I was stopped by someone the other week who said it was not surprising there was so much terrorism in the world when we invaded their countries (meaning Afghanistan and Iraq). No wonder Muslims felt angry.Because clearly, nobody could have predicted that a population viewing the invasion as illegitimate would have chosen violent resistance. That's just crazy talk.
When he had finished, I said to him: tell me exactly what they feel angry about. We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them with a United Nations-supervised democratic process and the Muslims in both countries get the chance to vote, which incidentally they take in very large numbers. And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims.
What’s more, British troops are risking their lives trying to prevent the killing. Why should anyone feel angry about us? Why aren’t they angry about the people doing the killing? The odd thing about the conversation is that I could tell it was the first time he had even heard the alternative argument.This would be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who apparently has managed to spend the last five years not actually thinking about any of the orders he's given, or decisions he's made. This pile of poor reasoning and simple delusions about human nature comes soon after a recent admission that the war in Iraq went badly because... the Iraqis fought back.
It's sad, really. Tony Blair was the best public face the war against Iraq had -- perhaps even more influential than Colin Powell, in his own way. It's a sign of how shitty the war has gone that he's reduced to this: The war went wrong because... people don't like being killed. If this is what it takes to become Prime Minister of the UK, I'm thinking I might throw my hat in the ring...