Never Again
Harry of Harry's Place has a post up about the events in Breslan in which he argues that:
It is abundantly clear - we saw the work of the enemy again in Beslan.
By 'enemy' he means Islamic terrorism. Furthermore:
The analogy with the enemy that faced Europe and the world in the 1930’s is not an exact one but it remains valid...When another generation said ‘Never Again’ they meant it.I don't really think I can contribute much of a discussion of the horrors in Breslan. No-one seems at the moment to really know who was behind it and why. Furthermore the particular circumstances of Chechnya -- even Harry's Place has referred to Russia's actions there as 'genocidal' and Stalinist -- makes it rather difficult to fit into a simple world view of Terror.
In so far as Harry is saying 'we should declare war on bad things' then I am in full agreement with him. That's what armies and police forces are there for. Where I think he comes rather unstuck with that hoary (or Hoarey?) comparison with the 1930s and Appeasement. The logic is that being soft on Nazism was a mistake in the 1930s, so being 'soft' on Islamic terorism is a mistake today. Forgetting for the moment that even in the 1930s there was no simple distinction between 'appeasers' and 'non-appeasers', and I think it was Churchill who said appeasement from a position of strength was the only hope for peace, it's not clear the analogy has any power other than 'in hindsight you know what to do'.
The problems are many, but I'll list some obvious ones:
1) What does being 'hard' on Islamic terrorism mean?
2) How would a policy of being 'hard' on Islamic terrorism be implemented?
3 Do we trust our leaders to carry out such a policy?
3) Would a policy of being 'hard' on Islamic terrorism mean less of it?
4) Are there any better solutions?
posted by Matthew @ 9/05/2004 09:26:00 AM
Comments: 0
