An Unlikely Civil War

The blogger Mr Smith has pointed out a number of posts from Paul Weston, who he describes as a 'social commentator'. What caught my eye most was the two posts entitled 'Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025?' The article, in reality, is ruminations by Weston on demographics and the ubiquity of violence in states with large Muslims populations.

Obviously, I am well aware of the arguments about demographics; I have read Pat Buchanan’s Death of the West and I used to lap up plenty of Mark Steyn’s doom-laden columns, in years gone by. And I certainly can see the validity of the argument - inward Islamic immigration continues unabated, whilst 'white flight' is a well documented phenomenon.

However, I think that extrapolating short term trends over a long period of time, is risky territory. Weston seems to believe that there will be a violent reaction to one terrorist attack too many. Is that realistic? I can forsee more and more people angered by terrorism, certainly, but their likely reaction will be to agitate for strict Islamic immigration restrictions and against the building of 'Mega Mosques', both policies that would postpone, or even stop, 'Islamification'.

There are also a couple of other tenuous arguments within the article.

Even if we agree with Weston's demographic argument, the 5 to 1 ratio is over the whole of Europe. Yet, this is likely to mean that in a country like France the ratio will be high, in many other countries in Europe the ratio will be low. Will the hopelessly outnumbered Muslim populations in these countries rise up in support of Sharia too? They will need to, if the thesis is correct, because it will require a massive sectarian conflict, like that in Iraq, to really render the Police and Army useless. Again, this all seems highly unlikely to myself.

There is, however, a killer section in the article, which I will reproduce here:

In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive was Islam, not oppression.

Weston has it on the submissive aspects of the governments of Western Europe, and the simple fact is that it far easier for Muslims to work within the current policial framework, extracting concessions, if they desire an Islam dominated future. In short, the obsession with minority interests, which dominates British politics, offers a richer ground for Islamists than engaging in a mass war.

Now I will engage in my little bit of fantasy: it's 2011, a charismatic Muslim leader emerges, styled as a moderate, who attempts to combat 'Islamophobia' and the 'extremists' within his community, he is feted by the Guardian, the Coexistence Trust and the BBC. Affable, presentable and a model of 'integration success', he is more Barak Obama than George Galloway. His party, helped by the 'ethnic voting' that those from the Indian Subcontient routinely engage in, win a good number of seats in the General Election.

The government court him, wanting to bring back the voters that they have lost back into the fold, and aim to concede to whatever he desires. And then the dam will have burst: Islamic schools, Mega Mosques, Islamic courts, will quickly become a daily reality of life in Britain. Perhaps, similar movements will arise in France, Sweden and Holland, too.

Britain will continue to exist, but will have become hollowed out and divided. And if, like Weston, you're looking for a Hadrianople or an Alaric outside the gates, you will not see the destruction right in front of your eyes.

Iraq Descending.....

More sad news from Iraq today. That follows Remembrance Sunday's deaths, at the hands of Shia Militia.

Matters seem to be coming to a head right now. So, it's likely that we will have to make some serious decisions soon. The options are very simple: more troops, full withdrawal, or an attempt to stop foreign interference, letting Iraq sink, swim, or divide by itself. Perhaps there is also another option, one which was suggested by Democrat Joseph Biden, divide Iraq on ethnic grounds.

Well, firstly, more troops is a complete non-starter. Pat Buchanan said:

Americans will not send added troops to Iraq, as McCain urges. They want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences.

Quite simply it's too late to send in more troops, too much blood has been spilled, too much money has been spent. There is no public will for such a move. And frankly, would more troops have neccesarily 'won us' the war, anyway? According to this article it would have been a struggle with 500,000. Knowing this fact now, makes Rumsfeld's idiocy seem even more acute.

One fact that has to be acknowledged, is that our troops presence more than likely is making things worse. Therefore, even if we set up seperate regions, as Biden suggests, we are still likely to face the brunt of angry insurgents, blaming us for their region being given 'a raw deal'. It's obvious that the best thing would be for us to get our troops out.

A full withdrawal is so unlikely that, whatever Buchanan says, it is not going to happen. Its lauding, as a victory for Jihadists, would set a dangerous precedent. And, it would be such an admission of defeat, that it would almost certainly condemn its architects to the political trash can.

What to do then? All I can do is ask whether we are able to withdraw our troops to the desert and borders of Iraq. Therefore, we might be able to limit Syrian, Iranian and Turkish meddling in a possible civil war. This seems to be our best option, and that fact is the most damning thing to say about the whole debacle.

(BTW - there are still some in the Blogosphere who believe that we are 'winning' in Iraq. God only knows what a defeat would look like.)