Uk users that aren’t willing to use firefox can catch the show here: http://bit.ly/azkGhJ

I believe it is shown at around 8:30 pm on More4

@1, it was shown on More4 last night. You can see it on 4OD though.

There is an extended version of the interview out there, but the agreement between C4 and Comedy Central seems to get in the way.

well I fully agree with the pragmatism and need to be smarter angle, but still it rankles to hear regimes like the Taliban and Saddam described as “distasteful”.

Man is an arse. Cockroaches don’t kill people, pursue ethnic cleansing and invade Kuwait.

“Man is an arse. Cockroaches don’t kill people, pursue ethnic cleansing and invade Kuwait.”

This might help you get it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

@4

I dunno, I’ve seen some big beasties in one of my mate’s student digs in Manchester…

I am so in love with Jon Stewart, it hurts. I love him like NYC loves cockroaches.

Jon Stewart’s argument is weak. There are arguments against Blairism, but his cockroaches analogy doesn’t do justice to that side of the argument. If cockroaches were significantly more dangerous than they are, and if they posed the threat to consensual societies that terrorism does then it might have been a analogy worth making.

The practical war aim against terror isn’t to destroy all terrorism and terrorist sentiment, but to prevent terroist violence so that individuals can get on with their lawful activity. From this perspective, lost battles in the war against terror are easy to see, but the type of ‘victory’ that is being aimed for goes under the radar, with only the fallout of the victory being visible.

Some may not wish to persue terroists with quite the same hawkish style that Blair preferrs, but those that want to lambast him and Bush would do far better to concentrate on the manner in which the early stages of these conflicts were managed and planned.

Geofff, your excessive verbiage doesn’t conceal the fact that your argument is essentially the same as James’ at comment 4.

Professor Walt says, on his blog, that Blair is not a very careful thinker.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/

Blair “We don’t have an option but to confront this extremism and defeat it. Because when the extremism came here, to New York, on 9/11, it wasn’t a provocation.” This isn’t careful thinking. It addresses a politician’s need to be seen to be doing something rather than offering a practical course of action. The War on Terror was a mistake from the beginning because you cannot deal with a network in a cave in Afghanistan, flats in Germany and a flying school in the USA by starting wars. The risk is that the wars create failed states which allow more space for extremists. The risk is a mission creep, in which you don’t go after terrorists (who are hiding in caves so difficult to bomb); you go after states that support terrorists; but they might fight back, so you go after states which appear easier to invade though are only marginally linked to terrorism, if at all.

If you look at some of the speeches in the USA before the invasion of Iraq (and some in the UK, such as a couple by Michael Portillo) you realise that they are not saying that Iraq supports terrorists so we have to invade Iraq: they are saying that the West would look weak if it didn’t invade Iraq; the West should show that is confronting terrorism by invading Iraq even though Iraq doesn’t have anything to do with terrorism; terrorists would be encouraged if we didn’t do anything, here is something, let’s do it. This is what, I think, Blair is hinting at in his non-sequitur quoted above. It addresses the psychological need to be seen to be doing something but doesn’t offer a practical course of action.

Fifty years ago it was though that we could eradicate cockroaches, rats, mosquitos etc etc. Now we know that we cannot; they develop immunity and resistance, or there are serious side effects. The buzz-word now is integrated control, integration of different methods which reduce the seriousness, impact and extent of pests. This isn’t as high-profile as draining the marshes and spraying with DDT, and it involves a lot more understanding of what is happening. It is more effective in the ling run.

gwenhwyfaer – Part of it was, but judging from the reponse at #5 it was one worth repeating.