Excuses for Complacency

Surrounding the Angry Left is a calmer, though likewise deluded, zone of opinion, one that doesn’t regard the War on Terror as a neo-Nazi conspiracy but shies away from the struggle as annoying and unnecessary. This spirit of complacency is what makes the Angry Left more than an impotent minority. If its policy positions were perennially ignored, it would fade away, much like the socialists who a century ago seemed poised to become a major force in American life. Instead, it draws strength from successes that it could not win on its own.

The Complacentists are not mad at anyone. They don’t think that the Bush Administration is a threat to civil liberties or seeks to conquer the world in the interests of shadowy Jewish plutocrats. They may even be more than a bit furious with our avowed enemies. While only a minority of Democrats firmly reject Trutherism, it has no following anywhere else on the political spectrum. What allies Complacency with Paranoia is agreement on a single point: The advocates of a forward policy against the mufsidun, ranging from President Bush through Senator Lieberman, want to do too much. We don’t need a War on Terror, because the terrorists are a momentary nuisance that will soon dwindle without our having to expend more than the most limited quantities of blood or money. (Expenditures of toil, sweat and tears are unthinkable impositions.)

The soul of Complacency can be seen in a new Spectator column by Matthew Parris, responding to David Selbourne’s pessimistic assessment of the West’s chances of fending off Islamofascist aggression. Mr. Parris stands somewhere between Anger and Complacency. Though a member of the British Conservative Party, he has long made clear his dislike of America. In this piece, he keeps up that theme, professing to be “nervous that the American empire may lurch dangerously around for decades to come”. Still, he does not sound rabid, and his central argument is the Complacentist one that the world has nothing to fear from “our supposed enemy” [emphasis added].

First, he avers, our most immediate enemies are more like KAOS than the KGB:

Have we not noticed how incompetent are Islamic governments and organisations the world over? Has it not occurred to us that if al-Qa’eda really were as wily and resourceful as we tell ourselves they are, and if their tentacles really did extend as wide and deep as some say, they would be on the advance — not battled into a stalemate by Western security and intelligence? If I were an al-Qa’eda activist I could have blown up Parliament or shot at least one of a range of prime ministers by now. Al-Qa’eda’s failure to infiltrate or penetrate Western structures has been complete.

Apparently, then, Osama bin-Laden’s operatives just got lucky when they bombed the U.S.S. Cole and then toppled the World Trade Towers. Similarly, it’s just a coincidence that, as soon as “Western security and intelligence” began to pay serious attention to them, their successes diminished. Publicly available information – probably far from complete – indicates that al-Qa’eda and similar groups have been plotting furiously for the past five years. Their threats of another “big martyrdom operation” are a staple of Islamofascist Web sites and sympathetic Arab media. How confident is Mr. Parris that their failure to amount to very much stems from nothing but “incompetence”?

Second, he broadens the critique to argue that Islamofascist ineptitude extends beyond the tactical level:

Islam, in its more fundamentalist form, doesn’t work. Serious, committed Islamists are most unlikely to succeed within any structures but their own. Their own, meanwhile, are notoriously inefficient and corrupt. Only by lucky coincidence have much of the world’s known petrocarbons been found beneath Islamic nations, giving them what temporary influence they wield. . . .

This is a battle Islamism cannot win. Fundamentalist Islam is a mediaeval force. It has little to contribute to modern business, science or government, and subsists uneasily in today’s world. Profoundly and essentially reactionary, it hardly creates, innovates or invents, and appears chronically disorganised and prone to internal division and distrust.

In like manner, a citizen of Fifth Century Rome, Seventh Century Byzantium or Thirteenth Century China might have scoffed at the notion that backward hordes could overrun wealthy, civilized empires that outstripped them in every metric of power and prosperity. There are two problems with that argument. One is that history has falsified it over and over again. Material wealth, technological superiority and humane institutions are imperfect insurance against a dynamic, expansion-minded barbarism.

The other flaw is that beating back the barbarians can be a debilitating exercise that exhausts the defenders. If the West allows a large part of the Islamic world to turn into a Wahhabist Caliphate – a likely outcome if we pull back from the Middle East – we will face a nuclear-armed foe with substantial economic resources and a proven willingness to employ terrorism on a large scale. No doubt it will be weaker than the concert of the Western powers. On the other hand, as Mr. Parris notes without recognizing the implications of what he is saying, secondary powers are tempted to combine against a perceived “imperium”, rendering it less than certain that the prospective Caliphate will find no collaborators. In any event, a cold war lasting decades against most or all of the Middle East seems scarcely preferable to several years of hot war against relatively weak non-state actors.

Mr. Parris has a rejoinder to thoughts like those: We don’t face a choice between a short war or a long one, because others will conveniently do our job for us:

[C]ynics would say that we in Europe and America would be best advised to let its most implacable enemies shed their blood and money confronting its advance. In Chechnya, in Southeast Asia, with China, and all across that swath of nations ending in -stan, the struggle between Islam and its rivals is one from which the West can stand aside, leaving both sides to an expensive and wasteful scrap. The Chinese and the Russians are infinitely more savage than we dare be.

Cynics could also take note of the fact that China and Russia, despite clashes with Islam in their border regions, have been consistent aiders and abettors of anti-Western forces, including both Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the mullahs’ Iran. Counting on them to oppose Islamofascism resolutely, rather than reach opportunistic accommodations with it, is a high-risk gamble. Expecting them to take the offensive beyond their own borders and clean out the mufsidun lairs is not gambling, but fantasy.

Mr. Parris calls his policy “containment, not confrontation” and claims to be following the path marked by President Truman. His real model is Mr. Micawber. He hopes that “something will turn up”. Dickens’ comic hero got a fresh start in Australia. For civilizations that try to wish away their enemies, second chances are harder to come by.

Comments

[Krisna]

There is a difference in mentality between English and Indian fans. Speaking for myself I don't really care whether or not England win the one dayers, now that the test series is done and dusted. I am sure that many Indian fans will disagree.
For me test matches are the real peak of the game.The five day format and two innings tests skill, stamina and concentration like other form of the game.
Here India was found to be lacking,especiallyin their fielding and bowling in my opinion. When England bowled to the Indian top order it was real test cricket, high class bowling against good batsmen. It was the Indian bowling that really let them down. It seemed at times test batsmen against weak count level bowling.
In the long term India wil lonly return to the top of the test tree if Indian fans think it is important.

20/20 always depends on luck, no matter who is playing.

[Jessy]

"The algorithm used for the Reliance Rankings is the same for all nations. It is simply not possible to get to the top without beating or at least drawing with the other best teams (although, as I've discussed before, home wins are worth as much as away wins, which is a definite flaw in the system). "

Instead of the rankings, we really do need some form of league table where everybody plays each other home and away over a fixed duration (3 years?), so that there is an eventual winner. At least in this way you can say we were champions and nobody can take it away from you. Being top of the Premier League in mid november is not something you can write in the record books.

[Irish]

Another thing.

Greg Chappel was a great player but a pathetic coach. Just ask CA & Australian Players.

You source of opinion about indian team was banned from entering aussie pavilion
during SL-AUS ODIs in Aug 11.

May be for once u could do some research on your dear friend & trusted source.

[Heart]

I'm sure his Lordship doesn't mean to imply that India's no.1 status in the ICC rankings was undeserved. The algorithm used for the Reliance Rankings is the same for all nations. It is simply not possible to get to the top without beating or at least drawing with the other best teams (although, as I've discussed before, home wins are worth as much as away wins, which is a definite flaw in the system). No amount of victories over Bangladesh. NZ, or West Indies can do the trick. You've got to beat the best teams, or at least not lose to them.

Lord Selvey surely means that India's success was not built to last -- it was achieved on the back of great batsmen who made India difficult to beat, and only one bowler who was effective in conditions outside the subcontinent. No plans appear to have been laid either to a) replace these batsmen as they got older; or b) to unearth more bowlers who 'travel well', without which no success at test level can be more than transitory.

[Gino]

I find it RockHard to read your tone. You're surely right to point out the sometimes vitriolic nature of the Indian press. But do you really think that India did nothing to earn their No. 1 spot? After all, they were No. 1 months before England beat Australia (3-1, letitneverbeforgotten).

I apologise if I've misinterpreted your post.

India are a poor Test team. Their bowling is dreadful, their fielding is worse, and their batting is deteriorating from a very high standard. In the recent past, however, they were quite good. Lord Selvey might be right about the sins of the BCCI -- he knows more about it than I do -- but I worry that it's too early to decide that Indian Test cricket is a house of cards. Maybe the galacticos have been covering up for systemic faults in the system. Maybe not. But I'm happy to wait and see how they respond to their -- after all, very recent -- failures before consigning them to the dust.

Bottom line: I'm still celebrating England's wonderful dominance. I'm not predicting any dynasties or dancing on any nation's grave.

[Frank]

Indian cricket is like The Life of Brian.

Not until Tendulkar retires will they realise they have a billion people and more cricket playing people by almost as many, than any other country that plays this minor sport.

Chappell was right, he just got the timing wrong.

I saw in the Guardian yesterday that a private company and the MCC are going to build cricket communities in India, all built around a cricket ground. There really should be a time when India can field a different all dominant team in each code of the game, but it won't happen until so many stop worshipping false gods and realise their own individual potential.

Put down your camera phones you mugs and pick up a cricket bat.

[Erwin]

Utter rubbish. That number one ranking was well earned, much like England's rise to the top.

I could provide you statistics/results to back my claim, but I'm sure it wouldn't change the Lord's one-eyed view on this matter. Let me just say that this isn't the first time Lord Selvey has taken a cheap shot at the Indian team or its administration, and it certainly won't be the last. It's such a shame, because I actually enjoy a lot of his writing.

It's remarks like these that are beginning to rile some Indian readers. There has been a huge lack of class in the English media after its fantastic success this summer.

Yes, India were abject, they were underprepared and the BCCI's priorities appear to be misplaced. But to entirely undermine India's T20 World Cup win by calling it "flukey", and to label India's deserved status at the top of the Test rankings a "masquerade" smacks of Schadenfreude.

It's all quite sad and almost bitter, really. There are so many English fans out there who have celebrated their success, and rightly judged India with far more class and grace. It's media is letting it down.

[Dennis]

Does any country have a sensible board of control?

England; a couple of years ago we were in bed with Stanford, now he is having less pleasant night time liaisons.
Australia; how many spinners since Warne went, selection is farcical now.
West Indies; fell so low from so high, players striking, unplayable pitches
Zimbabwe; pushed out into the wilderness for years
Bangladesh; still lost to Zimbabwe after all those years out.
Sri Lanka; Massive political interference, approved a dangerous tour to Pakistan where they were shot.
Pakistan; Moves on quickly, see above and more
New Zealand; Managed to lose a great fast bowler due to IPL pressure
South Africa; Maybe they do, have finally picked up on the idea of poaching foreigners, don't know what took them so long.

What is needed is a stronger central organization, like FIFA perhaps?

[Criselle]

The comment made in the sub-headline suggests a phasing out of the galacticos would have been the way to go. This is easier said than done.

When I saw India play in Australia in early 2007 Dravid could not get the ball off the square. From memory he laboured for about an hour totally becalmed in one test, and there were huge ironic cheers when he finally scraped a single.

Obviously that was the time to put the succession strategy in place and start easing Dravid out.

[Barbara]

Unbecoming of the Lord. The T20 team was the framework for a very good team that then went on to win the world cup and remained unbeaten in a test series for an extended period.

This is tantamount to complete excellence rather than "flukey".

The english press has been sanctimonious to the hilt and stuck the boot in but you my lord.............why?

Agree with rest.

[Aj]

Has anyone from the BCCI said -- or implied -- that there will be no official post-tour postmortem? I can envisage a situation in which India win the ODI series handily and the board says "oh well, the tour was a draw, no need to worry." I also understand that lots of India fans feel they cocked up the tour planning very badly -- and that this is far from a first offence.

Still, if no-one's actually ruled out an inquiry or long-term planning exercise, this article feels a bit premature; indeed, it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.