Tony's Defence - Nice of Blair to notice us at last
From today's Independent
I hadn't read much of Blair's speech before this (my main reading yesterday was the Guardian in a pub - recuperation is such a nuisance sometimes), but it seems to be a humdinger deserving of much fisking for its vivid portrayal of a man let down by everyone - the army, the media, the British public. We've let ourselves down, we've let the school down and worst of all we've let Tony down and we should all stand in the corner wearing a big hat with a 'D' on it until the State Dunce Police come to pick us up. Strangely, the only people who haven't let him down are 'The Enemy', who have given him his life purpose back. That they're largely an imaginary friend of his own devising does nothing for anyone trying to argue that Blair is still sane.
In reality, of course, this is classic projection and another indication that the Prime Minister isn't mentally fit to lead the country any more.
With this in mind, I set out to search for a full transcript of the speech, rather than some journalist's juicy bits (an unpleasant image, I think). Oddly enough, the Number 10 website has it. Here goes:
First thing to note is that this is one of a series of lectures the Lord Protector is giving on the subject of 'Our Nation's Future'. Since about the only thing we know is that Tony Blair isn't going to be part of our nation's future if us or 78% of the electorate have anything to do with it, it's unclear what the utility of this is beyond Tony's pathetic attempts to go out leaving us 'wanting more'.
What stands out:
It's always new and different. I'd expect Tony to react to a change in the decoration of the Kellogg's Corn Flakes packet by annoucing solemnly that this momentous event requires a qualitatively new approach to breakfast. It's dangerous baloney when applied to real-world conflict as it absolves those in charge from any necessity to look to the past for any lessons, including those that they should have learnt from their own mistakes. To learn from one's mistakes first requires that you admit them, which as we've seen before is always a little difficult for Tony.
A dig at the French, I think, who after all are doing peacekeeping in south Lebanon these days but unaccountably declined to participate in the Iraq jaunt. Presumably Tony would have preferred them to join him and Dubya in backing the Israeli attacks on the Lebanese population. Blair is fond of dividing the world into easy-to-understand lumps, and conjuring up a defeatist/pacifist Francosphere is quite in character. The fact that the French were right on Iraq and have pointed this out repeatedly has made no impact on Blair whatsoever. So much for the alliance with Europe he talks about elsewhere (ranked after the alliance with the US, naturally).
Two things here - he neatly forgets the considerable involvement of Israel in the Suez crisis. The implied message (which runs throughout) is that the UK fails when it undertakes military action away from the US umbrella (and with those perfidious Frogs to boot), but should be actively involved when the US turns up. We're lost without America in other words - the presence of the USA sanctifies us. Still, pre-1997 history in a Blair speech is a novelty, thought typically he gets it arse-about-face and gets in another dig at the French.
While the demands on it have gone up dramatically, including running several wars in parallel. Has no one else spotted that he's effectively admitting having a failed defence policy?
Why's he buying the massively-expensive Astute class hunter-killer submarine then, that's 4 years late and a billion quid over budget, almost entirely on his watch. The only contribution each of these three (yes, we're only getting three of them at something over a billion quid each, although BAE SYSTEMS shareholders will be delighted to hear that Tony and the boys are ordering another one) can provide to the kind of operations Tony has in mind is to fire cruise missiles, the counter-insurgency weapon of choice for military morons. Dare I suggest that there are better delivery mechanisms than a 7800-ton nuclear submarine and better uses for the money?
Beyond irony. There's no qualification to say what distortions so exercise the PM, but it's possible he's referring to later on in his own speech, such as this bit:
Yes, he believes the Taliban were defeated by air power, rather than us teaming up with some really quite unpleasant warlords (with more than a passing resemblance to the Sierra Leonian 'gangsters' he refers to at another point) to help them win a pre-existing civil war. It often occurs to me that if you did an identity parade with the leaders of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in it, the average Sun reader wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Beards, AK-47s, Korans, antique attitudes to women's rights - like any civil war (apart from ours, where we helpfully put on fancy dress) it's extremely hard to get a handle on it from outside.
What was unclear then but is very clear now is that what we were and are confronted with, is of a far more fundamental character than we supposed. September 11 wasn't the incredible action of an isolated group, a one-off strike masterminded by Osama Bin Laden.
Why the juxtaposition of Iraq and bin Laden? Why was it 'unclear' 18 months after 9/11 when we'd supposedly been concentrating on it (actually, we weren't, we were concentrating on invading Iraq, weren't we? Another Blair failure of priorities)? Why does he say three months instead of three weeks (17 March - 9th April 2003)?
Here he's started veering off the path of sanity big style. It's 'ludicrous', apparently, to suggest that the vast upsurge in terrorism in Iraq, the terrorism here by people quite openly pointing to Iraq as a factor indicates that there's somehow more terrorism around. He's also setting up a classic straw man by trying to suggest that the argument is that it was just the removal of Saddam that increased the threat of terrorism. It's not, of course, it's the military occupation and promotion of sectarian politics that came after Saddam. As for Afghanistan, unlike Saddam, the Taliban didn't go away, so by conflating the two he commits yet another sin against common sense.
Accelerating over the sanity horizon, he's now suggesting that when people question why UK soldiers are 'there', there are two reactions, an understandable one and by implication a non-understandable one. That the understandable one is an emotional reaction and the non-understandable one is a rational question is incredibly revealing. Blair likes his public emotional and passive (think Diana). Rational and pro-active citizens really don't float his boat. We like to think we're in the second category, so this is a pleasant conclusion to draw.
There follows a long segment arguing that the problem with war reporting is that there's too much of it, it's not controlled tightly enough and there's a bit too much 'reality' in it for his liking. In Tony's world we'd have less reality and more propaganda, which smartly contradicts what he said earlier about distorted or embellished truth. Frankly, if I watch a video of an IED attack on a US patrol, I think the exultant whoops of 'Allahu akbar' as the bomb goes off would give me a clue that the originators were of an Islamic jihadi persuasion, just as the Fox News logo in the corner of the screen would give me a clue that I was being fed the neocon line. Oops, I'm using that cool, rational component of my brain again, in direct contravention of Tony's desires.
Two more assertions without any backing. Failed states can't threaten us, they're failed states, for crying out loud. Terrorism doesn't destroy progress, it destroys lives, property and creates distress and hatred, but it's not going to stop Apple launching the iPhone or someone setting up a flower selling business. It can't threaten the integrity of the state.
Whenever Blair describes something as 'reality', assume the opposite is true. In this case the opposite is that Britain should keep its Armed Forces but use them rationally. Sounds pretty sensible to me. Blair is effectively admitting that in his 'reality' we shouldn't make rational decisions about the deployment of the Armed Forces. He's saying, before an audience of servicemen and women, 'Trust Me With Your Lives, I'm Mad'.
Blair wields supreme power on a minority vote and uses this power to suppress democratic protest and ancient freedoms. He then redefines 'security' to mean 'pre-emptive attacks to impose his way of thinking' and attempts to remove the word 'defence' from the military lexicon. He has no need of defence, only attack. Breathtaking.
Because people join up thinking it's a gadget filled opportunity for exciting foreign travel? This insults everyone in the Army, Royal Navy and RAF who know bloody well what a volunteer armed force is.
I'd settle for protecting our security, given the results of Blair trying to advance what he thinks are our interests and values. I'll use the old-fashioned definition of security, not Tony's redefinition, thanks. And I'll continue to call our alliance with the US neocons in Iraq a bloody mistake of epic proportions, too.
Oh, an attack on the UN now.
'You're wrong, I'm right'.
Only in your reality, Tony. The rest of us haven't the faintest idea what you're on about.
No you don't, you look forward to stating your beliefs and ignoring anyone with a professionally grounded opinion, as you usually do. I look forward to reading ARRSE and PPRUNE for some actual debate from the bits of the Armed Forces that matter.
Yet another deluded
Yet another deluded peroration from the Blair-o-Verse. Truly, the Man has become the ultimate narcissistic politician (kind of an up-market Robert Kilroy-Silk with a smoother delivery). Also, listening to a Blair speech is a bit like being drawn into a black hole; by the time you get to the end of it you`re just on the cusp of the event horizon, where verifiable facts, rational cause and effect, and authentic, indivisible human compassion have been sucked out of the fabric of reality, leaving behind a shimmering illusion to which the Man clings with an iron grip, an illusion that the rest of us can see has only the thickness of a soap bubble.
Unfortunately, Blah gets to shore up his soap-bubble reality with all the powers of the state, confident that a defanged, spineless media will never call him on it. All we have left to puncture it is the ballot box, seems to me.
The era dominated by
The era dominated by anti-submarine patrols requiring large numbers of frigates was over.
And the era that needed Trident is over too. But we're still going to waste a frightening amount of cash on it.
"with alarm at the
"with alarm at the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Iraq was invaded."
Hang on, I know that was the reason given, but I thought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons were exactly what were not found. Or was that also poor reporting?
Some more Blair
Some more Blair classics:
Still now, I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that September 11 predated either. The West didn't attack this movement. We were attacked.
Let me make it clear. I would never put Israel's security at risk.
Progress between Israel and Palestine affects Iraq.
Years of anti-Israeli and therefore anti-American.
This global Islamist terrorism began in the Middle East. Sort the Middle East and it will inexorably decline.
Ever since September 11, the US has embarked on a policy of intervention in order to protect its and our future security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq.
So it looks like British soldiers are dying for American/Zionist policy... But why?
"with alarm at the
"with alarm at the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Iraq was invaded."
Yeah, but if they exist in Tones head then that's good enough.
The other thing in Tones head is his mission from god to save the world; which is a bit scary with his track record!
Seriously, I think he actually really is that deluded, and eventually
he is going have to be dragged kicking and screaming from No10.
Brilliant post.
Brilliant post.
Twas a brilliant post. Do
Twas a brilliant post.
Do you remember, all those years ago? The heady days of 1997? When Yazz sang The only way is up and there was a D'ream that things could only get better? Are we still on the up curve and can things get even better than they are now?
Of course they will.
Broon will carry the baton and with prudence(whoever she is)and austerity lead Britain into a new dark age.
All yours. I am retiring to the sun. (no not that 1).Foreign climes that dont fight,tax or pollute but cherish children,live n let live n forever manana.
It is as usual the careful
It is as usual the careful application of language that Blair accepts that the army is only slightly smaller than in 1997. He is obviously not counting the reduction in the Navy and the Air Force.
Wonder if The Henry Jackson
Wonder if The Henry Jackson Society discussions with 10 Downing Street on 22nd November:
http://zope06.v.servelocity.net/hjs/events/news_item.2006-12-19.0499265989
had anything to do with drafting this speech!
>>I look forward to the
>>I look forward to the debate.
No you don't, you look forward to stating your beliefs and ignoring anyone with a professionally grounded opinion"
Almost right Sir, but the last five words are redundant.
Yes lifesastumblingblock why
Yes lifesastumblingblock why indeed are British soldiers dying on the altar of Zionism? I wonder myself. There is little wonder why America dances to Israel's tune (AIPAC etc, I could bore you to death) but why Tone?
I have a copy of "Israel at Fifty" by Moshe Raviv who used to be the Israeli Ambassador to the UK and there the author is on the back cover sat next to Tone as he makes a speech at the Labour conference in 1995. Who knows how close they were (not me)
Tone was questioned years ago on his lack of criticism of Israel.
Maybe it is Christian Zionism? Bishops have a go at Tone.
Christian Zionism is a joke as far as I can see. The Jews don't bow and scrape to Christians, that's for sure.
Maybe it is that he feels indebted to Zionists like Murdoch?
Maybe it is just old fashioned money talking. The Rothschilds and their banking pals certainly have a lot of it and control of it!
Ah well.
What if Tony made a speech,
What if Tony made a speech, and nobody came ?
Nice work . Thanks Tom.
You have to wonder if he's
You have to wonder if he's only staying on long enough so that he can help the US and Israel start a war with Iran. Double or nothing sort of thing.
After all, if there was an intention to start a war with Iran, one of the obvious moves would be to surppress Hezbollah's capacity to retaliate, which the IDF tried unsuccessfully to do last year, while Blair tried to prevent a ceasefire in order to give the IDF a chance to finish the job.
You could also point to his efforts to persuade UK-aligned Arab states to join the alliance against Iran recently.
I think they're going to go for it, before he and his owner in the White House are forced from power. Maybe with the IDF starting the party and Tony and George pretending it was all a big surprise, before piling in after them in response to Iran retaliation.
Yeah, good old fashioned
Yeah, good old fashioned money....Hmmm and Tone is quite easily (Bush)impressed, he likes shiny objects too, especially cameras!!
I think some times, some of these people forget their proclaimed origins..
Mandleson
I'm rapidly coming to the
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the only place Tone should be is in a locked (key, thrown away) isolation ward in Broadmoor
The objective of these
The objective of these set-piece speeches by Blair is supposed to be to reflect on long-term trends and issues. The big issue facing the UK's foreign policy is the following. Most of the UK political elite believe in a special relationship with the USA. They have always assumed that this is unproblematic, and in particular that this special relationship is compatible with a commitment to international law. However there has been a notable drift in US thinking away from a commitment to international law, especially since the Reagan era. The USA's 2002 national security policy commits the USA to preventive warfare, and has been judged by international lawyers to be in contravention of international law. Invading Iraq without a specific UN Security Council mandate, when Iraq was not about to invade any other country, is an act that is in contravention of international law (and was probably meant to be a deliberate signal by the USA that it no longer subscribed to international law).
Blair's speech appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure these issues. Blair does not seem to mention either international law or the "special relationship". (Correct me if I am wrong.) The USA is only mentiomed in relation to anti-Americanism. He tries to frame the issues as one of pacifism versus a strong military, rather than as being inside or outside the framework of international law. He obscures the issue of whether the UK has bought into the USA's illegal policy of prevenmtive warfare (without effectively debating it). He obscures the issue of what the UK does about its special relationship with the USA if it means that the UK is therefore forced to abandon international law.
Major Attlee v. Tiny Blair I
Major Attlee v. Tiny Blair
I filled in a gap by checking Wikipedia entry.
Unlike the Charismatic One, who served in the Cadets at Fettes, Clem did 14--18, and was seriously wounded,... in Mesopotamia. ( The Messpot as old guys called it in my youth.)
His estate was valued at about £7500.
No need for me to underline the contrasts any further, a few more in this excerpt-
"A modest man, but then he has so much to be modest about," was Churchill's comment. [4] Attlee's modesty and quiet manner hid a great deal that has only come to light with historical reappraisal. In terms of the machinery of government, he was one of the most business like and effective of all the British prime ministers. Indeed he is widely praised by his successors, both Labour and Conservative.
His leadership style, of consensual government, acting as a chairman rather than a president, won him much praise from historians and politicians alike. Even Thatcherites confess to admiring him. Christopher Soames, a Cabinet Minister under Thatcher, remarked that "Mrs Thatcher was not really running a team. Every time you have a Prime Minister who wants to make all the decisions, it mainly leads to bad results. Attlee didn't. That's why he was so damn good."[5] Even Thatcher herself wrote in her 1995 memoirs, which charted her beginnings in Grantham to her election as Prime Minister, that she admired Attlee saying "Of Clement Attlee, however, I was an admirer. He was a serious man and a patriot. Quite contrary to the general tendency of politicians in the 1990s, he was all substance and no show".
His administration presided over the successful transition from a wartime economy to peacetime, tackling problems of demobilisation, shortages of foreign currency, and adverse deficits in trade balances and government expenditure. Perhaps his greatest achievement in domestic politics was the establishment of the National Health Service and post-war Welfare State
"""
Though seeeking consensus, no softy, he knew how to delegate, and fire people.
Yes Mr Blair . You should have studied more history.
Before trying to make it.
Cunt.
Blair is simply a
Blair is simply a sociopathic control freak that has sold his soul to the highest bidder... If he ever had a soul that is?
Re: Tony and pre-emptive
Re: Tony and pre-emptive action, breaking international law
Using force against them to prevent such an act is not "defence" in the traditional territorial sense of that word, but "security" in the broadest sense, an assertion of our values against theirs.
That's the key section - he attempts, dubiously, to redefine security as being derived from pre-emptive action. Since his track record has frequently put security, as he defines it, above any law anywhere (control orders, Iraq, 90 days detention), the result of this is that he keeps on broadening the definition until there are no laws left that he has to obey. This, I need hardly point out, is undesirable.
Thanks, Tom, for pointing
Thanks, Tom, for pointing out the key bit in Blair's speech. I encourage everyone to write to Blair and ask him if this bit means that he thinks that the UK should break international law and that the UK should buy into the preventive warfare doctrine of the USA.
As you say, Tom, this kind of thinking leads to an ever-widening arc of official lawlessness. This is not only undesirable, it is also ineffective. Terrorists tend to live in nooks and crannies, and hide in cupboards and roam the badlands of Waziristan. They are difficult to target for preventive action. In practice over the last 5 years the West has had little success in targetting terrorists per se. It has had more success in targetting people who may have had some links with terrorists. The US/UK overthrew Saddam because, if he'd had WMD, he might have given them to terrorists (while staying silent about individuals who were known to be selling WMD technology). The US has just overthrown a movement in Somalia that has succeeded, where evereybody else had failed, in building order and peaceful conflict-resolution because it might have had links with Al-Qaida. This is missing the target, and creating a lot of collateral damage (not just dead bodies and destroyed infrastructure, but failed and failing states). That isn't making us safer.