Britain: Then and now

By CAL THOMAS

Belfast, Northern Ireland — Twenty-five years ago, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher forcefully and decisively ordered British troops to the Falkland Islands to liberate them from an invading Argentine force. It was a military and political triumph widely supported by the public, leading to conservative victories at the polls for another 15 years.

Today, Tony Blair presides over a much different Britain. After Iran seized 15 British soldiers and sailors in what it says were Iranian, not Iraqi waters, the Daily Mail called it “a humiliating week for Britain: a week that saw Iran get away with piracy, kidnap and blackmail, a week fanatics played cat-and-mouse with (Britain); a week exposing feebleness at home and impotence abroad.”

In 1980, Jimmy Carter’s failed rescue of American diplomats held hostage by Iranian religious fanatics added to the perception of American weakness, as has America’s inability to bring a quick end to the conflict in Iraq, thanks in part to Iran’s support of terrorists there.

The one calculation made then is the one Iran is making now: the West is weak and will allow itself to be humiliated before Muslim states in order to preserve the lives of and win freedom for its citizens, and that it doesn’t have the staying power to persevere in Iraq and other places should its nose get bloodied.

The Falklands victory is being used by much of the British media to mark Tony Blair as weak and indecisive. Blair, who has been a stalwart supporter of American efforts in Iraq and the battle against Muslim fanatics in Britain, is pilloried in the Sunday Telegraph for his “unquestioning support of the United States,” which has “made us the easy target for Middle Eastern countries who want to take action against America, but fear that country’s military might.”

This gets it exactly backward. Britain is not an easy target of fanatics because of Blair’s support of the United States.

Britain is a target because it is Britain, just as France, Germany and the rest of Europe are targets for their openness, freedom and democracy.

For not banding together as free people, we all risk hanging individually; as Tehran and others prepare the noose from which the weak and indecisive will hang. This is not a war any of us can escape. It is a war that can only be won or lost.

The need for a strong response to Iran is underscored in a recent London Sunday Times editorial, which calls for Britain to return to the United Nations to ask for tougher sanctions. In addition, the paper says, “We know (Iran’s) people are divided. If Germany and France will not end the valuable export credits for Iran, perhaps Britain and America can give them a helping nudge. Those companies that trade so profitably with Iran might suddenly find a chill breeze in their relations with London and Washington.”

British ministers are said to be preparing a compromise offer this week to allow Iran to “save face” by promising it will never “knowingly” enter Iranian waters without permission. But why should Iran stop there if its intention is the continued humiliation of the West? Why should Iran, which extracted maximum propaganda value from holding Americans hostage for 444 days, give up British hostages after less than two weeks?

The Iranian leadership understands the power of coercion and military might. It is prepared for people to die en masse for its apocalyptic beliefs, concluding the West is not. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons in hopes of increasing its ability to withstand pressure from other countries when it engages in outrageous acts, such as kidnapping.

Britain and the United States had better get the support of all of Europe, or Iran will conclude it can get away with anything.

It also would help if the United States and Europe united in an effort to become energy independent, which we can do if we are willing to make the commitment.

Starving the Iranian regime of oil and gas profits would be the fastest way to sink it. Anything less will prove, in Iranian eyes, that today’s Britain is nothing like the Britain of 1982 and will encourage Iran to pursue strength while Britain and much of the West embrace weakness.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This column by CAL THOMAS was mistakenly posted to the Web as being authored by the editor of this newspaper. This corrrects the posting error.]

login to post comments | The Citizen's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cal Beverly's picture
Submitted by Cal Beverly on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 12:08pm.

I apologize for the Web posting mistake.

While I probably have little to argue about with the actual author — Cal Thomas, the most widely syndicated political columnist in the world — I have no expertise on Britain and did not author this column.

The column above is now correctly labeled as having been written by Mr. Thomas.

Sorry for the mistake.

Cal Beverly
publisher
The Citizen
Fayetteville, Ga. 30214


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 6:37pm.

I have a lot of bones to pick with peiople like Cal Thomas, but not too many with Cal Beverly.
I wanted to answer this article for two days but couldn't bring myself to think why Mr. Beverly wrote it. It doesn't sound as he does.
Actually in general, as evidenced by what he prints in the e-mails to the newspaper, he doesn't particularily like articles about international, or national, affairs.
If one could get worse than Thomas however, it would be Krauthammer or Hannity. O'Reilly would come in last as one who writes for entertainment and right wing nuts. Limbaugh is a blowhard (verbal) not a writer.
We could do without all of these people and a few of the other side also.

Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 12:03pm.

I especially agree with the statement that "This is not a war any of us can escape. It is a war that can only be won or lost."

That's not the case with the war in Iraq. I'm dismayed by the number of Americans who can't seem to distinguish between a two-bit dictator like Saddam and the fanatic Islamic fundamentalists like Al Queda and the current government of Iran. These fanatics are bent on the destruction of Western civilization. First, they want to drive us out of the middle east. Then, they want to drive us out of existence. This is akin to the threat posed by the Nazis in the 1930's. Just like Hitler, they intend on eventual world domination.

I agree with Cal, that one of the steps we need to take is to break our dependence on middle east oil, so that we stop financing our own destruction. I also agree with Git Real that it would be nice to drive them back to the middle east and then stay out of each other's backyards, but I don't think that's going to happen. Mainly, I don't think they would be content to stay within their own borders indefinitely.

The bad news is that there really is no sure solution. It's tempting to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, such as in response to another 9/11-type attack. Who knows--it may come to that at some point, but let's hope it doesn't. Meanwhile, Cal's right--we are already in a war, like it or not. (and I'm NOT talking about Iraq!)


Submitted by tonto707 on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 11:22am.

but you missed one. The United Nations itself is a hindrance to promoting peace in the middle east. With the likes of wussies like Chirac and others, getting the U N to do anything meaningful has proven virtually impossible in the area of fighting terrorism.

Most of Europe is dependent on the middle east oil, much more than the United States. Their leaders lack the will to put forth a unified fight against communism. As long as France, Russia or China have veto power, I don't see a lot of help coming from the U N, apart from lip service. Most of the resolutions over the last 20 years have been impotent, with no substantial consequence for terrorists or rogue
leaders.

Expect the U N to do nothing and you probably won't be disappointed.

Submitted by bowser on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 10:34am.

Easy to sit here and pontificate about how “weak” Britain looked.

What exactly would you have done had you been in Blair’s shoes, Cal? Issued an ultimatum to return the sailors or … what? Bomb Tehran? Sink all their ships? Invade and occupy? That would really whip the Middle East into shape and send all those anti-western fanatics packing, wouldn’t it?

This is just another chapter in Adventures in Neocolonialism: The Second Century.

Our biggest problem in the Middle East is that we’re in the Middle East at all.

We have tried for more than a century to dictate terms of life there. It’s worked, to the extent that we forced Israel’s creation and have bankrolled its survival, and that we have assured a steady flow of gas for our land yachts by propping up agreeable monarchies.

But the costs are rising, as human history shows that they inexorably do. It is very very difficult, if not impossible, for foreign powers to exert control over distant regions for long periods of time. You can look it up.

We don’t own the Middle East. It’s not our land (or water), they are not our people. We should be looking for more ways out, not more ways to get stuck in the quicksand.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 2:17pm.

"What exactly would you have done had you been in Blair’s shoes, Cal?"

How about not letting the Iranians take the soldiers captive in the first place?

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
- Winston Churchill

_______________________________________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 3:43pm.

Fire on them?

Stage a rescue mission?

That would have certainly shown the world how strong Britain is.

For some strange reason I don't think it would be a good idea for Britain to start a war with Iran.

Then again, they could follow our great example on how well the US is doing with Iraq. I'm sure Britain has a few thousand soldiers and a few hundred billion pounds they can afford to throw at it.

It might take more than 15 days and cost a life or two more than what they ended up doing but I can see your point. Why negotiate when all out war is an option.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 10:52am.

Our biggest problem in the Middle East is that we’re in the Middle East at all.

I agree that is one of our top two problems. The other, I would add, is that the Middle East has entered into the rest of the world.

We have tried for more than a century to dictate terms of life there.

Look at the rest of the world. Are the Islamo-Fascists not trying to dictate their terms of life around the globe?

We don’t own the Middle East. It’s not our land (or water), they are not our people. We should be looking for more ways out, not more ways to get stuck in the quicksand.

They don't own us. Ours is not their land (or water), we are not their people. We should be looking for more ways to get and keep them out, not more ways to get stuck in the quicksand.

I agree Lucky Dog. Let's get out of there and concentrate on booting them, out of the US and the rest of the world. There's something to be said about staying out of each others backyards. I just ask that we apply the same rules to them as you would to us.

________

You may not be at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with you!


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 3:13am.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

"We Shall Fight on the Beaches"

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

"Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat"

"You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

"You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival."

"Their Finest Hour"

"Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may more forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their Finest Hour.'"


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.