I was much struck by the Telegraph’s explanation, in its leader today, of why we are having problems with Muslims:
After all, the question of whether it is possible to be a good British Muslim is not a new one. Hundreds of millions of Muslims lived peacefully under the British Crown, in India, Sudan, Malaya and elsewhere. They saw no conflict between their faith and their civic loyalty, fighting for Britain even when we went to war against the Ottoman Caliph. The difference is that, in those days, we had confidence in ourselves, and conveyed this confidence to others.
If only I had known that the world was so simple! I decided to find other pearls from the Telegraph leader writers’ advice on Muslims. Just from the leaders published in 2002 and 2003 I learned an enormous amount. So much that I can’t fit it on this page — in fact I can’t even fit it into this universe, but have managed to link the extended entry into Planet Telegraph. I have italicised the most prophetic passages. Enjoy.
“The World after Saddam” 30 July 2002
Given Saddam’s record of internal oppression and external aggression, his removal from power alone is a great prize. But the impact of his fall would be much greater than that. It would fire a powerful shot across the bows of all states that sponsor terrorism.
It would serve as a warning to would-be nuclear-armed powers such as Iran. It would remove an important prop to those Palestinians and their backers who would drive Israel into the sea.
“America’s End game” 17 October 2002
The Bush Administration rejects the case for stability at all costs, with its patronising rider that Muslims are incapable of democratic governance, and points to a change in Western policy. That embraces not just the concept of a preventive strike, which has already raised hackles in Europe, but also the much more ambitious, and risky, goal of encouraging Arabs and Iranians to throw off corrupt, oppressive and inefficient governments.
If we are to go into Iraq alongside the Americans, it is as well that we know the nature of their end-game. Miss Rice’s article fulfils that function. The Prime Minister may choose to speak of disarmament, but he should not be allowed to conceal a far grander American design. That is no less than a revolutionary remaking of the Middle East. Under Mr Bush, the lone superpower thinks big.
“The Baghdad reshuffle 12 February 2003
Dr Chalabi is alleged to be a “saloniste”, it is implied that he is effete and incapable of ruling. It is held that only nasty men can exercise power – though not, of course, quite so nasty as Saddam.
Even if this allegation were true, it might reasonably be argued that, after decades of Ba’athist totalitarianism, the people of Iraq deserve a break in the shape of a bit of effete salonisme. But Dr Chalabi’s project is far more serious than that. He has made great progress, most obviously in the form of President Bush’s commitments to removing Saddam from power and to installing a democracy. The Pentagon, where many of his firmest admirers are located, will be the lead agency in the post-war Iraq.
By a curious quirk of fate, the supposedly crazed Right-wingers of the Defence Department are those most committed to giving the Iraqi people ownership of their own country – as opposed to allowing their fate to be determined by some ex-Ba’athist has-been or the neighbouring states.
“A day of Joy for Iraq” 10 April 2003
Using half the number of troops deployed in the 1991 Gulf war, the coalition swept deep into Iraq in days. Instead of flattening Iraq with overwhelming force, it hit, for the most part, precise targets. Horrible though all civilian casualties are, the predictions that there would be hundreds of thousands of them have been proved absolutely wild, as have the notions of long drawn out and hideous street-fighting in the cities.
In the past month, Britain has proved its political and military independence, its global reach and its capacity for decisive action. These are huge benefits, not to be squandered on “multilateralism” and assuaging the hurt feelings of the EU and the UN.
“Hope in Iraq” 13 October 2003
Allied forces in Iraq are not facing a national resistance movement. The terrorists are an unholy alliance of diehard Saddamites and foreign “jihadis” who have flocked to Iraq from across the Islamic world. Much of the country is quiet, with most incidents concentrated in a few troublespots.
Mr Bremer must also calm the many Iraqis who still fear that Saddam might return. For as long as the deposed tyrant remains at large, fear deters ordinary Iraqis from helping the coalition to thwart his followers. Car bombs must not be allowed to divert any effort from the task of hunting down Saddam. His scalp would do more than anything else to restore the coalition’s standing among Iraqis.
“Baathist bloody swansong” 28 October 2003
October in Iraq has so far not proved as deadly as August, when the destruction of United Nations headquarters in Baghdad was followed by the bombing of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, the holiest Shi’ite shrine. But the rockets fired on Sunday at the hotel where Paul Wolfowitz, the American deputy defence secretary, was staying, and the attacks yesterday on the International Committee of the Red Cross and three police stations are graphic evidence of the allies’ continuing failure to provide a secure environment in the country they have liberated.
Good God! can it be that the Telegraph itself was suffering from a lack of confidence? Could anything else explain the subsequent course of events in Iraq?
Perhaps I am being unfair in suggesting that any member of this magnificent regiment of leader writers stopped for a moment to doubt, or reflect. If I were to quote from signed opinion pieces as well or insted, it would be completely impossible to understand how anything had ever gone wrong. You can get a flavour from this list of headlines.