a cunning enemy, aided and sheltered by a foreign government kills 7000 of our population and its not an act of war? What is the cutoff number? 10,000? 20,000? Not to mention the whole basis of diplomacy is power. If the Afghanies and the rest of the mideast do not see our power, they will not engage in much diplomacy to our liking. Would hate to see how these guys would have reacted to Hitler. "OK, take the Sudetanland and Poland too, well ok France as well, but don't touch Britannia. OK, those are terror bombs on London, not really an act of war. OK so whats wrong with learning to speak a little German, its a great romance language.....Thank God for Churchill.

[section9]

I don't get this.

Over and over again, Rumsfeld has been saying that airpower cannot win this war. So has Bush, Rice, and everyone else.

This isn't carpet bombing. Very few civilians have been killed in comparison to the Iraq campaign. You need air superiority before you send in the SF and the Light Infantry.

Why doesn't Jenkins get this?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Uglywhiteguy]

And the writer gets paid for his nonsense??

Ths is not revenge, it is making our world safer for he future: for the British and for US!!

[AndyJackson]

This is an excellent example of how liberals use illogic to spread their poison.

The first twist is a moral sleight of hand To describe what should be a relentless campaign against criminal terror as war is metaphor abuse. By hurling resources and media attention at some distant theatre, it deflects effort from the domestic front. It also insults those who fought and died in real wars, when territory was threatened and states were at risk.

This man is a moral monster whose agenda like so many of his liberal cronies is to regain the initiative in the battle over political correctness. This is a battle at home, the "domestic front" and this pseudo-sophisticate would use bigger words than he understands in order to "de"-demonize terrorists.

One technique of these liberal fascists is to create false dichotomies. You see, the 5,000 who just died don't count, because theirs was not a real war, and this was just a crime. Turning the argument on its head, Hitler's gassing of Jews was real legitimate war - and not a crime - since he was the legitimate target of "resources and media attention in some distant theatre." But we reject the false dichotomy. Hitler was both a criminal and a warror and so are these terrorists.

But then he continues in his illogic with some choice phrases:

The bombing is not military but political. It is revenge, no less ferocious for being postponed. - first - a factual error - it wasn't postponed at all, and second, yes of course it is revenge - all responses in war to an act of war are "revenge." Furthermore, he creates another false dichotemy. It is not one or the other, but both political and military as are most state uses of organized violence.

And then one creates false imperatives to deligitimize and ridicule the opposition. The Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, must show how his Tomahawks will really help to find bin Laden But no he musn't. This not the goal of Tomahawks at all. The goal is the destruction of important military assets of the Taliban - military, because unlike Mr. Jenkins, the rest of us are not chasing a pickpocket - we are at war.

And then one begs the question Aerial bombardment is never proportionate But it isn't supposed to be. War is not won by playing patty-cake. It is won by using unmeasured, disproportionate, overwhelming force. Oh- I fogot, Mr. Simon wants to drop show cause warrants on some friends on the domestic front, leave the terrorists in their distant lands, and haul someone or other (Tony Blair and his warmongers, one suspects) before the bar of justice.

And then you must put thoughts in the heads of your opposition - thoughts they clearly don't have. Mr Blair must explain how firing missiles at empty hillsides will enhance his world But shooting $2Million missiles at tents and the backside of a camel is the habit of previous regimes. Ours has made it pretty clear that they will not shoot missiles when there is no target. So far, we have not, however, run out of targets.

From these people we want no nonsense about precision weapons and surgical strikes. Bombs miss targets.

Don't show us any evidence that we are mistaken and that bombs hit their targets. We will have none of it.

Only infantry can shoot straight. Why does he expect infantry to shoot straight when he can't even shoot straight.

And then - he blames - you guessed it - us! the lack of follow-up to the 1993 New York bombing .. was criminal negligence...The bombing wasn't criminal, but the lack of follow-up was. For a moment ...Washington seemed to realise that the Muslim world resented its decades of mistreatment.

At the hands of whom? For the most part, the Muslim world has been left free to go its own way. The major western influence has been that the sale of oil to the west has made some wealthy and others not and those who haven't gotten their share are resentful. But the Muslim world needs to look locally to find the fault for that.

And finally, he gives us a false goal They must all explain how they will prop up a new regime indefinitely, or risk losing the “war” all over again. But that is his definition of victory, not ours. Our definition is to see some murderous thugs thrown out of power, and so long as that happens, we won. If we get bin Laden - even better. Who rules afterwords - we have a humanitarian care - but so long as it isn't the Taliban, strategically we don't give a hoot, just so long as everyone understands that the next Tomahawk is pointed at the guy who shelters and makes common cause with terrorists, and it will be launched, carefully and deliberately.

[SalukiLawyer]

Dear Mr. Jenkins,

I read your editorial in the Times with professional interest. As an American criminal defense lawyer I am often called upon to argue cases where the facts fall against my client, to take, in other words, a position utterly without support in reality. I too, often have to rely on repeating confident-sounding opinions as if they were indisputable facts, while ignoring evidence to the contrary. When it is done skilfully, as you have done, it can be persuasive if the jury has any reason at all to be sympathetic. Unfortunately, even a mediocre prosecutor can usually burst my beautifully blown bubble by talking about the evidence. While I admire your style, I can't help but feel it would do you good to participate in an adversary forum where you might be invited to explain the factual basis of wonderful phrases like this:

"For a moment this past month, we saw a new wisdom. Washington seemed to realise that the Muslim world resented its decades of mistreatment. A moment for possible rapprochment was at hand. The horror of September 11 meant that East might join West in one humanitarian cause."

The pathos of this missed opportunity almost brings a tear to my eye, especially since you have appealed to my American sensibilties by speaking my own language with the "kick butt and whup ass" bit. I appreciate the effort. It almost made me forget how shallow and ineffectual such nice sentiments are in the real world where fundamentalist mass murderers enjoy state support that allows them to develop a global reach.

However, I recognize this editorial's kind of flim-flam, because I have to use it myself sometimes. Not bad at all, kid. Not good enough for an American courtroom, but better than a lot I see from newspaper writers. We appreciate the British help and support, and understand that the papers will run things like this from time to time.

Sincerely, Tim Capps

Reply

Thank you for your email, which has been printed out. The volume to this address is so great that I cannot reply by email, but please be assured that I do note what you say. If you would like to receive a reply, please do not hesitate to write to me at the address below, giving your name and address. Thank you for taking the trouble to write. Simon Jenkins The Times 1 Pennington Street London E98 1TT

[aculeus]

Estrogen out of balance, I'd guess.

... and he probably travels in Guardianista circles and must ante up from time to time.

[1stMarylandRegiment]

You had Federal prosecutors, judges, jurors, etc

I don't disagree with the reality that the entire nation has spent the entire last decade chasing the latest capital gain/BMW/degenerate sitcom and ignoring the threat, but I ask you, how many of those Ferderal prosecutors, judges, etc. did Clinton appoint and Janet Reno "approve"? How chilling was the atmosphere? How did Carville and Begala and Madeline Albright affect the FOCUS of everything in the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

Incompetence starts at the top and is permitted to continue by those in command.

[1stMarylandRegiment]

You had Federal prosecutors, judges, jurors, etc

I don't disagree with the reality that the entire nation has spent the entire last decade chasing the latest capital gain/BMW/degenerate sitcom and ignoring the threat, but I ask you, how many of those Ferderal prosecutors, judges, etc. did Clinton appoint and Janet Reno "approve"? How chilling was the atmosphere? How did Carville and Begala and Madeline Albright affect the FOCUS of everything in the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

Incompetence starts at the top and is permitted to continue by those in command.

[Prince Caspian]

There is a fond belief in Downing Street that Britain has “influence” in Washington. It does not. Britain has the leverage of a comfort blanket.

This was the only part of the article I found interesting.

[Clinton's a liar]

Great letter!

[a_witness]

Mr. Jenkins, we don't require your assistance. Just be sure not to get in our way as we protect our citizens. We will protect our citizens no matter the cost.

[neutrino]

No bombing? Not even a little? (Sigh)

Very well. Dust the whole miserable place with cobalt-60. But do it quietly and without fanfare....

[Brian Allen]

Good find, Pokes -- H/U Ives

[MadIvan]

Simon Jenkins must be living on a different planet. Blair has not been reluctant or hesitant in sending in the troops, bombs and guns. Thank God I am a Telegraph reader.

Regards, Ivan

[xm177e2]

I think this says it all:

Like the tongue-tied, fencesitting religious leaders who met him that day in Downing Street, he merely demonstrates Britain’s subservience to America. How can Britain ever hope to join a panEuropean foreign policy on this performance?

They don't want to be subservient to America, they want to be subservient to a massive Europe state!

[xm177e2]

The bombing is not military but political. It is revenge, no less ferocious for being postponed. It will probably freeze the Taleban in their hold on power as long as it lasts, as is usual with bombed regimes.

Actually, we're going to overthrow the pig-[blank]ers, and replace them with a more moderate Islamic regime. Sorry Coulter, we're not going to forcibly convert them to Christianity, but we are going to forcibly convert them to moderation. We'll drag them into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if need be.

[MadIvan]

Perhaps appeasement is genetic. I mean, churchill was half american so he could overcome the urge to appease

Wash your mouth out with soap. My country does not appease. Our politicians may do, but Britons do not surrender. Talk to the monkeys across the Channel about that.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

Clare Short’s face was a picture of misery. She must now excuse the civilian deaths, the laying of cluster mines, the airborne terror for which she is responsible as a War Cabinet member.

This sentence alone proves Jenkins is on drugs. Clare Short was gung ho about bombing Serbian civilians - to the extent she kissed General Guthrie after he announced the bombs were away.

She doesn't particularly care about bombing one way or another, in other words.

Regards, Ivan

[tonycavanagh]

re : Perhaps appeasement is genetic. I mean, churchill was half american so he could overcome the urge to appease.

That is much a load of bollox as the notion that American genetics means having a butt you can land a 707 on, and a mouth that can talk with out engaging the brain.

Tony

[tonycavanagh]

re : Churchill lost the Empire. Period. Blair is a jack@ss who is going to sink the rest.

If I thought you were up to it I would happily debate the end of Empire with you the not only the facts but the reasons.

But I think that you are like a lot on this site, happy to write a throwaway remark, and then when you get an intelligent well informed reply open to debate, you ignore it.

Tony

[KeepTheEdge]

We do not need to explain why we bombed, only that it was necessary for military operations.

[RightWinger]

Barffffffff!!!

[Pipers]

"Churchill lost the Empire. Period. Blair is a jack@ss who is going to sink the rest." This sentence resumes the situation perfectly. I really fail to understand the reluctance to admit the facts: Churchill did lose the Empire and you know it. Stalin used to mock him about that, rightly so. Maybe this will not be discussed until all who fought in WW2 are gone. Yet, this is hardly a secret. Now, if you think that Blair is not acting against whatever is left of England, recently described in the Wall Street Journal as a "third-world country" (which it is) what kind of knowledgeable discussion can follow other than an exchange of empty words, debates in the wind that produce nothing. I've had interesting exchanges with you before and you indicated the willingness to bring some form of historical honesty to the posts. Perhaps this forum is not the place for it. It should though.

The question is not cheap and passe patriotism which makes Blair look for the demented hypocrit that he is but how the ruling political class cannot turn things around and come up with realistic policies. Surely you know that London IS the no.1 terrorist spot in the world, thanks to Blair, and that the City is the n0.1 off-shore center for illegal funds produced by various terrorist groups (drugs, arms etc). Does anybody thinks that the rest of the world does not know? The best of the british press is beginning to express fear about the road Blair took the nation. I think they are right. Well, nice to chat with you again anyway.

[Pipers]

"Churchill lost the Empire. Period. Blair is a jack@ss who is going to sink the rest." This sentence resumes the situation perfectly. I really fail to understand the reluctance to admit the facts: Churchill did lose the Empire and you know it. Stalin used to mock him about that, rightly so. Maybe this will not be discussed until all who fought in WW2 are gone. Yet, this is hardly a secret. Now, if you think that Blair is not acting against whatever is left of England, recently described in the Wall Street Journal as a "third-world country" (which it is) what kind of knowledgeable discussion can follow other than an exchange of empty words, debates in the wind that produce nothing. I've had interesting exchanges with you before and you indicated the willingness to bring some form of historical honesty to the posts. Perhaps this forum is not the place for it. It should though.

The question is not cheap and passe patriotism which makes Blair look for the demented hypocrit that he is but how the ruling political class cannot turn things around and come up with realistic policies. Surely you know that London IS the no.1 terrorist spot in the world, thanks to Blair. There had to be reasons. Does anybody thinks that the rest of the world does not know? The best of the British press has started to express fear about the road Blair is taking the nation. They are right. Well, nice to chat with you again anyway.

[Pipers]

Post # 38 is the reply. Things got messed-up when I sent it. Forgot to add: why doesn't Blair bomb Northern Ireland?

[tonycavanagh]

Lets break it down.

Start with Churchill lost the Empire.

I am not sure what you mean by lost.

Do you mean deliberate or through circumstances.

Do you think Churchill could of held on to the Empire.

The reason I ask is that before I debate this with you, and show the circumstances that led to and caused the end of empire, I want to get handle on your knowledge and views of this subject.

Tony

[Pipers]

Please. But it would be interesting in real life discussions.