Thursday, March 23, 2006

The Sons of the Desert Stick Together

Commentary by Martin Kelly
September 2, 2004

It’s interesting that the RNC should meet in New York City, the ‘city that never sleeps’, as the city’s greatest tragedy happened because both the Republicans and the Democrats were asleep at the wheel.

While George W. Bush holds court in the backyard of the Fifth Avenue Commissars, his fellow ‘conservatives’ in the United Kingdom are breathing defiance of their mainstream trans-Atlantic bedfellows. It has been reported that Michael Howard, leader of the squalid, unelectable band that goes under the name of the Parliamentary Conservative Party, will not ever be invited to meet the President.

The reason that’s been given for this Cold War between the English speaking world’s two main ‘conservative’ parties is Howard’s earlier flip-flop in relation to the Iraqi tragicomedy of errors. Howard is an odious politician, willing to sell out one of the bedrocks of conservative thought, preservation of the status of the traditional family unit, for the cheapest of cheap electoral advantages (see The Unprincipled Losers of The British Conservative Party – http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8051.shtml). As Home Secretary responsible for law and order one of his Ministers, Ann Widdecombe, wrote that he had ‘something of the night’ about him. With such a man at its head, it’s only to be expected that a party that was wholeheartedly in favour of war a year ago should take every opportunity it can to kick the Prime Minister when he’s down.

However, the real reason for the banning of Howard from the President’s presence is likely to be the unwritten but very active policy of the Bush White House, actually the real Bush Doctrine – the administrations of foreign countries engaged in or sympathetic to the Iraqi effort must be preserved. And just about the only person left in the Labour Party supporting the war is Tony Blair. Bush must protect Blair, by any means necessary. The Sons Of The Desert must stick together.

On the morning of March 5th, it was reported here that the IMF wanted to hire Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as its new head. Brown is Blair’s biggest rival and likely successor. A crude attempt by the State Dept. to manage risk by forestalling a palace coup within the Parliamentary Labour Party that would remove Blair and install Brown, who’s a socialist to his core? You never know.

Just as the self-styled ‘conservative for Nader’ Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com is settling into his armchair to enjoy the prospect of Israeli spies in The Pentagon being unmasked and led away in irons to Shark Island or Abu Ghraib, so too he should consider the impact that overt interference in British politics might have on what remains of the effort. Although UK losses have been minimal in relation to America’s, the Communist Anti-War Left have bounced back like rubber after they found out that the war wasn’t about oil, certainly not at over $40 a barrel. One can almost detect a silent glee from the BBC as it reports the death of every GI, not realising that the more Americans are killed, the more firmly the pseudo-Trotskyite neoconservative entryists at the top of the Bush Administration will feel the need to crush their opposition. Because crushing is all they know. It’s the only word in their vocabulary, and it’s what kicked this whole mess off in the first place.

But in the presence of alternatives such as deterrence, containment and massive and sustained counter-terrorism against the Islamist green menace, which both parties helped create by endorsing free markets, mass immigration and multiculturalism, means that the people will only take being party to the crushing of innocent civilians for so long. Once started, a job has to be finished, which makes Kerry’s deadly ambivalence over what he would do in Iraq the strongest reason of all not to vote for him, regardless of what he did or didn’t do or what injuries he did or didn’t sustain in an absolutely lethal war zone before a number of his most aggressive critics were born. But it is not in the nature of Americans, or Brits, to crush. Blair and Bush seem to have no problem with it – that may be a part of their Type A characters. Type A’s don’t realise that in politics, unlike business, the people who hire you aren’t like you. Most of them loathe you, and see the existence of your position as a necessary evil they’d rather not think about.
But when you’re a man on a mission, like George W. Bush, or if everything you do is triangulated to securing your place in history, like Blair, then you will crush and continue to crush until you have done so much crushing that you’ve got what you wanted, whatever it was. As time goes on, the willingness of the coalition’s leaders to continue this venture in a country that now has some form of legal independence is unsettling, and Bush’s hostile actions towards those who would ordinarily be perfect bedfellows show that they’re in it together, to the bitter end. Are these boys on, like, some kind of, um… Crusade?