Following the Leaders
The very success of the more heroic world statesmen of today pretty much ensures more placid ones tomorrow
David Warren - June 4, 2007
New political leaders in England and France, and the approach of the U.S. presidential primaries, will outwardly change the flavour of events on the world stage, not necessarily for the better--but you never know. The West has been ruled, so far as heads of state and government can achieve anything, by men who were caught by surprise in the glare of New York's falling towers on 9/11. To my mind, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair--both, incidentally, conscious Christians--rose impressively to the occasion. Few others did. Bush and Blair resolved to take necessary military action, and were able to do so on a fairly modest scale for as long as domestic forces of "gliberalism" remained in disarray.
By that scare-quote word I do not indicate a specific ideology, or anything rationally coherent. Rather, I refer to the collective effect on public opinion of what the New York commentator A.D. Lelong describes as the "stupid cowardly minds of America's chattering classes, the ruling elite that make up the government, the establishment media, and the top corporate world." (I think he neglected Hollywood, the "human rights" legal industry and academia.)
The very success of President Bush's arrangements to prevent another terror strike against the United States has tended to disarm him against this huge fifth column. The "gliberals" have now generally succeeded in convincing the more ignorant section of the public--always the majority--that the threat to the West from Islamism is imaginary; that it would go away entirely if only people like Bush would stop trying to fight it.
I described the military response above as "fairly modest." There was a moment, just after the successful U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, when it appeared the purpose of the mission could be fulfilled. Not only was there a chance to establish in Iraq itself the first transparent, electoral, secular and constitutional polity in the history of the Arab peoples, but also, to turn the tide in the region. Even such rogue states as Libya were eagerly appeasing U.S. demands, and autocratic governments from Morocco to Indonesia were sprinting to co-operate with U.S.-led efforts to root out lairs of international terrorism. But western pressure was then diminished, not increased.
Appeasement is a fact of human nature. The question for many autocratic rulers in the Middle East has been whether to appease America, or to appease, say, Iran. Generally one appeases whomever looks stronger. It necessarily follows that as the U.S. reduces its regional presence--which means cutting and running on her regional allies--her mortal enemies harvest new allies against the U.S.
Here I should mention what the followers of western media have seldom been told. That in addition to the running battles against Islamist forces trying to claim or reclaim Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has been conducting special forces and proxy campaigns with at least the partial co-operation of many other states, within their own territories. Much has been accomplished "under the radar" in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and elsewhere. But to complete that clich?, much remains to be accomplished. And it will not be accomplished as regional states find better and better reasons to cease co-operating with the United States.
Our new leaders are, or will most likely be, sane but not heroic politicians. President Sarkozy of France certainly represents an improvement in judgment on his predecessor; I doubt the same could be said of Blair's probable successor, Chancellor Gordon Brown. I doubt Bush could be improved upon, even by a Republican victory in the next U.S. presidential election, and a restored Republican congressional majority to back him up. Giuliani, perhaps, might be cast in the heroic mould, but is otherwise a dubious and potentially unstable character. The candidates in the Democrat field are uniformly a little worse than a dead loss.
On the other hand, each new leader has the benefit of seeing the mistakes that were made before him. It should be clear enough now that western military measures, and other pressure tactics, were not conducted on a scale that was sufficiently robust. But how will they take this lesson? By becoming firmer in the face of an unpleasant reality, or by hiding behind public opinion, until the force of that reality consumes them, and us.