The chief state sponsor of terrorism

I'm now reading Londonistan, by Melanie Phillips, a book about the Islamic radical threat in Britain. Much of the book is worthless, a right-wing screed about how "multiculturalism" and individualist liberal values have weakened society and blah blah blah. (I of course didn't buy it; if multiculturalism and individualism caused societies to crumble, the US itself would have fallen apart long ago.)

But the details the book provides about the ascendancy of radical Islam in Britain are hard facts that can't be ignored.

Britain, in the 1990s, took in untold thousands of "refugees" from Muslim countries; many of these were Islamists fighting against their governments in places like Algeria or Saudi Arabia. These immigrants were supported by Britain's welfare state, but the real reason for this support seems to have had little to do with helping the poor.

It was actually protection money. One moderate Algerian Muslim, urging Britain to wake up to the extremists in its midst, got this reply: "[MI5 officials] said to me, we are giving these people a roof over their heads, food, free health care - and the security of Britain will be very safe." A British official added: "There was a deal with [the Islamists]/ We told them if you don't cause any problems, then we won't bother you."

Given this policy, it was little wonder that London became the headquarters for groups like Tablighi Jamaat, al-Mujahiroun, and Hizb-ut-Tahrir. It was other countries' frustration at Britain's failure to extradite members of these groups that led to the creation of the term "Londonistan."

What's really happening here? The common interpretation of these ominous developments is that Britain is suffering an internal threat, that these Islamist groups will eventually bite the hand that feeds them. The London bombings in 2005 certainly seemed to confirm that idea. But I'm starting to consider a different, more ominous possibility...

Is the UK itself basically a state sponsor of terrorism?

Scouring the blogosphere, I couldn't find any blogs advancing this idea. My generation of Americans grew up on Monty Python and British rock 'n roll; it's almost unthinkable to us that our funny, friendly "parent country" could intentionally nurture and support terrorist organizations that slaughter our citizens. But the evidence is there. If Londonistan is right about the extent of the British government's intentional tolerance of violent groups, then how is Britain doing anything different from the Taliban?

Remember, we bombed the Taliban back to the stone age (admittedly a short trip) because they allowed al-Qaeda to operate in their territory, refused to extradite anti-US jihadis, and provided financial support. That's all the Taliban did; they didn't help plot 9/11, they just gave al-Qaeda a place to do it. But if Britain is giving Muslims money and protection from international law enforcement, how is Blair different from Mullah Omar?

I wish I were colorfully exaggerating, but I think we have to be ready for the possibility that Britain has decided that it faces a greater long-term threat from Islamists than it could possibly face from American disapproval, and has therefore decided to cast its lot in with the Islamists. The Islamicization of Britain - from the construction of a mega-mosque where white politicians are prevented from going, to protests against holding the Summer Olympics during Ramadan - shows no sign of ebbing.

But even more ominously, the British people themselves have turned en masse to anti-Americanism (and that old standby, anti-semitism). As Londonistan author Phillips writes in USA Today:

In a Populus poll last month in The Times of London, 62% said the government should change its policy by distancing itself from the United States, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. An August YouGov poll in The Spectator magazine revealed that while 53% wanted a tougher anti-terrorism policy, 45% wanted to be allied more closely with the European Union than with America. Only 14% supported closer U.S. ties...

When I was living in Japan, I routinely was subjected to angry, bitter anti-American (and sometimes anti-semitic) tirades, so my personal experience bears this out.

The UK has been our staunch ally for over a century. But the old conservative, classist, imperialist Britain that we first allied ourselves with is gone, and the liberal, tolerant Britain of the Beatles may be on the way out as well. Britain's need to appease its own internal Islamist element may drive that nation to become something baleful and unrecognizable - a bitter, skulking anti-American polity, cheering under their breath when the jihadis whose meal tickets they buy blow themselves up to kill Americans civilians.

It may be time, I am saying, to reconsider our "special relationship" with the United Kingdom. If they choose the Islamists over the U.S., it will be a great tragedy, but so be it. Beatles and Python, we hardly knew ye.