What was surprising was Tony Blair's willingness to actually support a continuation of the war in Lebanon. Rather than stopping fighting and having a negotiation to resolve the situation with the prisoners he actually backed a continuation of fighting.
It is quite clear that Israel does not want to stop the fighting. To that extent Hezbollah have played into their hands by not returning the kidnapped soldiers.
I was, however, surprised that Tony Blair actually supported the continuation of fighting.
The "war on terror" is a misnomer. It is not really a war. The problem with a war is that it needs to have a strategic objective. If you kill a number of people deemed to be terrorists it is likely that more of their relatives than were killed will decide to get involved in the conflict. This does depend upon how things happen. In many ways "international humanitarian law" is designed to manage conflicts so that the hatreds that grow during wars and other conflicts don't endure over the generations.
The war on terror is in theory to establish uncorrupt democracies (eg no people bribing their way into parliament). The "west" will, however, continue to breed its own enemies if this continues in the way it has so far.
There is a simple question as to where in the world is the strategy taken during the war on terror actually reducing on a month by month basis the amount of asymmetric/terrorist attacks.
I don't think we can claim success in the Middle East, Iraq or Afghanistan.
It is quite clear that Israel does not want to stop the fighting. To that extent Hezbollah have played into their hands by not returning the kidnapped soldiers.
I was, however, surprised that Tony Blair actually supported the continuation of fighting.
The "war on terror" is a misnomer. It is not really a war. The problem with a war is that it needs to have a strategic objective. If you kill a number of people deemed to be terrorists it is likely that more of their relatives than were killed will decide to get involved in the conflict. This does depend upon how things happen. In many ways "international humanitarian law" is designed to manage conflicts so that the hatreds that grow during wars and other conflicts don't endure over the generations.
The war on terror is in theory to establish uncorrupt democracies (eg no people bribing their way into parliament). The "west" will, however, continue to breed its own enemies if this continues in the way it has so far.
There is a simple question as to where in the world is the strategy taken during the war on terror actually reducing on a month by month basis the amount of asymmetric/terrorist attacks.
I don't think we can claim success in the Middle East, Iraq or Afghanistan.
Comments
perhaps you would share with us your alternative plan?
Personally I believe that any solution will not be simple and will not be delivered within the typical political attention spans. Many of our current problems seem to have their roots in the 'Quick Win' solutions applied to earlier problems, many of which had their roots in similar 'Quick Wins', this seems to apply to everythign from international terrorism through national policy errors down to fiascos in local government.
Stephen
This is not in any way a "Quick Win".
I spoke at the PPP meeting today in Aston and they said they would put the speech on their website.
If I find it I will link to it.