This NYT op-ed argues in favor of Tony Blairs new-found (and dearly-bought) domestic toughness.
Heres a taste:
As Westerners bow down before multiculturalism, we anesthetize ourselves into believing that anything goes. We see our readiness to accommodate as a strength - even a form of cultural superiority (though few will admit that). Radical Muslims, on the other hand, see our inclusive instincts as a form of corruption that makes us soft and rudderless. They believe the weak deserve to be vanquished.
Paradoxically, then, the more we accommodate to placate, the more their contempt for our "weakness" grows. And ultimate paradox may be that in order to defend our diversity, well need to be less tolerant. Or, at the very least, more vigilant. And this vigilance demands more than new antiterror laws. It requires asking: What guiding values can most of us live with? Given the panoply of ideologies and faiths out there, what filter will distill almost everybodys right to free expression?
Of course, Ashlands own
David Foster still says it better.
I have been watching events unfold with our British Allies. I have been surprised by the magnitude of the British response to recent Al Qaeda attacks and intended targeting.
For extended discussion on Multiculturalism and the challenges it poses to the West, see Whither Multiculturalism?.