By Tom Rogan
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Following Monday’s attack on Manchester, campaigning for
next month’s British general election was suspended. Today, the race resumed.
Conservative prime minister Theresa May chose a relatively low-key restart. Her
main opponent, Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, chose the opposite approach.
Corbyn gave a speech equivocating in its condemnation of
the Manchester attack. He offered a cursory condemnation of the bomber, Salman
Ramadan Abedi, before saying what was really on his mind:
We will also change what we do
abroad. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security
services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has
supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at
home.
Look closely at Corbyn’s words here. On the first day of
campaigning after a major atrocity, he chose to strike moral and strategic
parallels between British foreign policy and ISIS. In so doing, he demonstrated
the worst kind of moral cowardice. He also proved himself a man of deep
strategic incontinence.
After all, while individual Islamist terrorists are often
partly motivated by the perceived injustices of Western foreign policy, those
they serve are not — and that difference is critical. From ISIS to al-Qaeda to
Hezbollah, Islamist groups are motivated by Islamic scripture. The majority of
scholars from various Islamic schools would attest that these groups adhere to
their own warped interpretations of the Koran. But the Koran is nevertheless
important, because it motivates an ordained mission that seeks something far
more elusive than territory or political power: purity on Earth. The major
Islamist terrorist leaders have dedicated themselves to the imposition of Allah’s
law on all of humanity, and in this they see themselves as humanity’s liberators. This is particularly
true in the case of Salafi-Jihadist groups such as ISIS. Put simply, to Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi and his ilk, Western foreign policy is a peripheral concern.
By misreading this important distinction between fighters
and organization, Corbyn renders himself blind to the threat. If there was no
distinction, then withdrawal from the Middle East, or North Africa, or indeed
the world, might at least be rational on paper. But the distinction is real.
And it means that the intent of the terrorists — attacking the West so as to
purge immorality and injustice — would not change one bit if we adopted the
isolationist foreign policy Corbyn desires. If anything, in fact, such an
approach would simply create space for jihadist groups to grow stronger.
ISIS proves as much: It was not until the Obama
administration withdrew from Iraq in late 2011 that al-Baghdadi’s death cult
rose from the ashes, and the timing was not coincidental. By withdrawing, Obama
had ceded America’s regional influence. Meeting with pro-Iranian politicians
prior to 2011, U.S. diplomats, intelligence agents, and military officers could
point to thousands of retained forces in Iraq. That gave weight to their
efforts to improve multi-sectarian and factional relations. But when withdrawal
came, the weight went with it. And suddenly, our ability to influence political
developments perished alongside our capability to assist Iraqi security forces
in counter-terrorism missions. And so ISIS filled the vacuum.
The example of ISIS offers warning against Corbyn’s
preferred foreign policy. As a manifestly anti-American, unreconstructed avatar
of the radical left, Corbyn would defer to terrorists across the Islamic world.
And given the pivotal ideological battles currently underway in states such as
Saudi Arabia, we can surmise where Corbyn’s appeasement would lead: to a future
in which attacks such as Abedi’s became a daily hazard, rather than an
occasional one.
Fortunately, local and national opinion polls suggest
that May will crush Corbyn on June 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment