Strike Raqqa by all means!

By D. J. Webb.

I’ve been unimpressed by Jeremy Corbyn’s floundering around and failing to make the case for staying out of a war in the Middle East. There is a serious argument to be made to that end. The man is not a self-evident clown for opposing a war in a far away country of which we know nothing. I am going to make the argument here that we could take part in an aerial bombing for two key reasons, but that we shouldn’t imagine doing so will make us safer.

After the terrorist attacks in Paris, it is hard to argue that the Islamic State does not deserve to be flattened from the air. This is about retribution, not about “making us safer”. By all means, flatten Raqqa. If possible, try to identify the military targets there, of course, but the Paris attacks do deserve a response. The second reason to take part is that France and the US are allies, and allies should come to each other’s aid when called upon to do so.

However, we should be clear that support for terrorism among our unassimilated Muslim communities is homegrown. Raqqa provides an inspiration and may even be able to offer militants in Paris and elsewhere money and weapons from their oil sales. But flattening Raqqa would still leave us with Muslim minorities seething with (unjustified) resentment. It might even leave them seeking revenge against us here in the UK. To fail to bomb Raqqa for fear of a terrorist response would be cowardice. We could take part in the Raqqa air raids if we value the relationship with France and the US sufficiently, but we should also find a way of dealing with the homegrown threat of terrorism and shouldn’t imagine flattening Raqqa accomplishes that.

Britain does not possess enough military firepower to be a serious independent force on the international stage. Yet this bombing raid appears partly designed to allow Mr Cameron to strut across the international stage and preen himself. We should be clear that this is just an air raid of retribution, and not a reorganization of the whole of Syrian culture. We must not allow Mr Cameron to see the UK sucked into a ground war. That would turn a preening exercise into something serious, with a large cost to be paid in money and lives.

If the Americans move the mission (as I suspect they will do) on to the installation of a new Syrian government via conquest, we should sit that one out. A population divided along sectarian and tribal lines has no obvious government-in-waiting, and if we had prized Syrian stability we would never have encouraged an uprising against the Assad regime in the first place. Mr Cameron’s claims of a local army of 70,000 moderates is nonsense—these include 30,000 Islamic extremists, at least, even by the UK government’s own admission, as some of the disparate “moderate” groups not affiliated to the Islamic State are in themselves extremist groups. In fact, if we want to restore stability to Syria to end the refugee flow, there is only one way: to back the Assad regime, arm Assad, bomb the “moderate” rebels as well as the Islamic State and so help Assad regain control over the country. Given that the refugee influx into Europe is not ideal, we probably should arm Assad and help him recover his position, without involving British ground troops.

The longer-term issue is that terrorism has domestic roots in immigration and multi-culturalism. If we are serious about addressing terrorism, the first thing we should do is halt immigration from Muslim countries. Even if some immigrants have valued skills, the ones from Muslim countries tend not to, and reasons of national security and national integrity demand that we halt this influx. No refugees ever. No family reunion visas for people from Muslim states. No spouses brought in from Muslim countries. We need to go cold turkey on Muslim immigration—this is far more important than bombing Raqqa, which is merely designed to make it look like something is being done, while the immigration continues.

The entire edifice of multi-culturalism should go before it is too late. It should be a criminal offence for teachers to preach multi-culturalism to their little charges. I would imprison all such teachers for attempted radicalization of schoolchildren. The fostering of a culture of grievance in ethnic-minority children is a form of “multi-cultural grooming” that has serious consequences. I would close down all the mosques in the UK: liberty depends on a common culture, and not the transplantation of foreign cultures, fully formed, to England. People would have the liberty to pray in their own ways at home, but the public sphere must be English. I would close down all the Muslim schools, or hand them over to the Church of England, and insist on a Christian assembly in all schools. I would arrest BBC governors for attempted radicalization of ethnic-minority populations via their broadcast output. It would fall under the sedition laws.

There has been too much fatuous discussion of “defying” terrorism by waving a pencil in the air after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and by “not giving the terrorists what they want by being beastly to Muslim minorities” and so forth. Let us be clear: we are not showing any defiance at all of the Islamic extremists, and only a determined reassertion of our own culture, heritage and traditions would constitute defiance. If we’re not prepared to do this, bombing Raqqa won’t achieve anything for us. What we need to do is here, at home, in England. Our response to terrorism must not be fear or appeasement, but anger—an anger strong enough to cause us to move against the presence of confrontational subcultures in Western Europe.

Finally, the future of the Western alliance needs to be called into question after the Paris bombs. France is, for now, our ally. But a France that appears determined to emerge as an Arab majority Muslim nation by the end of the century is actually a potential threat to the UK. Any alliance with European countries can only be on the basis that those countries are determined to remain culturally European. Let’s go with the French on their retribution sortie, but make it clear to them that they must stop handing out passports to Algerians and Moroccans—otherwise our foes will become a majority in Paris, and not just Raqqa, and then we will have a problem of a totally different order on our hands.


  • It hardly matters whether we support the French or not but since they have formally requested our assistance against people who even George Galloway describes as “savages” – I agree with you.
    As for Cameron’s Syrian allies – he’s nuts.

  • I’d have no problem doing a Dresden on Raqqa if it was clear that it was an act of retribution and we closed our borders on the same day. But this futile token bombing “to protect Muslims from Daesh” is the worst of all worlds. There WILL be a Paris-style attack in the UK, our intervention will be used by the ethnomasochistic simpletons and their malevolent leaders to justify our accepting thousands more “refugees”. The idiot Cameron will be cheerleading his Blairite “invite the world/invade the world” policy. Is this stupidity, or is this treason?

  • An excellent point is made at the end of this article, about the possible future of the NATO military alliance, if the West continues to import racially- and culturally-alien immigrants who are communally aligned with third countries.

    However, I disagree with the author that retribution is an efficacious option.

    First, I dislike the word ‘retribution’ when used in this context. This is not out of pedantry or squeamishness, but because I see it as a euphemism for a much more accurate word: ‘revenge’. Why not just call the beast by its name? Why engage in this NiceSpeak where you use Orwellian-like language to conceal what we really want and what we really are. We like to think we are civilised in the West, but we are, in truth, a sadistic, violent, animal-like people who derive pleasure from inflicting terror and suffering on helpless, innocent people.

    That is the truth about the West. We get fat on the suffering of the rest of the world and we close our eyes and ears to it and pretend otherwise. This, in turn, partly explains the ethno-masochism of affluent, middle-class whites who will, apparently, gladly give up their civilisation to the wretched and less fortunates of the world. Only, they won’t. They are just happy if some other, usually poor, whites suffer as a proxied apology for themselves.

    This is also why I would hold that left-wing liberals are actually among the most racist people on the planet. The Left is white supremacist and class supremacist and amounts to a global leisure class. The migrants who stream in from rubble-strewn Third World countries attacked by NATO bombers are – largely – the cheap, pliable, non-unionised labour that allows the economic bubble to continue, so that the left-wing global leisure class can continue to pontificate from on high and not have to do proper work themselves.

    Anyway, back to my point. When you defend retribution, what you are really calling for is revenge. In order for this to be morally- and ethically justifiable, still less legal and lawful, there must be a specific, named, identifiable target on whom we are to inflict this violent retribution.

    Here, there isn’t, because, first, we don’t know for sure who systematically carried out the outrages in Paris. We know who did it, but we don’t know who was behind it. Not with absolute certainty. Second, the model of retribution selected will not be against our imagined ‘enemies’, but against innocent civilians. That’s because ISIS is now the settled authority in most of its occupied areas, and so the bombing will necessarily be indiscriminate. Actually, NATO bombing is normally indiscriminate anyway: we already know that countless civilians have lost their lives in Syria and other countries due to our bombing campaigns.

    And retribution itself is a morally shaky concept. What does it achieve? Do you really think it will deter ‘terrorists’? And even if it did, why should we assume this is our only option? I think some of the more sincere and genuine people on the Left do have a point when they say that we should be trying to build some kind of global social community. If we, the white Europeans, are the ‘best’, or among the best – and I think we are in a broad civilisational sense – then with that status does come a responsibility. If we waste these chances and just act like animals, we should not be surprised at the normal and human results that follow.

    The result will be that the cycle of revenge continues, and this is where I must be brutally frank.

    From the point-of-view of the innocent targets, our actions will just be seen for what they are: sadistic violence. We are sadists. We are animals.

    Who can blame these people if they retaliate? I can’t. Quite the opposite. In different circumstances, I’d actually join them. And if they do attack us again, I hope this time they select better targets.

  • On the contrary, Tom.
    The British have been the most benevolent, kind, peaceful, and generous people who ever lived.
    And we do know the cause of the current violence – the cause is Islam: it has hit the buffers and is struggling for reform.
    Personally, I do not think reform is possible to such a totalitarian ideology but I think we can all agree that no reform is possible with anti-reformation nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia continuing to peddle their unreformed version of their religion through the power of the state.

    • [quote]”The British have been the most benevolent, kind, peaceful, and generous people who ever lived.”[unquote]

      This may well be, but I am talking about governments and elites, not ordinary people, and there is no room for blind patriotism in such a discussion.

      I am no patriot. I will not take the side of murderers – which is what Western governments are. Never. And I resent being forced into a position where I have to subsidise and support these amoral psychopaths who parade round pretending they are our betters. In this respect, I think the far-Left have got it right, even if their motives and reasons for coming to this conclusion differ radically from my own. I will not join you in this primitive blood lust dressed-up in the clothes of moral chauvinism and cheap, tatty patriotism.

      Islam is not a totalitarian ideology, but in any case, I am not in a position to judge Moslems, still less impose my own, rather limited and, I must say, childish, ideas of what a ‘civilisation’ is, ideas that have been handed-down to me by generations of murderers, demagogues, psychopaths and hypocrites who, like you, dress up their noble and worthy causes in fine-sounding moral platitudes and low-IQ patriotic twaddle.

      Moslems have no time for Western civilisational precepts anyway. They see themselves as civilised in their own right, and have no time for indulgent, childish notions such as ‘equality’ and ‘democracy’. If we attack them, they are entitled to retaliate, and I hope they do.

      All this tiresome ‘liberal interventionist’/’moral crusade’ stuff that you’re parroting goes back to the War and the idea that Britain and the Allies were fighting some sort of moral crusade against an extreme authoritarian system that was evil and cruel and went against our “values”. It was hot air then, and it’s practically hot enough now to drive a turbine at Windscale.

      It’s a pattern of thinking in which we invent the idea that we’re morally superior and use this to justify plundering the rest of the globe. That’s the truth of it. At bottom, it’s a thieves’ charter. We then act surprised when the rest of the world retaliates violently. The reason for the ‘surprise’ and moral outrage at terrorist actions isn’t because there is anything outrageous about them – although killing innocent people, anywhere, is disgusting and outrageous – it’s because we are being conditioned to think that what we do to them is OK, but what they do to us isn’t. That is why I talk about us getting ‘fat’ at the rest of the world’s expense. I don’t mean obese, I mean we are being encouraged to live in a bubble in which we see ourselves as superior (and in many ways, we are superior, but not all) without realising or understanding that this is at the expense of inflicting horrors on others. In short, the Western moral equation seems to be that we can kill, maim and torture anybody we like, with impugnity, but if they do this to us, well, that’s really rather caddish.

      Where I part company from the Left is on three major points:

      1. I believe white Europeans have a right to retain their racial and cultural identity. I think this is important, not just for ethno-Europeans themselves, but for the rest of the world as well. Human racial diversity needs to be preserved, for perfectly sound racial (genetic), political, economic, social, cultural, even health reasons. In that respect, there can be no justification for the organised swamping of white countries with non-white immigrants, though it is also fair to say that this is not the Left’s doing. Mass immigration is a result of capitalism and development issues in Third World countries.

      2. I believe that to talk of ‘our’ governments and ‘we’ in the context of public affairs is mistaken, and I only do so myself for brevity and to emphasise how these things are done in our name. In truth, democracy does not exist in the West. The system is a sham. In reality, our countries are polyarchies controlled and run by elites. When our countries inflict misery on the Third World and then import their surpluses here, they are not acting in our interests, but in their own interests. These ‘interests’ are economic and ethnic in character, and differ fundamentally from the interests of the English National Proletariat, for whom I am patriotic.

      3. This is both a race war and a class war, and working class whites who oppose their own elites share much in common with the working class of the Third World. There ought to be international class unity while acknowledging and respecting national differences. I am in solidarity with the people our governments are bombing, but I do not want them in my country, and in any case, I do not believe it is our business to exploit and plunder their national resources just to make our lives a little bit easier. That is why I want the bombing stop.

  • Most war is immoral. Few wars have been in self defence. Most are just for the glory of it. That is why most pristine liberals saw liberalism as a solution to the problem of war. So I think Corbyn is basically right on the bombing but he oddly overlooks the fact that politics is cold war in any case. He wants more politics rather than less, and Corbyn fails to see that as warmongering. Clausewitz was quite right that war was just politics taken over to the battlefield but normally politics is still war. Hence Cobden was right to see free trade, trade free of crass politics, was the solution to war. But complete free trade requires ending the existence of the state.

    Terrorism is a policing job in any case. It is certainly a problem that concerns the UK rather than the Middle East. From 1969 till recently, it concerned Ireland.

    D.J. Webb’s nationalist measures would not be easy to push though and they are clearly illiberal. But they are no more illiberal than the still current statist Politically Correct anti-nationalism of the last six decades. As in the fall of Rome, the declining native birth rate is the main problem in France but also in the UK.

    Tom Rogers conforms to the most unrealistic ideas. Just how could the mere suffering of others ever aid wealth production? What they call the industrial revolution was the making of the wealth of the UK, but it was not owing to work around the world but mainly work done in Britain. Obesity has only become a mass problem owing to the basic wealth first made here. The rest of the world later copied it to become wealthy. India and China have only begun on this mass industrial process in the last few decades.

    The likes of Laurie Taylor, the Politically Correct [PC] Sociologist, and his silly son, Mathew, who advised Blair, seem to agree with the claptrap of Hobson/Lenin imperialism, as do so many in the colleges but it is still unrealistic claptrap. They might feel guilty but that does not mean that they have any sound reason to feel so.

    There is nothing illiberal in any form of free discrimination, be it on race or on any other criterion. There is no merit in arbitrary PC.

    Other animals do not have perverse politics, let alone people who imagine that suffering allows miraculously others to become fat. Politics is an expensive end good rather than a means to riches. It wastes rather than creates wealth.

    • I’m not adopting an unrealistic attitude to war, I’m saying that our wars reflect an unrealistic attitude in the first place, which arises because relatively few people understand what influences the drive to go to war.

      This is just an unthinking schtick that because I criticise the brutality of the West – which is real – that must mean I am some sort of trendy liberal. I’m not. I agree with the solutions that the author of the article sets out. I’m just questioning why we should exact retribution and make matters worse.

  • “It’s a pattern of thinking in which we invent the idea that we’re morally superior and use this to justify plundering the rest of the globe. That’s the truth of it. At bottom, it’s a thieves’ charter.”

    Tom, do you consider the origin and cause of the West’s collective wealth to be plunder?

    • That’s not my point. My understanding of the matter is not as unsophisticated as you might think. I am not some crazy anti-white liberal. Quite the opposite. I acknowledge that we are ‘superior’ and that Western wealth is the result of Western ingenuity and industry, ‘British Empire’, ‘sun never sets’, ‘white man’s burden’, Industrial Revolution, etc., etc., and so on.

      My point is simply and plainly what I have already stated: that we use moral language to justify plundering the rest of the world, and contrary to what you and others here appear to be arguing, this is not about pursuing high-flown ethical ideals or retribution for terrorism. Our leaders want terrorism in our countries, just not too much of it. This is about ethnic and economic interests. That is what we are doing in Syria and elsewhere, doing the same grubby job that we have always done. We then act surprised when some of the ‘rest of the world’ turns on us and starts committing ‘terrorism’ in our countries. Why?

      What gives us the moral substance to condemn these terrorists anyway? It seems to me they are no better or worse than our own rulers, whom we regularly and unfailingly elect into office in Soviet-style plebiscitaries. You may find that simplistic, but often complex things are reducible to simple insights, and I think this is one such situation.

      If I kill your brother and, by way of explanation, haughtily claim I did so in pursuit of love, peace, harmony and democracy, you would be rightly outraged, and while violent retaliation on your part would be illegal, few people would blame you if you exacted your revenge on me. But a more thoughtful person might stop to question whether the “love, peace, harmony and democracy” that I had claimed as my motivation was really just a bogus rationalisation for my own blood-lust or greed.

      I don’t accept there is a moral equation here. Not a genuine one. As I see it, our governments are pursuing what they believe to be the economic interests of their constituencies, which are not necessarily ordinary people like us, but the people whose interests they actually represent.

  • Tom, do you consider greed to be a virtue or a vice because, as you probably know, millions of Objectivists consider greed to be a virtue and they are not alone:
    C.f. “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will… [save]… the U.S.A.”
    And how do you define economic interest?
    I am genuinely intrigued.
    For example, if my brother were a jihadist and you killed him I would shake your hand.
    You seem to be suggesting there NO objective moral values.

    • I think there are very few possible objective moral positions, but the objective/relativist debate on morality, and much else, is misleading, in my view. I accept there must be absolutes, without which we couldn’t adopt relativistic positions. To hold that there are absolutely no objective moral values would be nonsensical, but I do maintain that the majority, if not all, of Western foreign policy is just an extension of economic and ethnic interests. That it is dressed-up in moral platitudes should be all the more reason for suspicion, not reassurance.

      A proper Objectivist, which is to say, a purist capitalist, would, ironically, probably side with me in this discussion. They would recognise the aerial expedition in Syria, and elsewhere, for what it really is: economic expansion through bombing and military conquest. This destroys wealth and value and is more akin to corporatism, a corruption of capitalism that North American free marketeers often call ‘socialism’. It is not true capitalism.

      On the point about greed, I take no generic moral position on it. I agree with the Objectivists that greed is a natural human attribute and, in many situations, greed is desirable, even socially necessary. I merely point out that greed, among other things, motivates what Western governments do abroad. Thus I call the beast by its name. I don’t dance around the subject citing ‘isms’ and ‘asms’ and high falutin’ moral precepts. I just get right down to the grubby, dirty truth.

      They call it ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘human dignity’ and ‘freedom’. I just call it what it is: greed. Whether it is right or wrong is for better men than me to decide. Personally, for what it’s worth, I think it is wrong, and worse, I also think it is an unsustainable state of affairs, as the mass immigration phenomenon shows. Mass immigration may be justified by the Left, and may benefit the leftish middle class, but it is not the Left who are causing it.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s