Soldato
Ideally our entire foreign policy, modelled strongly on US interests and our representation of those in Europe and the Middle East, could do with a rewrite for today, not half a century back. Our recent and not so recent interventions and state-building efforts also leave much to criticise in terms of implementation, cultural sensitivity and effectiveness; and the effect this had on subsequent asymmetric warfare and terrorism blooming as a present threat. But we cannot change the past, we have to deal with the present as it is now, and this often includes the individuals we propped up or put in power.
There's a sliver of credibility to the Foreign Office thinking on this matter however: at present we gain something from several regional players above and beyond the costs of their meddling, poor economic policies and human rights record (though, glaringly, they are very oblique on the point, so I suspect it comes down to money, intelligence and strategic location); if we destabilise, replace or disengage from these regimes -- how will they evolve, and what risk will the power filling the vacuum pose? Handing these states over to death cults like ISIS, or to sphere's of influence of wounded powers like Russia, will be a mistake.
Furthermore, in a globally-connected world, whatever action we do take propagates back to us; still, the economic and cultural route of an alternative sate model I alluded to earlier is powerful, and is still the best tool we have to help countries choose reform over autocracy, violence and repression, whatever the starting ideology. If better alternatives than destruction of human rights, religious persecution or armed intervention emerge, I'll be the first to let everyone know!
I also agree that we should not renege on providing a balanced and open forum for debate, letting people engage without fear and having the resources to implement meaningful community action. Although I do despair that out of however many vocal critics of Islam, atheism, 'modern values', political correctness, Liberalism, Christianity, or what have you, few have actually informed opinions or have read anything they refer to. Fact free arguments based solely on fear are fictitious and nobody gains anything from them, whilst social cohesion falters as a result.
Nonetheless, what's more of a concern is the recent use of ideology by demagogues and extremists of a different persuasion as proxy to attack the people behind Islam as an undifferentiated group; offering crude, simplistic solutions to complex problems of culture, mental health, society, economy and identity. This cannot be allowed to stand or be accepted as mainstream political discourse; arguments such as 'there's something inherently violent and wrong about X people' are racist to the core, and they do not address any of the social or religious issues raised, or help people who attempt meaningful reform.
Raoh likes this post. Same about a brand of extreme liberalism having a very (if not fundamental) effect on cohesion.
