There is No Alternative (52 page)
Read There is No Alternative Online
Authors: Claire Berlinski
I asked this question again and again; the response was always the same.
CB:
When you were working with Mrs. Thatcher, was there any anticipation of the conflict with radical Islam?
When you were working with Mrs. Thatcher, was there any anticipation of the conflict with radical Islam?
Peter Walker:
No, not really, no.
No, not really, no.
CB:
It was really not anticipatedâ
It was really not anticipatedâ
PW:
I never heard a murmur.
I never heard a murmur.
However much this appears to be the crucial conflict of the modern world, it truly does seem that Thatcher had nothing to say about it.
Thatcher's vision and her accomplishments were considerableâimmense, evenâbut this business of venerating her as an infallible living god is intellectually indefensible and slightly idolatrous. It simply isn't plausible, however often it is asserted, that if she were still in charge, we wouldn't be in this messâ“this mess” being whatever has recently gone wrong.
In March 2007, when British sailors were seized, held hostage, and humiliated by the Iranian navy, you could scarcely open a newspaper without reading that this would never have happened if Thatcher were in power.
CB:
How do you think she would have handled the Iranian seizure of the British sailors? And I know you can't answer that definitively, butâ
How do you think she would have handled the Iranian seizure of the British sailors? And I know you can't answer that definitively, butâ
Charles Powell:
Yes, well, I mean, it's hard toâshe was shocked, to the degree that she understood what had happened, she really was. Well, first of all, I find it so hard to believe it would have happened in those days. I mean, her armed forces were just better-equipped and everything . . . once it had happened, I think she would have been very strong in her rhetoric about absolutely no bargaining . . . we wouldn't have surrendered to blackmail, there would have been no giving in to the Iranians, for the hostages . . . and they would certainly not have been treated in any way as heroes when they got back. But that's all speculation.
Yes, well, I mean, it's hard toâshe was shocked, to the degree that she understood what had happened, she really was. Well, first of all, I find it so hard to believe it would have happened in those days. I mean, her armed forces were just better-equipped and everything . . . once it had happened, I think she would have been very strong in her rhetoric about absolutely no bargaining . . . we wouldn't have surrendered to blackmail, there would have been no giving in to the Iranians, for the hostages . . . and they would certainly not have been treated in any way as heroes when they got back. But that's all speculation.
Perhaps that is just what would have happenedâno bargaining, no giving in, and no one would have dared to do that to her in the first place. Or perhaps not. A small but relevant point: On April 17, 1984, a group of anti-Gadhafi demonstrators gathered in front of the Libyan embassy in London. Gadhafi loyalists opened fire on the demonstrators from the second floor of the embassy, striking and killing a young British policewoman. Shortly afterward, the murderers were permitted quietly to leave the country. They were not arrested and tried, despite howls of outrage from the British press. Why not? Because Thatcher feared reprisals against British citizens in Libya. This is precisely the sort of thing that would
never
have happened if Thatcher were still in power, except that in this case, Thatcher was in power.
never
have happened if Thatcher were still in power, except that in this case, Thatcher was in power.
In other words, as Powell rightly says, it is all speculation.
It is likewise often said that if Thatcher were still in power, we would never have gone into Iraq so unprepared to cope with the aftermath of the invasion.
CB:
I wonder how you think she would have handled Iraq . . . The overwhelming feeling I get is that this is a woman who picks her battles very, very carefullyâ
I wonder how you think she would have handled Iraq . . . The overwhelming feeling I get is that this is a woman who picks her battles very, very carefullyâ
John Hoskyns:
Yes.
Yes.
Miranda Hoskyns:
You always said she was quite cautious about quite a lot of thingsâ
You always said she was quite cautious about quite a lot of thingsâ
JH:
She was,
rightly.
Everyone said she was very cautious, but one would say that was sensible. Sensibly so. She realized how things can go wrong. And also, certainly, once she'd been prime minister for five or six years, she also realized how absolutely crucial it wasâand this was what I was always going on about, with my business experience and indeed my military experience, little though that wasâthat there really are only a
few
things that you're going to be able to do, and they've
got
to be related to whatever the great purpose is, small in number, and they've got to be worked out like
mad
before you do them. And even then, one out of three will probably go disastrously wrong. This you've seen in all her domestic policy. So I can imagine her intuitively saying, you know . . .
the question is, how do we get out again?
. . . I can imagine that she would have been basically pretty sympathetic to the war, as I was . . . I didn't think, “Oh, this is a wonderful idea. This is the best thing we've ever done,” but what I could see was, and I think people over here were very short-sighted about it, was if you had had 9/11 in the middle of London, you do realize that you've got to do
something
âelectorally, politically, and in terms of sort of material force . . . What it is you do, I don't know, but you can't just sort of say, “We must all stay very calm and play âThe Stars and Stripes' and hope for the best.” Because all the Arabists say, or many of them say, the one thing Islamic fundamentalism says is that the West is depraved, disintegrating, collapsing, corrupt, and all we really have to do is give one push and the whole thing will implode. So you better make
sure that they don't get that presumption confirmed . . . She might easily have listened, she might have talked to one of the top generals or soldiers offline, nobody knowing, and they would have said, “I'm sure we can win that little war, but we really do have to know what happens after that.” . . . And I would have thought her caution would have said, “We really
do
have to know.” Because again, she's intuitive! She isn't stupid! And one feels now, which I
didn't
at the time, because I
didn't
believe it, but you know, that Rumsfeld and others wereâalmost
mad!
They must have been! . . . I feel that if she'd been there, she wouldn't have had those sort of people, she wouldn't have been that stupid herself, and she'd have had cleverer people 'round her, and there's a
chance
she would have said . . . “I think this Rumsfeld fellow's got it wrong. I don't think he really understands what he's doing. And he should certainly not, as your Secretary of Defense, be telling Colin Powell to go away and shut up. Because the State Department is going to have to pick up these pieces.” I can't believe she would have been that stupid. Whereas it seems to me that Blair thought, “This is wonderful. I'm going to ride behind the mighty colossus of American military power, we put in a few thousand jolly good British troops, just to show we're willing, and my name will be in lights! Isn't this fun!” You know?
She was,
rightly.
Everyone said she was very cautious, but one would say that was sensible. Sensibly so. She realized how things can go wrong. And also, certainly, once she'd been prime minister for five or six years, she also realized how absolutely crucial it wasâand this was what I was always going on about, with my business experience and indeed my military experience, little though that wasâthat there really are only a
few
things that you're going to be able to do, and they've
got
to be related to whatever the great purpose is, small in number, and they've got to be worked out like
mad
before you do them. And even then, one out of three will probably go disastrously wrong. This you've seen in all her domestic policy. So I can imagine her intuitively saying, you know . . .
the question is, how do we get out again?
. . . I can imagine that she would have been basically pretty sympathetic to the war, as I was . . . I didn't think, “Oh, this is a wonderful idea. This is the best thing we've ever done,” but what I could see was, and I think people over here were very short-sighted about it, was if you had had 9/11 in the middle of London, you do realize that you've got to do
something
âelectorally, politically, and in terms of sort of material force . . . What it is you do, I don't know, but you can't just sort of say, “We must all stay very calm and play âThe Stars and Stripes' and hope for the best.” Because all the Arabists say, or many of them say, the one thing Islamic fundamentalism says is that the West is depraved, disintegrating, collapsing, corrupt, and all we really have to do is give one push and the whole thing will implode. So you better make
sure that they don't get that presumption confirmed . . . She might easily have listened, she might have talked to one of the top generals or soldiers offline, nobody knowing, and they would have said, “I'm sure we can win that little war, but we really do have to know what happens after that.” . . . And I would have thought her caution would have said, “We really
do
have to know.” Because again, she's intuitive! She isn't stupid! And one feels now, which I
didn't
at the time, because I
didn't
believe it, but you know, that Rumsfeld and others wereâalmost
mad!
They must have been! . . . I feel that if she'd been there, she wouldn't have had those sort of people, she wouldn't have been that stupid herself, and she'd have had cleverer people 'round her, and there's a
chance
she would have said . . . “I think this Rumsfeld fellow's got it wrong. I don't think he really understands what he's doing. And he should certainly not, as your Secretary of Defense, be telling Colin Powell to go away and shut up. Because the State Department is going to have to pick up these pieces.” I can't believe she would have been that stupid. Whereas it seems to me that Blair thought, “This is wonderful. I'm going to ride behind the mighty colossus of American military power, we put in a few thousand jolly good British troops, just to show we're willing, and my name will be in lights! Isn't this fun!” You know?
That she would have exhibited greater caution about Iraq is an extremely common point of view; no one to whom I spoke dissented from it.
CB:
Just as a hypotheticalâhad she been in power, how do you think she would have dealt with the second, the most recent, Iraq War? Do you think she would have offered the kind of support Tony Blair offeredâ
Just as a hypotheticalâhad she been in power, how do you think she would have dealt with the second, the most recent, Iraq War? Do you think she would have offered the kind of support Tony Blair offeredâ
Peter Walker:
Um, I mean, it's a guess, obviouslyâ
Um, I mean, it's a guess, obviouslyâ
CB:
Absolutely, of course it isâ
Absolutely, of course it isâ
PW:
I would have guessed that she would have given much more thought to what happens when the initial battle is over. I mean, the extraordinary thing about the whole affair, two really bad things, is that both George Bush and Tony Blair, well, first, they misled people about the reason, and both tried to doctor the intelligence services' advice, and they gave no thought toâafter you won the military battle, what the hell do you do? And I think, if she had had the caliber of foreign secretary of Peter Carrington, he would have said, “Look, when this is over, there'll be civil war in Iraq. You've got these two groups that hate each other, despise each other, and no matter how nasty the present president has been, he's stopped that civil war taking place.”
I would have guessed that she would have given much more thought to what happens when the initial battle is over. I mean, the extraordinary thing about the whole affair, two really bad things, is that both George Bush and Tony Blair, well, first, they misled people about the reason, and both tried to doctor the intelligence services' advice, and they gave no thought toâafter you won the military battle, what the hell do you do? And I think, if she had had the caliber of foreign secretary of Peter Carrington, he would have said, “Look, when this is over, there'll be civil war in Iraq. You've got these two groups that hate each other, despise each other, and no matter how nasty the present president has been, he's stopped that civil war taking place.”
Not only would Thatcher have had the foresight to prevent the Iraq debacle, her admirers say, it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place if only she had remained in power:
Bernard Ingham:
I tell you, the situation would not have arisen if she'd have been in office in '91. She'd have gone straight through to Baghdad. She wouldn't have stopped. The turkey shootâstraight through to Baghdad. No, she would have had to persuade George Bush, but she was a fairly formidable persuader. And she would have simply said, “Well, we're not leaving our job half-done.”
I tell you, the situation would not have arisen if she'd have been in office in '91. She'd have gone straight through to Baghdad. She wouldn't have stopped. The turkey shootâstraight through to Baghdad. No, she would have had to persuade George Bush, but she was a fairly formidable persuader. And she would have simply said, “Well, we're not leaving our job half-done.”
CB:
Really? You think she would have had the ability to persuade him? Because he was so reluctant.
Really
reluctant.
Really? You think she would have had the ability to persuade him? Because he was so reluctant.
Really
reluctant.
BI:
Well, what you don't know is what kind of diplomatic efforts she would have mounted to secure that, do you? I mean, damn it, they were defeated, weren't they? What you don't know is what kind of aftermath we would have had to cope withânobody knows that.
Well, what you don't know is what kind of diplomatic efforts she would have mounted to secure that, do you? I mean, damn it, they were defeated, weren't they? What you don't know is what kind of aftermath we would have had to cope withânobody knows that.
CB:
You have to imagine the aftermath would have been pretty similar to what we're seeing now.
You have to imagine the aftermath would have been pretty similar to what we're seeing now.
BI:
Could have been, yes.
Could have been, yes.
CB:
And that was precisely the problem Bush Senior didn't want.
And that was precisely the problem Bush Senior didn't want.
BI:
Could well be. But I think she was of the view, admittedly she was out of office, that we should have gone through to Baghdad and finished the job.
Could well be. But I think she was of the view, admittedly she was out of office, that we should have gone through to Baghdad and finished the job.
CB:
You
think
she was of the view, or have you
heard
her say that?
You
think
she was of the view, or have you
heard
her say that?
BI:
I've heard her say that.
I've heard her say that.
Now let's look at the facts; they are a matter of public record. In 2002âin her last significant public speech, delivered to an American audienceâthis is what she said:
Our purpose must be to strike the other centers of Islamic terrorism wherever they are. And we must act equally strongly against those states which harbor terrorists and develop weapons of mass destruction that might be used against us or our allies.
The recent shameful European reaction to President Bush's State of the Union Speech reminds me of nothing so much as that which greeted President Reagan's words two decades ago. Americans shouldn't take too much notice. Fear masquerading as caution, pique posing as dignity, words substituting for thoughtâwe have been there many times before. Whatever the protests of the faint-hearts, it is high time to take action against the rogue states which are arming against us.
In particular, Saddam Hussein constitutes unfinished business. And he now needs to be finishedâfor good. First rate intelligence, the support of opposition elements within Iraq, and overwhelming force will probably all be required.
But the risks of not acting far outweigh those of allowing Saddam to continue developing his weapons of war. I hope and trust that Britain will support to the hilt the action your president decides to take.
272
But the risks of not acting far outweigh those of allowing Saddam to continue developing his weapons of war. I hope and trust that Britain will support to the hilt the action your president decides to take.
272
I see no evidence in these remarks that she would have shown any greater prescience about Iraq than those who were, in fact, in power.
273
She was certainly correct to note that first-rate intelligence, the support of opposition elements within Iraq, and overwhelming force would be required. Perhaps if she had been in power, she would have noticed the absence of all three elements in the plan. But we simply cannot know.
273
She was certainly correct to note that first-rate intelligence, the support of opposition elements within Iraq, and overwhelming force would be required. Perhaps if she had been in power, she would have noticed the absence of all three elements in the plan. But we simply cannot know.
So that is
not
why she matters. She matters enough for what she really did perceive and what she really did achieve that there is no need to exaggerate. It does not diminish her much to note that as idols generally do, she has feet of clay.
not
why she matters. She matters enough for what she really did perceive and what she really did achieve that there is no need to exaggerate. It does not diminish her much to note that as idols generally do, she has feet of clay.
A final point. She matters
now
because her battles are not over. For a brief, perishable moment during the 1990s, it was possible to imagine that the great questions of history had been settled. But history did not, as Francis Fukuyama predicted, come to an end. Quite the contrary.
now
because her battles are not over. For a brief, perishable moment during the 1990s, it was possible to imagine that the great questions of history had been settled. But history did not, as Francis Fukuyama predicted, come to an end. Quite the contrary.
Socialism was buried prematurely. This fact has been little remarked, precisely because the world's attention has in recent times been focused on the dramatic rise of Islamic extremism. Amid this anxiety it has been forgotten that the appeal of socialism as a political program is ultimately far wider, more seductive, and more enduring than political Islam. To the vast majority of the
secular world, Islam is alien and will always be alien. Islamic law is widely and correctly perceived as a recipe for immiseration. This is
not
so of socialism, a political movement that like fascism embodies the religious impulse in secular form, and is thus an ideology destined to rise again and again from the grave, skeletal claws outstretched and grasping for the instruments and subjects of labor.
secular world, Islam is alien and will always be alien. Islamic law is widely and correctly perceived as a recipe for immiseration. This is
not
so of socialism, a political movement that like fascism embodies the religious impulse in secular form, and is thus an ideology destined to rise again and again from the grave, skeletal claws outstretched and grasping for the instruments and subjects of labor.
Wherever men are miserableâand that is almost everywhereâthey will be vulnerable to those who promise Utopia, for if Hobbes expressed some portion of the truth, Rousseau expressed some portion of the truth as well. There is no inconsistency between the declaration that life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short and the declaration that man is everywhere in chains. That this observation is bleak is no reason not to think it correct. If for no other reason, I doubt the promises of socialism will ever lose their capacity to inspire.
Throughout Central America, the Middle East, and Africa, policies Thatcher would deplore remain or have recently been put in place. One need only look at the Iraqi constitution, which assumes that it is the business of the state and not the individual to create jobs, to see that this is so. Socialism is again on the ascendant in Latin America. It is a commonplace of American political discourse that we must reduce our dependence upon Saudi oil, given the Saudi kingdom's pernicious tendency to export Islamic extremism. We import almost as much Venezuelan oil as we do Saudi oil. Venezuela is now exporting socialist extremism every bit as energetically as the Saudis export Islamic extremism. Cuba appears for now to have won the stand-off with the United States. Socialist dogma and practice remain solidly entrenched throughout Africa and the Middle East. Socialism is again on the march throughout Europe, especially in France.
France,
you say?
But Sarkozy won.
Indeed he did. And the first thing he did upon taking officeâbecause he had no choiceâwas pack his government with socialists. He even married one.
France,
you say?
But Sarkozy won.
Indeed he did. And the first thing he did upon taking officeâbecause he had no choiceâwas pack his government with socialists. He even married one.
Other books
The Hite Report on Shere Hite by Shere Hite
Storm of Shadows by Christina Dodd
Flidoring The Early Wars by Hayes, Roger W.
An Unlikely Duchess by Nadine Millard
Eterna by Guillermo del Toro & Chuck Hogan
PLAY by Piper Lawson
Vanessa Unveiled by Jodi Redford
La estancia azul by Jeffery Deaver
Silk Sails by Calvin Evans