ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

McCain feels "deceived" by Cameron

The Tory-GOP divide is becoming more serious.  After Friday's criticisms of George W Bush from Peter Ainsworth, the News of the World has confirmed ConservativeHome's story of January that John McCain is disappointed by David Cameron's more dove-ish policy on Iraq... except the language in the NotW story (not online) is harder.  Senator McCain, who was given star billing at last autumn's Conservative conference, reportedly now sees David Cameron's policy on Iraq as "soft."  He apparently feels "deceived" by David Cameron after the Tory leader opposed the increase in US troops in Iraq.  "There has been a clear divergence between us," a McCain spokesman said.  Fraser Nelson takes up the news in his Sunday column:

"I also hear Rudy Giuliani, ex-New York mayor and conservative hero, considers him a turncoat.  Meanwhile, Bush officials are appalled at his attempts to be seen as standing up to the White House.  Cam is happy to let his lieutenants send out anti-US messages, especially on the environment.  But chasing such cheap votes in Britain has repurcussions in Washington.  This behaviour can be expected of no-hoper Labour backbenchers.  Not from an aspiring statesman."

Asked about John McCain's remarks on Sunday AM, Liam Fox sidestepped the issue and referred to widespread divisions in Washington circles as regards the troops surge.  On defence policy, Dr Fox abided by George Osborne's tough new policy on expenditure announcements and declined to say what a Conservative Government would spend on defence.  He said he would be looking for more burden sharing from NATO Partners and better procurement policies.  The Shadow Defence Secretary said that the Canadian model deserved study.  Canada had increased its defence strength by buying off-the-shelf defence equipment from other nations.  Britain can no longer afford a bespoke military, Dr Fox continued - spending a lot of money on over-budget products for equipment that could be bought more cheaply from other arms manufacturing nations.

Tory report targets unrepresentative Muslim groups

The first report from the Conservatives' national and international security group was somewhat underwhelming but today's heavily-trailed report does not pull its punches (Guardian and BBC).  Hot-on-the-heels of David Cameron's likening of BNP supporters and supporters of sharia law, the N&ISG will strongly question the Muslim Council of Britain's credibility in representing Muslim opinion in Britain.  The MCB has long enjoyed strong support from the Government as the leading voice for British Muslims but it and similar groups are "keener to promote ideologies than the totality of the communities they claim to represent," according to Pauline Neville-Jones of the N&ISG.  The MCB has been criticised for its support for Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, an apologist for suicide bombing in Israel.

The report is heavily critical of multiculturalism and calls for a much greater focus on integration than the nurturing of separate identities:

"As Muslim communities enter the third generation of settlement in this country, and in circumstances where a rapidly rising proportion have been educated here, it is anomalous and patronising to individuals to treat them indirectly as members of a group and not directly as citizens in their own individual right on a par with other voters.  Political ghettoisation is the wrong route.  We recommend that an incoming Conservative government moves in the opposite direction: to bring as many Muslims as possible as rapidly as possible into the mainstream of British life on an individual basis equal with that of their fellow non-Muslim citizens."

Key Conservative contributions to yesterday's Iraq debate

In yesterday's Commons debate most Conservatives were united against the LibDem call for troops out by October - with the exception of Ken Clarke.  Most Tories were also sceptical about the likely success of George W Bush's troops surge - with the exception of Iain Duncan Smith who, like John McCain, had called for a larger surge more than two years ago.

William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary, on the Prime Minister's absence from the debate: "According to The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said:  “The Prime Minister never attends these debates, whatever the subject.”  We now have a Prime Minister who never attends debates, “whatever the subject”. The Foreign Secretary indicated that there was hope for a turning point soon, and that the Prime Minister would then make a statement. Where would the House have been in the second world war if Winston Churchill had only come along when a turning point was in prospect or had been reached? It is sad that the Prime Minister prefers the mentality of the bunker to the open thinking of debate." (Hansard)

Edward Leigh MP invites William Hague to reverse Tory support for the war: "The Conservative party was sold this war on a false premise. We were lied to by the Government. I keep meeting Conservative Members who tell me that if they knew then what they know now, they would have voted against this war. Will my right hon. Friend say that we will not be dragged down into the mire by this discredited Government? The more we attack this war and our presence in Iraq, the more we speak for the British people."  Steve Richard's observations on this intervention in this morning's Independent: "The Tory backbencher Edward Leigh intervened during Hague's speech, suggesting that the Conservatives only voted for the war because they had been sold the case on a false premise. Behind him Michael Gove shook his head with an increasing intensity. Hague said he did not entirely agree either and yet I heard the shadow Attorney General make precisely the same claim as Leigh on Radio 4 earlier this month."

William Hague on the LibDems' 'troops out' plan: "A fixed timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq would create military inflexibility and give insurgents their own timetable for operations, something that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), must bear in mind. He must also bear in mind his comment in the House in November 2003:  “Nothing could be worse than handing over to an Iraqi Government, however constitutionally founded, a security position that they were incapable of dealing with.”  I fear that his proposal for a total withdrawal by October would be a situation that the Iraqi Government would be “incapable of dealing with”, and would bring great bloodshed in its wake."

Ken Clarke on the LibDems' troops out' policy: "I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point, and I agree with 99 per cent. of what he has said in his speech so far, but has not he put himself in unnecessary difficulty by putting a precise date—October 2007—on withdrawal? None the less, I prefer that approach to that of the Government, which is to set out a hopeful timetable, all based on the achievement of a level of stability and agreement with the Iraqi Government, which I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unlikely to be achieved, certainly not in the course of the coming calendar year. Would not it be preferable to insist, which is a strong position, that the earliest possible withdrawal of British troops, consistent with their safety and with the minimising of risk and further disruption, should now be an objective of British policy?"

Iain Duncan Smith in support of George W Bush's troops surge: "I support President Bush’s desire to put in more troops. Yet I differ with him—this is where I line up with Senator McCain—in that I think that he should have done so earlier, and he should have put in many more troops. I am not sure whether 20,000 troops will be enough. We should be talking about nearer to 50,000 troops if we even want to begin to stabilise Baghdad. That is a real policy: an idea to try to stabilise while giving the Iraqis —[ Interruption. ] Again, I hear a lot of chuntering from the Liberal Democrats. I must tell them that, whether or not they like it, what the Iraqi Government have asked us is, “Please give us time.” If we cut and run before they have time to build up their forces, it is shame on us.  I do not think that a British Government worthy of the name should possibly be allowed to cut and run. I ask the Government, when they think this through, to remember some of the words that were said to me when I was in Iraq by many of those who are now in government. They said, “Despite the odds, we think it was right for you to help us, to free us and to give us a chance. Please don’t leave us alone.”

John Bercow intervenes on Iain Duncan Smith about humanitarian interventionism: "Of course my right hon. Friend is right to say that there is a general recognition that we cannot intervene everywhere. However, given the adoption by the United Nations of the responsibility to protect, does he agree that the international community must decide whether that responsibility is to be a serious attempt to avert genocide or simply a rather futile exercise in vacuous moral posturing?"  Iain Duncan Smith replies: "My hon. Friend and I agree on the fact that, since the ending of the cold war, there has been time for a rethink of our responsibilities to others who may not directly impact on our daily lives. If we ask people in this country whether they care and want to intervene in such areas, their answer will be absolutely no for the most part, because they do not see what it has to do with them. However, we have a responsibility to try to stabilise areas—I am thinking of many countries—so the idea that there is an absolute, sole and singular British interest that involves only the direct effect on British citizens is wholly incorrect and very damaging to our long-term interests."

Sir Malcolm Rifkind on Iran: "it is one of the great ironies of recent events that the United States and our own Prime Minister have been the single greatest contributors to the emergence of Iran as a hegemonic power in the past few years. Iran traditionally had two opponents in recent times—Saddam Hussein on one side and the Taliban on the other. Thanks to George Bush and our own Prime Minister, both were eliminated without the Iranians having to act in their own interest. But Iran is a serious regional power, and our objection to Iranian policy is not its aspiration to play an important role in the region, to which it is entitled, but its aspiration to acquire nuclear weapons. A response is required by the United States, which has more influence than anyone else, offering not only dialogue with Iran but a serious opportunity of normalising relations—similar to the opportunity that it offered to, and was accepted by, Gaddafi and Libya. If the United States could accept the Libyans after Lockerbie, it should be able to contemplate the prospect of full normalisation of relations with Iran."

Michael Ancram calls for dialogue throughout the Middle East: "The volatility of the whole region is higher than I can ever remember it, and it has the potential to engulf us all. I do not believe that that volatility can be reduced or solved by formula. At the moment, the situation is too grave for that; it is beyond road maps and intricate diplomatic processes. Confidence, which has been destroyed over the past months, needs to be rebuilt, and that, in my view—it may not be a particularly popular view—can be achieved only by dialogue—unthreatening dialogue, exploratory dialogue—across the board and at every level and through every available channel."

Keith Simpson, Shadow Foreign Affairs spokesman, on the troops surge: "We were sceptical about the proposal by President Bush of a surge. “Surge” means reinforcements and putting more troops into Baghdad. General Petraeus, the American who is going to be in charge of that, may have made it work two years ago when he was commanding in Iraq. The problem now is that that surge is being seen as having to work in a very limited time scale, and for counter-insurgency operations that is not going to be an option."

Michael Gove on the emergence of an anti-Islamist intelligentsia

"Are We Seeing the Emergence of a New Anti-Islamist Intelligentsia?"

That was the question that Michael Gove sought to answer at an event yesterday evening, organised by Peter Whittle and the New Culture Forum.  During the evening he also disputed the idea that the Middle East Peace Process would lead to a reduction in Islamist violence.  He said that so many Islamists hated Israel that they would not cease until they had eliminated the whole nation.  He defended David Cameron against a suggestion that the Tory leadership was insufficiently concerned about Islamism and pointed to the Tory leader's recent call for Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned.

The focus of Michael Gove's speech was the emergence of a few significant left-wing cultural and journalistic leaders and their willingness to stand against the moral relativism and anti-Americanism of the mainstream of the political left.

In journalism he highlighted David Aaronovitch, Christopher Hitchens, John Lloyd and Nick Cohen.  The Observer's Nick Cohen has just authored a book entitled 'What's Left?'  The book provides an account of 'how liberals have lost their way.'  Here is a key extract of the book from Sunday's Observer:

"Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam which stands for everything the liberal left is against come from the liberal left? Why will students hear a leftish postmodern theorist defend the exploitation of women in traditional cultures but not a crusty conservative don? After the American and British wars in Bosnia and Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansers, why were men and women of the left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? As important, why did a European Union that daily announces its commitment to the liberal principles of human rights and international law do nothing as crimes against humanity took place just over its borders? Why is Palestine a cause for the liberal left, but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea? Why, even in the case of Palestine, can't those who say they support the Palestinian cause tell you what type of Palestine they would like to see? After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a superior literary journal as in a neo-Nazi hate sheet? And why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish rather than right-wing newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers who were inspired by a psychopathic theology from the ultra-right?  In short, why is the world upside down? In the past conservatives made excuses for fascism because they mistakenly saw it as a continuation of their democratic rightwing ideas. Now, overwhelmingly and every where, liberals and leftists are far more likely than conservatives to excuse fascistic governments and movements, with the exception of their native far-right parties."

McCain "disappointed" at new Tory Iraq policy

I received an email from a contact in the White House last week.  They'd read William Hague's response to President Bush's announcement of extra troops and joked that it must have been written in concert with the Élysée Palace.  Team Cameron won't worry if Team Bush think little of the Tory leader.  David Cameron's advisers would probably welcome the opportunity to free the Conservative brand from any linkage to an American President who could hardly be less popular in the UK.  They might be more worried about John McCain's reaction.  Senator McCain was given star billing at last October's Party Conference as proof that David Cameron has friends in high places.  Senator McCain does believe that David Cameron may well be in Downing Street when he hopes to be living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  But according to an impeccable ConservativeHome source the Senator is "surprised" and "disappointed" at the Tory leadership's reaction to George W Bush's announcement of 22,000 extra troops for Iraq.  McCain has long argued for deploying 50,000 more men in and around Baghdad and has believed that David Cameron shared his commitment to winning in Iraq.  McCain launched a comprehensive attack on the Baker-Hamilton report when it was released - the very report that William Hague has all but embraced.  The increasingly dove-ish Tory policy on Iraq was confirmed by the leadership's decision to clip Liam Fox's hawkish wings - reported exclusively here.

The last hawk in the shadow cabinet gets his wings clipped

ConservativeHome understands that Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox has been ordered to tone down his neoconservative views and row in behind William Hague’s line on the war in Iraq and the threat posed by Iran. Dr Fox, perhaps the most hawkish member of David Cameron's team, has long argued that it would be irresponsible to take the military option off the table in the west's attempt to stop Iran gaining a nuclear weapon. That is also the official shadow cabinet view but the Tory leadership do not want any attention drawn to the issue. We gather he was called in to see David Cameron and William Hague this week and told in no uncertain terms to stop - what was described to Conservative Home as ‘freelancing.’

The party leader and Shadow Foreign Secretary were also concerned at criticisms of Poland and Hungary attributed to Dr Fox. See Guido Fawkes' report here.

This news follows yesterday's dove-ish response from William Hague to President Bush's troops surge.

A fisk of William Hague's statement on George Bush's troops surge

William Hague today: “We welcome the fact that new thinking has taken place in Washington, and we continue to hope that coalition efforts to bring stability to Iraq will be successful.  However, we remain sceptical that sending additional troops will achieve the desired results.  This is for several reasons: (1) Last year’s attempt to control Baghdad with more US troops was not successful..."

ConservativeHome expressed its concerns at the Bush plan yesterday but from a very different starting point to William Hague.  The reason the last effort to control Baghdad was not successful was a lack of troops.  There was a capacity to 'clear' an area of insurgent activity but insufficient capacity to 'hold' an area.  Unfortunately, it is probably true that Bush's announced increase is only about half of what is necessary. 

William Hague today: "...(2) There is a risk that the insurgency can be fuelled, as well as contained, by the presence of foreign troops."

William Hague could just have easily said that the insurgency would be fuelled by signs of surrender from America and the impression of imminent withdrawal.  The Shadow Foreign Secretary could just easily have quoted Osama bin Laden: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."  Mr Hague might also have reworked his powerful words from the Iraq debate of March 2003: "Last night, one hon. Member—I think it was a Liberal Democrat—said that we should not take this action because of the danger of terrorist or other retaliatory action against this country. There is a similarity to the phoney war in 1940, when the commanders in charge of the great guns of the Maginot line—we all know who was in charge—refused to fire those guns in case the Germans fired back. But of course the Germans were always going to fire back, and terrorist organisations that have the capability to hit this country will try in any event to hit this country. Our job is to deter them from doing so and remove their means of doing so."

William Hague today: "We would like to have seen a package modelled more closely on the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, giving even greater importance to accelerating the training and equipping of the Iraqi Army, and establishing an International Support Group of members of the UNSC and other nations to help the Iraqi government."

The Baker-Hamilton plan that William Hague endorses was a deeply disappointing document.  It was a split-the-difference report that recommended engagement with Syria and Iran.  As John McCain wrote at the time: "Our interests in Iraq diverge significantly from those of Damascus and Tehran, and this is unlikely to change under the current regimes. I do not object to reasonable efforts that might modify these countries' behavior in Iraq, but if the price of their cooperation is an easing of pressure on Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, or on Damascus over the Syrian role in Lebanon, then that price is too high."

William Hague today: "Additionally, we would have like to have seen an emphasis on the urgent need to find a way of re-starting the Middle East Peace Process."

There are lots of good reasons to restart the MEPP but William Hague is wrong to link the Iraq situation to it.  Senator McCain again: "It is impossible to see how such a peace can be achieved so long as Hamas, a terrorist group that rejects a two-state solution and the very existence of Israel, stands at the helm of the Palestinian Authority. We must not push our Israeli ally to make concessions to groups that refuse to recognize its right to exist. In addition, the linkage the ISG report makes between this issue and the violence in Iraq seems tenuous at best. While I desire peace for Israel in its own right, it is difficult to see how an Arab-Israeli peace process will diminish Sunni-Shia violence in Baghdad or al Qaeda activity in Anbar Province."

Mr Hague could also study something his former policy chief Danny Finkelstein wrote in November: "The existence of so many dictatorships, kleptocracies and violent thugs in the Middle East is what drives on the conflict, in Israel, as elsewhere. The Palestinian crisis and the tragedy of the poor Palestinian people is an effect, an outcome, not a cause."

William Hague today: "Like the government, we hope that a substantial number of British troops can be withdrawn from Basra in the course of this year, but we will be pressing the Government to establish this year a full-scale enquiry into the Iraq conflict, which the country expects to see.  The most vital step now is for the Iraqi Government now to push forward internal reconciliation and the building up of its own effective Armed Forces, so that they can take genuine control of their own affairs.”

The building up of effective Iraqi armed forces and police must surely be a priority but the British troops are also playing a vital role in ensuring that rogue elements that have entered the security forces are eliminated.  British troops should not be withdrawn according to any artificial timetable but only when their job is done.  Calling for a full-scale enquiry smells of politics.  A party preparing for government - particularly a party that wants to guard its reputation for national security - should be helping the British public to understand that we risk the creation of new terrorist cells in Iraq if UK troops are withdrawn too quickly.

51% of Tory members are open to 'troop surge'

The December survey of ConservativeHome readers revealed the smallest possible majority in favour of sending extra British and American troops to Iraq if they could bring peace.  Last week David Cameron had agreed that extra US troops might be the right approach.  Later today George W Bush is expected to announce a 'surge' in US troop deployments of 20,000.  He has finally decided to step away from the 'light footprint' approach - favoured by Donald Rumsfeld but, unfortunately, there are only likely to be 20,000 extra pairs of feet and not the 50,000 increase many think necessary.

In his new book America Alone, Mark Steyn argues that a premmature withdrawal will be deadly for the global authority of the United States:

"Visitors to America often remark on that popular T-shirt slogan usually found below a bold Stars and Stripes: "These Colors Don't Run."  To non-Americans it can seem a trifle touchy.  But for a quarter of a century the presumption of the country's enemies was that those colors did run - they ran from Vietnam, they ran from the downed choppers in the Iranian desert, they ran from Somalia.  Even the successful campaigns - the inconclusively concluded 1991 Gulf War and the air-only 1999 Kosovo war - seemed manifestly designed to avoid putting those colors in the position of having to run.  As Osama saw it, those colors ran from the African embassy bombings and the Khobar towers, just as Zarqawi figured those colors would run from the Sunni Triangle.  Being seen not to run - or, if you prefer, being seen to show "resolve" - should be the indispensable objective of US froreign policy.  Were these colors to run from Iraq, it would be the end of the American era - for why would Russia, China or even Belgium ever again take seriously a superpower that runs screaming for home at the first pinprick?"

Cameron: Increase in US troops in Iraq "might be right approach"

Interviewed on this morning's Today programme the Conservative leader said that an increase in US troop deployments in Baghdad might be the right approach if it was part of a broader strategy to reconcile Iraq's Sunni, Shia and Kurdish groups.  President Bush is expected to announce a deployment surge next week.  The report on the BBC website is slightly inaccurate.  Mr Cameron did not give any encouragement to the idea that more troops might be necessary in the British patrolled area of Iraq.  He said that the British officers he had met on his pre-Christmas visit to Iraq had said that extra troops were not necessary.

An excellent case for more American troops in Iraq was recently made in The Weekly Standard by Professor William Stuntz.  Stuntz notes that casualty rates have actually fallen when adequate troop numbers have been deployed:

"Between November 2004 and February 2005, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, the number of coalition soldiers in Iraq rose by 18,000. In that time, the number of Iraqi civilians killed fell by two-thirds, and the number of American troops wounded fell by three-fourths. The soldiers were soon pulled out; by the summer of 2005, American and Iraqi casualties rose again. Later that year, the same thing happened again. Between September and November of 2005, another 23,000 soldiers were deployed in Iraq; once again, both Iraqi and American casualties fell. In the early months of 2006, the number of soldiers fell again, and casualties spiraled up."

Stuntz also called for a return to what military historian Russell Weigley has called 'the American way of war':

"Overwhelm the enemy--instead of investing just enough, invest far too much. Make sure the other side knows that our capacity to give and take punishment immeasurably exceeds their capacity to absorb and inflict it... Counterinsurgency warfare is more about protecting than killing - like a nationwide exercise in community policing. And the lesson of the 1990s in American cities is that the best way to reduce the level of criminal violence is to put more cops on the street. The lesson of the past three years in Iraq is the same: If the goal is to cut our losses, the best move is not to pull back, but to dive in - flood the zone, put as many boots as possible on the most violent ground. Do that, and before long, the ground in question will be a good deal less violent."

The Tory leader - who opposes the death penalty - said that the execution of Saddam Hussein had been "Pretty grisly" and its handling had been "quite wrong."  He said that he still believed that it had been right to end Saddam's leadership of Iraq but the decisions taken since the invasion had been "extremely poor."  He highlighted the disbandment of the former regime's police and armed forces.

David Cameron expected to embrace call for US-style National Security Council

Bruce Anderson gives a warm welcome to today's interim report from the Conservative Party's study group on security.  The Independent's Mr Anderson sees Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' report as a bold attempt to consider Britain's foreign, defence and security policies within the same context and, in future, to see that policy progressed under the direction of a new US-style Security Council, to be chaired by the Prime Minister.  Mr Cameron should not be surprised to find Dame Pauline, a former Whitehall mandarin, recommending a new Whitehall structure to deal with a problem.

To ConservativeHome, the rest of the report also appears to be largely procedural and underwhelming.   The Telegraph notes that it "calls for a fresh drive to build a more stable Middle East by working in partnership with countries in the region."  Wow!  It continues (according to the FT): "We should recognise that we will find it difficult to serve our interests, or those of America, if we are regarded as their mute partner in every foreign undertaking."  It also makes now familar criticisms of the Iraq war and reaffirms the existing Tory policy of a Cabinet-level minister for homeland security.   The Tories have a homeland security spokesman - Patrick Mercer - although, strangely, he sits outside of the shadow cabinet.

There may be more to come at this lunchtime's announcement of the report's main findings but the headline recommendations appear to have been trailed already.  ConservativeHome's top three hopes for future recommendations are: (1) A clear call for much greater resourcing of Britain's over-stretched armed forces; (2) Acceleration of moves towards missile defence; and (3) A policy of zero tolerance towards domestic Muslim extremism including an end to public funding of any groups with Islamist connections and close supervision of foreign funding of UK mosques.

***
In yesterday's Sunday Times Labour's Alan Milburn argued that Labour enjoyed the upper hand on issues of national security: "Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid have given Labour the upper hand on issues of national security: identity cards, Trident missiles, Asbos and curfews may smack of the big clunking fist but these policies tend to enjoy popular support. By opposing ID cards and anti-terrorist laws, the Conservatives’ purported aim is for a less authoritarian position. Cameron believes the only way back for his Tories is to hug a hoodie and praise a Polly; so blame is out, love is in. His gamble is that while traditional supporters may find the journey uncomfortable, they will not seek another destination and that by changing track he can get enough disaffected and floating voters to join his centre-bound cavalcade."

3.30pm: Full paper from Dame Pauline's group (pdf)

Blair's banana republic 1; British rule of law 0

It's not often I find myself in complete agreement with The Guardian and the Liberal Democrats but I do today.  The Blair government's decision to stop the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into suspected Saudi/ BAe corruption is, as Oliver Kamm writes in today's Times, the lowest of many low points of this Blair government.  According to The Guardian the SFO were about to get hold of a Swiss dossier that contained print-outs of BAe's recent offshore banking transactions with key Saudi middlemen.  The Guardian continues:

"The SFO believed the banking files could unlock the answer to three questions: Were members of the Saudi royal family receiving secret British pay-offs? Were offences committed under UK law? And had BAE lied to the Department of Trade and Industry to get insurance cover when the company recently claimed it had cleaned up its act and got rid of its confidential Saudi agents?  But the events of the next 48 hours ensured that the SFO would not be allowed to collect those files. Instead came a sudden harsh lesson in the realities of power and politics in Blairite Britain."

Here are a few reasons why I object to Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's decision to halt the SFO investigation:

1. Tory Dominic Grieve said that “On the basis of the Attorney General’s comments about the highly speculative nature of the inquiry, and that any final prosecution was unlikely, the decision to discontinue the investigation in view of the potential damage to our national security was inevitable and the only sensible course of action."  I'm sceptical that Lord Goldsmith made his decision for entirely legal reasons.  The  Attorney General has 'form' in terms of giving legal advice and it is clear from all reports that the Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and Downing Street were all involved in the lobbying/ decision-making process.  The Prime Minister declared himself responsible for the decision.  This was clearly politicised.  The SFO should have been permitted to conclude its investigation without political interference.
2. Saudi Arabia recently warned that the Eurofighter contract with Britain was at risk if the SFO investigation went on.  The Saudis know that the British establishment is weak.  They prevented Death of a Princess from ever being rebroadcast and they have now appeared to succeed in blackmailing Britain over an SFO investigation.
3. The worst reason for surrendering to Saudi blackmail was that we needed support from the desert kingdom for the war on terror.  If we had continued with the SFO investigation there were warnings of no more intelligence sharing and, worse, Saudi support for Sunni fighters in Iraq.  What kind of signal does this send to every Muslim nation?  Threaten to join the wrong side in the war on terror and you'll get what you want.
4. If Saudi Arabia is an ally in the war on terror then God help us.  This is the nation that has funded the most militant expressions of Islamism all around the world.  The kingdom's human rights abuses include execution of homosexuals and zero tolerance of conversion from Sunni Islam.  No Jews of any nationality are permitted to enter Saudi Arabia.
5. There is terrible hypocrisy here.  It is a core of UK development policy that African and other developing nations must have zero tolerance of corruption but it now appears that the British state is willing to turn a blind eye to Saudi corruption.

If Labour comes out of this affair badly then so do the Tories.  Dominic Grieve's line is unbelievable.  MPs Gerald Howarth and Michael Jack - both with big BAe-related constituency jobs - lobbied to stop the investigation.  Edward Leigh defended the decision on Any Questions - joining Charles Moore and Peter Oborne in embracing the Government's 'realpolitik'.  Bernard Jenkin told the BBC that "The SFO should not be tempted to go on these fishing expeditions unless prosecutions are likely and these prosecutions are in the national interest."  Worst of all was Jonathan Aitken's suggestion that  even if the allegations against BAE were true, it was the correct decision to end the investigation in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia.  I hope the human rights charity Christian Solidarity Worldwide is reconsidering having Mr Aitken as their president.

Final word must go to 'Russell' who made this brilliant comment on Danny Finkelstein's blog:

"The rule of law having been dismissed, and the public interest having been equated with the Government's interests (for which Blair takes "full reponsibility"), the Attorney General can now step in to halt the cash for honours enquiry. Not in the public interest, you see. While we're at it, why not arrest DC Yates for conduct prejudicial to national security?"

Related links: Saudi Arabia's funding of Islamism and Tories launch first human rights report

Hodge reported to have attacked Tony Blair's "moral imperialism"

BBC Online is reporting that Government minister Margaret Hodge told a meeting of the Fabian Society that the Iraq war was Tony Blair's "big mistake in foreign affairs".  "I hope this isn't going to be reported," she is said to have worried but the remarks are being reported and she is now denying having made them.  Such disloyalty to Government policy should be rewarded with the sack but such is the hostility to the Iraq war on Labour's benches and such is the weakness of Tony Blair's leadership that she is pretty certain to stay in post.

Meanwhile the Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardiner is warning that Britain must not retreat from Iraq:

"An early withdrawal of British forces would boost al-Qaeda, risk civil war in Iraq, and severely strain the Anglo-U.S. relationship, to the detriment of the war on terrorism and global security. While the Prime Minister is right to reject calls for a British withdrawal from Iraq, his decision to increase ties with Iran and Syria is a serious strategic error that would do no more than embolden these rogue regimes."

The Heritage's full paper can be read here.

Homeland security depends upon victory in Iraq

David Cameron has written for this morning's Sunday Times, setting out his homeland security agenda:

• The Conservative leader promises a cabinet minister dedicated to homeland security but without a US-style department because, he writes, "that would cause far too much upheaval."
• There'll also be a dedicated border police "to patrol every port and airport and exercise tight control over entry to, and exit from, Britain".
• He repeats his pledge to scrap Labour's £20bn ID card scheme and to invest the money in "security, surveillance and Special Branch."
• "It is time to replace the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights that will enable ministers to act within the law to protect our society."
• "Telephone intercept evidence should be made available to the courts."
• Mr Cameron's final point concerns the need to "embrace genuinely moderate Muslims, the majority who love Britain and want to live in peace, while confronting the fundamentalists."  Mr Cameron shares the concern of Michael Gove MP and Martin Bright that the Government has radicalised Muslim opinion within Britain by dealing with their most extreme representatives.

In an interview in the same newspaper Gordon Brown rejects the idea of a cabinet minister for homeland security:

“Every minister and every agency of government must take responsibility for security — each of them must play their part.  But, ultimately, because the fight against terrorism must be fought both at home and abroad, it is the prime minister who must take the lead, as Tony Blair has done. If you are prime minister, you cannot devolve responsibility for protecting the nation. It must always be your first priority.”

Mr Brown suggests that the Conservative Party does not understand “the scale of the threat we face” and reiterates his support for ID cards:

“You can’t protect your borders or conduct effective surveillance if you don’t have a proper system of identity management.”

The Chancellor, in a move certain to delight The Sun, also backed Met Chief Sir Ian Blair's latest intervention in support of a much longer detention period for suspected terrorists:

“Given the scale of the threat we face, we must give the security service and the police not just the resources they need, but the powers they need, to gather securely the evidence and use that evidence to gain convictions.”

Tories must be the party of homeland security

When I recently interviewed Australian Prime Minister John Howard for 18 Doughty Street Talk TV he was clear that the issues of 'prosperity and security' would be the two most important issues at his country's next election and at future elections.  We should listen to the world's most successful conservative leader.

As Labour plan their next General Election campaign - and it looks increasingly likely that Gordon Brown will be Tony Blair's successor - they will be emphasising the same issues.  British prosperity continues to give Labour its base popularity (despite declining global competitiveness) and a blitz on crime will be at the heart of next week's Queen's Speech.  Another ingredient of Labour's security message will be the idea that the Tories are weak on homeland security.  Labour are convinced that the British people are more concerned about fighting terrorism than civil liberties and Blair-Blunkett-Reid are prepared to compromise those liberties in the process.

The Conservative Party must act more purposefully to demonstrate that Labour's homeland security credentials are weak.  In an excellent article for today's Platform Patrick Mercer MP outlines some of Labour's failures on homeland security and he outlines a four-fold alternative strategy.  David Cameron has made some encouraging interventions on homeland security but probably needs to do more.  In our age of terror it is vital that the Conservative Party does not allow Gordon Brown to style himself as the great protector of the British people.  Conservatives must be mindful of ancient liberties but we must not give the impression that we are more fearful of the British state than al-Qaeda.

The dangers of terrorism are on all of today's frontpages again.  Today's Sun Says sums up the very real threats facing Britain and other western democracies:

"The head of MI5 emerged from the shadows yesterday to warn us all about the threat from al-Qaeda.  Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller rarely speaks in public.  Which is all the more reason why we should listen carefully to what she had to say.  In a chilling lecture, she predicted waves of terrorist bombings, some involving chemical and biological devices, for perhaps generations to come.  At this moment, at least 30 attacks are being actively planned and 1,600 suicidal young terrorists are under surveillance.  Round-the-clock vigilance by security services has thwarted five major conspiracies and saved countless lives.  But there are plenty more outrages being planned.  This week’s shocking revelations about Dhiren Barot’s fiendish plot to slaughter thousands here and in America leave few illusions about the risk to our way of life.  But we also need to understand this menace did not begin on 9/11 or with the invasion of Iraq — or even in the Middle East.  Barot was being trained to massacre innocent civilians long before the attack on New York.  The first plot against the UK was discovered and disrupted in 2000 — a year before the Twin Towers catastrophe.  The intelligence services are fighting a huge and elusive enemy on many fronts.  They are working at full stretch against an increasingly sophisticated and dangerous foe.  Sometimes they make mistakes.  But whatever hand-wringing liberals have to say, we need to remember two important things.  They are on OUR side . . . and they deserve ALL the support they can get."

William Hague's reaction to Saddam verdict

“We congratulate the Iraqi courts on reaching a verdict in such difficult circumstances, and the bravery shown by judges and witnesses in the face of severe violence and intimidation.  It is important that Saddam Hussein faces justice for his crimes, for the sake of both his many victims and of the future of Iraq and its people.  The verdict and sentencing of Saddam are a matter for Iraqi law and the Iraqi people, but they deserve the support of the international community in ensuring that the decisions reached by the court are respected.”

- Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, reacting to Saddam Hussein's death penalty verdict

Not today's news

This morning The Treasury isn't unveiling a report detailing the likely impact on international energy prices of Iran becoming a nuclear power with the potential to hold the world to ransom.  There is no sub-section of any report detailing the economic and ecological impact of Iran firing a battlefield nuclear weapon against Israel.

Former US Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman isn't being appointed as an adviser to the British Government with a responsibility to convince the American people that the United Nations is too morally compromised to do anything about North Korea's nuclear build-up.

Yesterday's Mail on Sunday did not report a leaked
memo from Des Browne to Gordon Brown calling for investment in a missile defence shield that might defend the western democracies from rogue states armed with nuclear weapons.

BBC reporters did not conduct any breathless interviews with scientists about the impact on world economies of a nuclear attack.

The Conservative Party did not issue the following statement: "The problem of climate change is serious but nuclear proliferation is a more imminent danger that demands the world's urgent attention."

Related link: Tory members rank global competition and terror as the greatest international challenges facing Britain today.

'Neither the guts to rule Iraq, nor the guts to quit'

The headline of this post - or something very like it - appeared on the front page of The Guardian, earlier this week.  'Neither the guts to rule nor the guts to quit' captures the current policy of Bush and Blair in Iraq.  We're caught in some sort of no-man's land between doing something to reverse the escalating violence (partition and/ or extra troops, for example, as recommended by John McCain) or we should admit that we were never serious about Iraq and bring our troops home.

In today's Philip Geddes Memorial Lecture Matthew d'Ancona attempts to remind us all of the nature of our enemy - 20th century Islamic terrorism:

"At its heart is a terrible mutation of a great world religion: a ferocious system of ideas that seeks theocracy at any price, regards mass murder as divinely ordained and wills not only the destruction of Israel but the overthrow of modern Western society. As V.S. Naipaul warned before 9/11, in some parts of the world, “religion has been tuned by some into a kind of nihilism” by people who “are enraged at the world and wish to pull it down”. By definition, those who adhere to such ideas cannot be appeased."

D'Ancona goes on to argue that increasingly consumerist western democracies lack both the patience and resolve to see that our enemy has guessed that we don't have the stomach for the long fight that is necessary for victory.  Here are some key extracts of the speech:

The time-frame of our enemy: "I was told recently by a source who has had access to intercepted secret Hamas documents, that they deal in timeframes of 50 and 100 years, measuring their objectives in generations, not months or years."

The time-frame of the western democracies: "That phrase [eye-catching initiatives], you will recall, was first used in the hideously embarrassing Blair memo leaked six years ago. That was a gruesome insight into the overwhelmingly tactical nature of much that modern Government does – its quest for what Bill Clinton’s former pollster, Dick Morris, calls the “daily mandate”... Truly, we now live in Warhol’s world: it is no longer just people who enjoy 15 minutes of fame, but Government initiatives, too."

Overstretch is real problem for British armed forces

General Sir Richard Dannatt's interview with the Daily Mail's Sarah Sands has been greeted with excitement by the anti-war press and it certainly offers ammunition to the critics of the Iraq operation.  Sir Richard worries that British troops might be exacerbating the security situation (but only in certain parts of Iraq), he complains about the treatment of injured soldiers and reflects on inadequate post-invasion planning.  He also casts doubt on the central Bush doctrine that democracy can be successfully planted in inhospitable terrain.

At the root of Sir Richard's interview appears to be the simple truth that Britain's armed forces are being asked to do too much with too little.  There are certainly criticisms of the Iraq operation in Sir Richard's remarks but his main concern appears to be the mounting consequences of overstretch.  He is concerned for his troops as every military leader should be.  Overstretch has been a long-standing concern of Liam Fox.

Earlier this week the Tories launched a campaign against NHS cuts.  A campaign to rebuild Britain's armed forces might be more appropriate given the global security perils.

Muslims warm to Tories' Israel line

The Pope has now issued an apology to Muslims after indirect suggestions that Islam was a violent religion were greeted with violent demonstrations across the Islamic world (eg here).  We are in danger of entering a climate of fear where legitimate debate about Islam is suffocated.  The still-unresolved Inigo Wilson/ Orange affair - instigated by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) - is part of this climate of fear.

The MPACUK do seem to be happy at recent initiatives by the current Tory leadership, however.  The willingness of David Cameron and William Hague to criticise Israeli action against the Hezbollah terrorists was hugely controversial amongst the Jewish community but has produced welcoming noises on the MPACUK website.  Under the title 'Red Sun Setting, Blue Tide Rising' the MPACUK writes:

"While Tony Blair angered Muslim opinion by expediting weapons to Israel and the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands, William Hague, the shadow Foreign Minister criticised Israel’s disproportionate force during the summer invasion of Lebanon and now David Cameron’s masterful distancing himself from the Neo-Con rhetoric. He has rejected a “clash of civilisations” and accepts the role of the United Nations. While he makes political capital from a divided Labour leadership and myopic foreign policy, the Muslim community has started to take notice.These public statements in themselves do not mean that the Tories are the “good guys”, but it does mean they are no longer the “bad guys”. The Tories will be the next Government whether at the next general election or the one after. The more progressive and politically astute Muslims must be part of that transition. The Tories are reaching out to us and we must reach out to them."

Editor's comment: If the Tories really are intent on supping with the likes of the MPACUK I hope it's with a very, very long spoon.

Douglas Murray is impatient with Mr Cameron

Douglas Murray, author of Neoconservatism - why we need it (book review), writing on the Social Affairs Unit blog, is unimpressed with the Tory leader's 9/11 speech -  particularly David Cameron's request for more patience in security policy:

"What we need to demonstrate least of all with Iran at the moment is "patience". Patience on the part of the international community has all but given Tehran a nuclear bomb. An increase in our level of "patience" now will produce a permanent existential threat to Israel and the West, and ensure the whole Middle East goes nuclear within a few years."

Editor's note: "The lack of urgency in David Cameron's speech was certainly disappointing.  If the US strategy of pre-emptive war in Iraq has been on endless media trial in Iraq there has been much less media scrutiny of the European preference for jaw-jaw which has prevailed in relations with Iran.  If Iran ends up with nuclear weaponry the European approach will have produced a much more terrifying scenario than an Iraq bloodily struggling to hold itself together but which has the possibility of succeeding.  The reason why I am less critical of David Cameron's speech than Douglas Murray is that it contains plenty to work with.  Mr Cameron hasn't ruled out pre-emption or acting outside of the UN, for example.  If the international security situation deteriorates over coming months and years - as I fear it will - then there is plenty of room in David Cameron's remarks to justify all that is necessary for Britain's defence.  Whether there is the will is another matter."

David Frum interviews Michael Gove

Fascinating interview with Michael Gove on David Frum's Diary.  Here is a key extract:

"Q: Why was the British establishment so fiercely hostile to the Lebanon war – much more so, it seems even than to Iraq?

A: In the 1990s, there was a significant section of left opinion – not numerous, but influential – that believed in liberal interventionism. These people regarded the Kosovo war as a great success. That success put great credit in Tony Blair’s account, credit he used to justify Iraq. Because Iraq is seen as not having worked as it should have done, any military action in the Middle East faces a much higher hurdle.

Beyond that, it is difficult for anyone not in Britain to appreciate how hostile elite opinion has grown to Israel has grown since the collapse of the Barak government. Hostility to Israel has become a touchstone issue around which the European left has coalesced. Without socialism, the proletarian can no longer be the poster boy of the left; the guerilla has taken his place. And Israel has become for the European left the archetype of the settler/ colonial/ bourgeois regime. The Palestinian is the archetype of the noble guerilla.

At a deep level in the European psyche, there flows an underground river of anti-semitism that anti-Zionism can tap into. But ultimately, anti-Israel feeling in Britain owes more to anti-westernism than to anti-semitism."

David Frum recently completed a Q&A for ConservativeHome.  Next week we'll be publishing two very different reviews of Michael's Celsius 7/7 book.

Pro and anti-war newspapers welcome Cameron's 9/11 speech

Lady Thatcher's side-by-side appearance with Dick Cheney yesterday to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 features prominently and proudly on the White House website.  But it has created a few tricky headlines for David Cameron in this morning's newspapers...

Team Cameron may conclude, however, that the headlines underline the changes that he is making to the Tory Party and also his determination to see Britain have a less slavish relationship with America.

Mr Cameron will be pleased at the welcome his 9/11 speech receives from Fleet Street's leader-writers.  The anti-war Guardian calls the speech "moderate, sensible and liberal" and the anti-war Mail describes it as "significant and statesmanlike."  The Mail hopes that Mr Cameron is distancing himself from "the warmongers who surround Mr Bush" and is "signalling a change in party policy that will come as a huge relief to many natural Tories."  The Times more or less shares ConservativeHome's own reading of the speech.  It believes that Mr Cameron distanced himself from the Bush-Blair execution of the war on terror but appears to have little quarrel with the big decisions of the last five years.  The Times finds more of a compassionate emphasis in Cameron's 'liberal conservatism' but christens it 'neocom' rather than 'neocon'.

The fact that newspapers with as different approaches to the war on terror as The Times and Daily Mail can all welcome yesterday's speech underlines the speech's principal weakness - it's completely unbankable.  Yesterday's speech told us little about what Mr Cameron would actually do now about, for example, stopping Iran becoming a nuclear power or preventing further genocide in Darfur.

Mr Cameron deserves our patience when it comes to unpacking the practical content of his 'liberal conservatism'.  Yesterday was a promising beginning but that was all it was.  At some point he's going to have to upset The Independent-Daily Mail axis or the Times-Sun grouping.  Early years Blair was, of course, able to please all sides of difficult debates but what made for good politics also made for bad government.

David Cameron's 9/11 speech

KEY EXTRACTS:

Fighting terrorism is priority number one: "Fighting terrorism is the most consuming concern for modern government."

A new Foreign Affairs advisory group: "I have established a Foreign Affairs Council to access the advice of a wide range of senior former diplomats and service personnel.  It includes, for example, Charles Powell and Charles Guthrie, as well as historians and former ministers, and will help me formulate foreign policy for the next Parliament."

Foreign policy cannot be reduced to soundbites: "It is not responsible to try and polarise debate through simplistic exercises in political positioning.  If you question the approach of the US administration, you’re “anti-American.”  If you support what the United States is doing, you’re “America’s poodle.”  If you care about civil liberties, you’re “soft on terror.”  If you back an extension of our security laws, you’re “building a police state”."

The terror threat is unprecedented: "This terrorist threat is clearly different from those we have faced before.  We are dealing with people who are prepared to do anything, kill any number, and use suicide attacks to further their aims.  These people include a number of our own citizens.  They are driven by a wholly incorrect interpretation - an extreme distortion - of the Islamic faith, which holds that mass murder and terror are not only acceptable, but necessary."

Neoconservatism - its successes and failures: "There is a wide-ranging debate about exactly what neo-conservatism is.  But for the purposes of my argument today, we can focus on three propositions that are most commonly understood to represent the core of neo-conservative thinking.  First, a realistic appreciation of the scale of the threat the world faces from terrorism.  Second, a conviction that pre-emptive military action is not only an appropriate, but a necessary component of tackling the terrorist threat in the short term.  And third, a belief that in the medium and long term, the promotion of freedom and democracy, including through regime change, is the best guarantee of our security.  We must be honest in looking at what has happened in the world during the five years that these beliefs have been the guiding principles of British and American policy.  It is, of course, a mixed picture.  We have managed to avert further terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11, and our security services deserve all our thanks for the brave and painstaking work they do.  And yet across the globe, terrorists are being recruited in increasing numbers and are active in many more areas than before September 11th."

The importance of the relationship with America: "The fact is that that Britain just cannot achieve the things we want to achieve in the world unless we work with the world’s superpower.  So when it comes to the special relationship with America, Conservatives feel it, understand it and believe in it.  All Conservatives share this attitude.  I cannot think of a single Conservative Member of Parliament who does not think the same way.  That is a source of great strength for any Conservative leader in their dealings with America.  We do not have to worry about a divided party at home.  It is precisely this strength of feeling that gives us the confidence to speak freely to any American administration."

How David Cameron's liberal conservatism differs from neoconservatism: "I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making.  Humility, and patience.  These are not warlike words.  They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years.  But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline.  They were unrealistic and simplistic.  They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world – and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch.  I do not see things that way. I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative.  Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support humanitarian intervention.  Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world.  A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions.

• First, that we should understand fully the threat we face.
• Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside.
• Third, that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action.
• Fourth, that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global challenges we face.
• And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority."

The importance of soft power: "Intelligence, economic development, educational training, support for pro-democracy groups, international law, foreign aid, sporting and cultural initiatives can all play their part.  Britain has a huge contribution to make here, from the knowledge and experience of our diplomats abroad, to the work of the British Council, to our expertise in culture, media and communications.  As the limits of military power become more obvious, we must use our non-military power to better effect.  So force should be a last resort."

New forms of multilateralism: "I believe we will need to both reform existing institutions, and develop new ones if we are to have the range of response mechanisms we need for the range of security challenges we face.  In deciding the most appropriate instrument for action, we will need to balance two factors: legitimacy, and effectiveness.  These factors tend to work in opposite directions.  The United Nations, for example, confers the ultimate legitimacy on any multilateral action.  But the very process of securing that legitimacy can undermine its effectiveness – as we saw, for example, in the Balkans.  We have seen another example more recently. Darfur is at the risk of genocide from the Government of Sudan.  Yet Sudan has been able to ensure that the UN is effectively unable to act.  So we may need to fashion alliances which can act faster than the machinery of formal international institutions.  We must also use our considerable historic, cultural and trading links with Islamic governments that seek cooperation rather than confrontation, to strengthen their position domestically and within the Islamic world.  For instance I regret that our Government has been so indifferent to the views, and neglectful of our friendship with, the Gulf states."

We must guard our highest principles in this war: "We must not stoop to illiberalism – whether at Guantanamo Bay, or here at home with excessive periods of detention without trial.  We must not turn a blind eye to the excesses of our allies – abuses of human rights in some Arab countries, or disproportionate Israeli bombing in Lebanon.  We are fighting for the principles of civilisation – let us not abandon those principles in the methods we employ."

Download david_cameron_911_speech.pdf

Editor's initial reaction: "This is much better than I had expected and much more serious in content than this morning's Times had suggested.  There's little here that's bankable but I'm pleased to read of David Cameron's support for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and for his willingness to operate beyond the United Nations, if necessary.  A lot of flesh needs to be put on the bones of his 'new multilateralism' and I wish there was a greater sense of urgency in his language on, for example, Iran.  Overall an encouraging speech, however."

Danny Finkelstein's reaction (3.58pm): "The speech may be seen as distancing conservatives from neoconservatives. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. Instead it is endorsing neoconservatism and then trying to distance it from the conduct of foreign policy by George Bush and Tony Blair..."  Click here.

Guido thinks DC's speech is a lift from Francis Fukuyama's "After the Neo-Cons"... but with a different conclusion.

If you read nothing else today...

Mr Cameron's 9/11 speech apparently targets anti-Americanism.  He should begin at the BBC.  The Today programme marked the anniversary of Katrina with an interview with Spike Lee.  This morning the BBC gave a platform to Gore Vidal and his 'America has become a police state' nonsense.  'Aren't you exaggerating just a little bit?' teased the interviewer.  Most Americans would not regard either Lee or Vidal as representative of their views but that does not stop the BBC representing them as such.

If you read nothing else today I would point you to this by Christopher Hitchens.  Few people have a better understanding of what the war on terror involves.

ATTEND BBC BIAS EVENT TONIGHT.

NOON ADDITION: Drinking from Home on how today's BBC might have reported 1943.

Conservative policy in the age of terror

Tomorrow is the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and David Cameron is due to make a major speech on foreign and security policy.  In last week's Telegraph, Rachel Sylvester wrote that the Tory leader "has done more work on this speech than any other he has made."  Mr Cameron will make the speech at lunchtime tomorrow - coinciding with the time that New York and Washington were attacked five years ago.

The speech may appear in the first editions of tomorrow's newspapers.  These are the things I hope Mr Cameron's speech will communicate:

(1) Britain is at war and western civilisation is in danger. The threat posed by Islamic fascists could hardly be more serious.  Peggy Noonan understood the danger eight years ago.  The world has always been populated by evil men, she wrote, but it is the availability of devastating but portable weaponry that is the 'big new thing'.

(2) Iran must be stopped from becoming a nuclear power.  George W Bush has recently compared the Iranian President to Adolf Hitler.  It's far from a perfect analogy but, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out, it doesn't need to be: "Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria recently penned a thoughtful essay debunking the 1938 analogy. Iran is an economic and military weakling compared to the Teutonic juggernaut of the Third Reich. Inflating Ahmadinejad into Hitler stretches the analogy to the breaking point. Fair enough, but Ahmadinejad has options Hitler didn’t. Der Fuehrer needed a strong economy and an enormous military to accomplish his objectives. Thanks to things such as nuclear and (soon) biological weapons, second-rate powers like Iran, as well as basket cases like North Korea and modern-day Thugees like bin Laden, can quickly attain the destructive power Hitler only dreamed of. As science proceeds, we can be sure this reality will loom ever more frightening."