Simon Jenkins writes:
“He’s won,” I shouted at the television. “Bloody hell,
he’s won.”
As Donald Trump read out his surrender-to-terrorism message this week, I realised who was now his
master: Osama bin Laden.
Trump spoke with his eyes down, like a hostage under
duress. His was an America frightened, incoherent, illiberal,
fearful of some unknown power. He was the voice of a cowering nation.
Bin Laden, or at least his ghost,
has moved a step closer to his goal on 9/11: to put America in thrall to an
Islamic ascendancy.
He wanted an America that, as Trump put it, “does not know
what the hell is going on”, that is “out of control”.
He wanted an America that
“does not care” about its customary freedoms. He wanted all Muslims to be
America’s enemies.
Trump duly delivered. He was Bin Laden’s acolyte, his
accomplice, his stooge.
Britons should beware of
criticising Trump. They are not innocent of his crime.
Godwin’s law states
that the longer a political argument runs, the sooner it reverts to the second
world war. Someone “plays the Hitler card” – and eventually loses.
David
Cameron played the card in last week’s parliamentary debate on Isis. So did Labour’s Hilary Benn. They equated Isis
to the Nazis, and their opponents to appeasers of 20th century fascism.
They
summoned up the bombers against Muslim cities and demanded curbs on civil
liberties commensurate with the declared threat. It was Trumpism for slow
learners.
To compare any threat facing Britain or America at
present to Hitler’s Germany is ludicrous. It is historically illiterate.
It is
an offence to all who suffered and died in Hitler’s war. It is an offence to
Britain’s allies round the world. It is an offence to language.
As the House of
Commons cheered on the bombers (and swore to send no ground troops), I wondered
how it might react if Britain really did face another Hitler.
Would it join Donald Trump, quaking with terror under the
nearest table?
Like a nuclear
weapon it should be kept locked away, for use only in extremis.
Yet in recent months fear has
been deployed by ministers and opposition politicians, generals, spies, police
officers, newspaper editors and television producers.
Every two-bit nutcase is
declared “an existential menace”, a threat to “national security”, a saboteur
of our “civilised values and way of life”.
I could not believe BBC radio
listeners being invited to boast about cancelling their holidays out of fear.
No one really believes that
Britain’s values and way of life are so feeble as to fall to a machine gun or a
grenade. No one really thinks that Muslim travellers could undermine the
American way of life.
Guns kill and bombs destroy buildings. But that does not
threaten “our very existence”.
The likelihood of an English caliphate is
precisely zero, however much it suits politicians and the security lobby to
claim otherwise.
So why do Cameron and Benn repeat
Godwin’s law?
Why do Trump’s supporters have so little faith in America’s
freedoms as to think them vulnerable to a few homicidal maniacs, egged on by
his friends in the gun lobby?
The answer is that they have been conditioned to
fear.
Of course not all Americans agree
with Trump and not all Britons agree with Cameron and Benn. But then not all
Muslims agreed with Bin Laden or sympathise with Isis.
The glib association of
broad groups with extremist ideologies is the first step away from democracy
down the ruinous road to paranoia and division.
There is now a copious literature
on Isis. Books by Patrick Cockburn and the Guardian’s Jason Burke, and a searing analysis
of the Raqqa caliphate by Graeme Wood in March’s Atlantic
magazine all tell the
same tale: of ham-fisted interventions, poor intelligence, counterproductive
assassinations and the misjudgment alike of friends and enemies.
It is a story
of predictable consequences claimed as “unintended”.
Al-Qaida in
2001 was a tiny cell in an Afghan mountain. By overreacting, the west turned it
into a global force.
It proceeded to sow anarchy across Afghanistan and Iraq
and then attempted, after 2012, to destabilise President Assad in Syria.
This
compounded the foolishness, finally creating a vacuum in which an Isis
caliphate could take root. It is, as Wood emphasises, a different theology and
different methodology from al-Qaida, a state not a cell.
There can be no argument. Britain was in part responsible
for the creation of Isis.
Now Cameron appears to believe that it can be bombed
into defeat, repeating the oldest military fallacy, that bombers win wars.
From
all I have read, Isis will never surrender to bombs. It is the purest of
hieratic regimes. It might be wiped out with appalling slaughter on the ground,
but then what?
For the present it can probably best be contained by surrounding
forces in the Sunni triangle, where it should ultimately rot from its internal
contradictions.
Meanwhile, western liberal
democracy is threatened not by a caliphate or “radical Islam” but by itself.
Fear is so prevalent a form of politics because it is the cheapest. That is why
inducing politicians and the media to spread fear is the terrorist’s most
potent weapon.
As in judo, it is the weak exploiting the strength of the strong
to defeat him.
Islamist terrorism does not seek
the conversion of the west to Islam. It is not stupid. Bin Laden’s objective
was to show Muslims that the west’s claims to moral superiority were a sham.
So-called liberal values could be undermined by turning western leaders into
bigots, paranoid warmongers and oppressors, especially of Muslims.
Bin Laden
sought to contrast the steadfastness of conservative Islam with the hypocrisy
and degeneracy of a frightened west.
He has had a pretty good month.
Every religion has its
fundamentalist strain. Liberal democracy should not give it a megaphone, but
defeat it with moderation and reason.
Yet as Trump grovelled before the shades
of Bin Laden this week, all I could hear was a voice from a watery grave
crying, “Attaboy, Donald! Keep it up. God is great.”
No comments:
Post a Comment