David Cameron rejects surrender in Iraq

On this morning's Today programme David Cameron confirmed that he wasn't "interested in tickets and deals."  He specifically ruled out an alliance with Ken Clarke.  He cited Europe saying that he did not share Mr Clarke's vision of "ever closer union".   But his support for the war in Iraq - expressed, today, in a big speech on homeland security and "the threat from extremist Islamist terrorism" - also puts him at odds with the former Chancellor.

On 7th July Britain joined "the long list of nations to be directly targeted by extremist Islamist terror," he said:

"Indonesia, India, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania and the United States of America."

He then provided a considered analysis of the fundamentalist Islamicism behind today's terrorist threat and how it has grown.  He compared it to Nazi-ism and Communism in its offer of "redemption through violence":

"The parallels with the rise of Nazi-ism go further. Just as there were figures in the nineteen-thirties who misunderstood the totalitarian wickedness of Nazi-ism and argued that Hitler had a rational set of limited political demands, so there are people today who try to explain Jihadist violence with reference to a limited set of political goals.  If only, some argue, we withdrew from Iraq, or Israel made massive concessions, then we would assuage Jihadist anger.  That argument, while often advanced by well-meaning people, is as limited as the belief in the Thirties that, by allowing Germany to remilitarise the Rhineland or take over the Sudetenland, we would satisfy Nazi ambitions."

He was emphatic in his support for the coalition in Iraq: "The mission to establish a representative Government in Iraq is a cause worth fighting for."  Weakness now would be disastrous, he predicted.  Weaknesses over recent years had, in fact, invited the events of 9/11 and 7/7:

"In the 1990s the inaction of the West fed the belief among Osama bin Laden and his allies that we lacked the strength to defend ourselves. The ignominious US withdrawal from Somalia. The weakness of the response to the bombings of embassies in Africa - and to the attack on the USS Cole. All these factors signalled weakness, especially in the face of a determined and fanatical foe.  The lesson from all of this with respect to our presence in Iraq is clear.  Premature withdrawal - and failure to support the Iraqi authority - would be seen as a surrender to militant Jihadism. Nothing would embolden the terrorists more." 

American conservatives are currently critical of George W Bush's inadequate defence of the Iraq war (see David Frum's 'Another Lost Opportunity' entry of yesterday by clicking here and scrolling down) but British supporters of the war in Iraq will be impressed by Mr Cameron's resolution and his analysis of the Islamic roots of the current terror threat.  Mr Cameron's essay may be the work of Michael Gove or George Osborne - both strong supporters of the Iraq war aims.  The  only obvious weakness in the analysis - from a hawk's perspective - was his failure to finger Saudi Arabia for its connections with ideological Jihadism.

The speech (to Stephen Twigg's Foreign Policy Centre) also trampled over David Davis' turf but Mr Cameron assured listeners to Radio 4 that the Shadow Home Secretary's office had seen an advance copy.  The Shadow Education Secretary called for the deportation of people who threaten national security which should mean leaving the ECHR if necessary; 24 hour security at major ports; embarkation controls; and better funded intelligence services.

Comments

[wasp]

Sounds really very good. Even if he won't admit that the war was a massive miscalculation and the worst mistake the Conservative Party has ever made. At least he's capapble of rationally assesing the situation. Something Blair hasn't been able to do.

[Ho Ho Ho]

Yeah, David Cameron, the great big tuff Eurosceptic - that's, I s'pose, why he was trawling (unsuccessfully, natch) for Hezza's support?

Why is anyone taking this 'Cameron rebuffs Clarke' rot seriously? 'Clarke rebuffs Cameron's whining' is rather more to the point.

[Selsdon Man]

It was a good speech and I too detect Michael Gove's hand. He is in favour of regime change and supported invasion without a second UN resolution. That makes him hawkish in my opinion.

I was disappointed that Mr cameron did not comment on the dodgy dossier or the Niger faked documents that were used to justify the war. The hawks (e.g. Frum, Krauthammer, Kristol and other neo-cons) now ignore the fact that Saddam's WMDs (Blair's and IDS's justification for military action) did not exist.

As I said before on another post, today's speech by Cameron is an attempt to pick up supporters from the "right". This indicates that he is not attracting the centre-left votes.

Cameron may be trying to re-position himself as a pro-Bush neo-conservative - compassionate conservatism with an interventionist foreign policy.

Can Cameron attract the "Faith and Flag" Cornerstone supporters? He needs their votes but is he Eurosceptic enough?

The leadership race is hotting up.

[Mark O'Brien]

As political speeches go, this was a good one and leaves us in little doubt about his position on one of the most important issues of the day.

On Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction, I don't blame him for (inadvertantly or not) sweeping WMD and the dodgy dossier under the carpet. I was always in favour of the Iraq war, though I never really was concerned by the weapons issue: I felt that was a good excuse to exploit, but it was not for me the real reason to take action against Saddam Hussein. But, of course, in the months preceding invasion, I trusted my government and thought that they wouldn't lie to me or tell me something was gospel truth when it was open to a lot of doubt. And now that we know the truth about WMD, whenever I try to explain my position (that WMD was always a less important concern than the nature of Saddam's evil regime) I get accused of moving the goalposts - just like Michael Howard was when he said he wouldn't have voted for the Commons motion, but still supported the war.

For Conservatives, Iraq will always be a tricky issue to overcome. There are three approaches we can take: condemn the war and admit we were terribly wrong about it (which I still don't think we were, considering the nature of the regime); still support it and declare 'je ne regrette rien' (even though we do 'regrette chose'); or we say, get over it and move on, get the security situation in Iraq dealt with, ensure political stability, and think a bit more the next time we are unhappy with a country. For the post-Cold War western world, Iraq may be our coming of age. The Conservative approach should probably be the last one: to learn the lessons of Iraq, not fight the same old battles over and over again.

[Bellman]

At last - a non-managerial speech from Cameron. I too detect the pen of Gove, but that's no bad thing. Would that the same rigour would be applied to his domestic utterances.

[James Hellyer]

It was a good speech as these things go, but I admit to sharing the suspicion that Cameron is repositioning himself to aim at more of the right wing vote.

In terms of content, I think the comparison with the Nazis was a little offbeam. Nobody serious is actually suggesting appeasing the Qutbists, because their deamnds are no ones it is possible to compromise on. Furthermore the comparison appears to have overshadowed the coverage of the many sensible points that Cameron made.

[wasp]

I think people are engaging in appeasement.

Look at Blair's encouragement of Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his disgraceful Muslim Council of Britain. A man who refused to attend holocaust memorial day because it did not include suffering in palestine and checnya.

There is no equivalence between territorial disputes and the holocaust, yet Sacranie is encouraging the Muslim victim scenario that is at the heart of islamic fundamentalism.

[John]

Just listen to Osama Bin Laden. He said that he attacked America on Spetember 11th because Bush had close connections to the Saudi family in Saudi Arabia. It wasn't attack against the world, it wasn't because they thought America was weak, it was because Bush had close connections to the Saudi family in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi family is the wealthiest family in America, the Bin Laden family is the second wealthiest, and obviously the Bin Laden family dosen't like the Saudi family. Once Osama Bin Laden found out that Bush had close connections to Saudi Arabia he got out Al Quada(a group of people that got CIA training and $3 Billion of Americas taxpayers money because they were fighting Iran back in 1984 under the Reagan Presidency) and bombed America.

[John]

Up top when I said the "Saudi family is the Wealthiest family in America" I meant the wealthiest family in Saudi Arabia.

[UK Hotels]

Your blog is very motivating. When I was reading it, I get drawn in. I am totally agreed with your thoughts. Thanks for sharing this beautiful thoughts with me.

[air jordan]

It really a useful idea.I will have a tiral of this idea as soon as possible as have already frustrated by them for a long time.Thank you very much for your continously post of effective tips.It really do me a great favor.

[air jordan 2]

Your article is appealing. After reading it,I derive pleasure and benefit. What's more, your blog looks simple and elegant. I like it. WISH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY SAFE AND HAPPY.

[retro jordan]

daxr

[true religion outlet]

LO LO LO LO.....Has been very quiet, to give you love has been very quiet, you say you love like a cloud, to float freely until beautiful.....

[Cheap Jordan Shoes]

Treat a man as he can and should be,“and he shall become as he can and should be.”

[Vibram Five Fingers]

This is a great body of material in the article, the content is very rich, very charming. Therefore, this article is good, mostly good content, content, expression, under a great deal of effort, which is the main local paper appealing. This is a very good article, some more supporters.

[cheap auto insurance]

He seems to be settling to the job well. I am quite surprised.

[Moncler outlet]

Your article is one of the most classical style, when I read once, I have been deeply in love with them, you look forward to more perfect work.

[juicy couture outlet]

I have read your article, I love them so much I will put your webpage is saved, they are really very good.

[Moncler]

This is my first time to your website, I send you the very distinctive, deserve me to treasure. Your article I learned a lot of things, thank you.

[moncler jacken]

Too good too cool when I read it really benefit, thank you for publishing works so well, I expect you to continue publishing more good articles.

[Moncler online shop]

I am appreciate your blog, is really very good good super endless good good love love super love I expect your good blog continues to attract me love love love....

[Moncler outlet]

Recent articles. I think this is the most beautiful in the world the article, there must be many people like it your works will get everyone recognized you is the best I will always support you

[car insurance quotes]

Thanks for this post. The subject of Iraq can always be a tricky thing to talk about.

[moncler jacken]

I have been keeping track of your site for a long time I read these articles, this is an interesting reading I will continue to pay attention to it more