Since 9/11, The US under Texas native George Bush has pursued a bit of a strange foreign policy - by invading Iraq and naming a list of countries as part of an axis of evil. Then there's the whole Guantanamo Bay episode, which is still going on. Its Middle Eastern policy has been particularly meddlesome. Of course Blair, often against his own better judgement and that of his colleagues, has supported the Texan Longhorn clothes bearing Bush to the bitter end. Quite naturally, there has been a radical reaction to this. It has helped extremism flourish across the Middle East, Asia and even in Europe like never before.
The West is losing this war and as Blair admits military action alone can't turn the tables - if anything it has achieved the opposite so far. He talks about a battle of ideas between the values of the West and those of extremism. Unfortunately, for millions of Muslims across the world it's an argument he has already lost. To them Texas Bush and Blair don't debate or argue their ideas, but impose them at the barrel of a gun. As evidence, they point to Iraq, Afghanistan and now Lebanon with Israel doing the dirty work with full Anglo-American support. Of course this plays into the hands of the extremists who argue that force and violence is the only way to respond.
If The US and Britain want to win a battle of ideas with the extremists they need to radically change their foreign policy for a start. Given that both are caught up in their own self-made disasters, which now have a momentum of their own, that would be very difficult. But they must find a way. They need to tone down the rhetoric and at the very least make Afghanistan work. That means putting in the dollars and pounds to build infrastructure and improve the living standards of the average Afghan. That would do far more to win hearts and minds than endless speeches about values and democracy.
With Lebanon they must talk to Iran and Syria who pull Hezbollah's puppet strings and where necessary force Israel to make compromises as well. At the very least call for an immediate ceasefire so the battle can be faught at a conference table rather than over the dead bodies of innocent civilians.
As for Iraq, because the post invasion plans were so botched and ill thought out, the country is practically in melt down. Regardless of Blair's comments, it is in a state of civil war with around 100 people dying a day.
We largely have "Rambo" Rumsfeld to thank for that. It was his idea to do invasion "lite" followed by occupation "lite." Disbanding the army and sacking Baath party members, who ran the country, was stupid and suicidal. It created thousands of angry vindictive and well armed individuals at a stroke. People who have no stake or interest in the new democratic Iraq. Protecting the oil installations while the public infrastructure was looted - at least the bits left by the USAF, did little to win hearts and minds either. Despite so much incompetence, "Rambo Rummy" still has job in government and sadly it isn't cleaning the toilets.
Iraq's fate is probably to end up being run by a brutal dictator again. The only question is: will he be an Islamic fundamentalist? Or a secular dictator like Saddam Hussein was? The alternative is that country could simply break up into regions variously controlled by Iran, Syria and the Kurds or who ever else can impose their influence.
For the situation to improve and for there to be any chance of a debate of ideas to take place, it probably requires the removal of Bush the Texan and Blair from office. A change of government would be even better. A new government could at least admit the failures, blame them on the previous administration and fashion a new much less confrontational foreign policy. But that could take two to three years to happen. In the meantime, the war on terror could simply escalate leaving the different players more hardened and committed to their radical agendas. Basically, leaving no room to debate ideas or win over hearts and minds.
