The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 21: Thursday 28 July 2005

MI5 Realism

Tory Realism

Foggy Denial - Mr Blair's Success With The Guardian

REALISM

MI5 REALISM

Today in The Times Michael Evans, the Defence Editor, reports something that seems to have missed the other papers: 'MI5 admits war in Iraq motivates bombers' (p. 8). He reports that the MI5 website now says:

'Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.'

In fact the full sentence on the MI5 website is stronger still:

'Though they have a range of aspirations and "causes", Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.'

Evans also mentions the JTAC warning about Iraq before the London bombings.

TORY REALISM

Douglas Hurd, formerly Conservative Foreign Secretary for the period 1989 to 1995 (in other words the formative period when war and sanctions on Iraq kindled the fires of al Qaeda) wrote in the Independent yesterday, 'You cannot divorce Iraq from the terror equation' (p. 27). We reproduce the burden of his remarks, with some bracketed comments:

'For a couple of days after the bombings in London, it was thought bad taste to mention Iraq. Then, first Charles Kennedy [well, actually Kennedy spoke out on 13 July, five days after George Galloway spoke out on 8 July] and then the Chatham House think tank broke the unnatural taboo. Now the subject is out of the box and the Prime Minister, despite his efforts this week, cannot put it back in again.'

'No sane person is making excuses for the London bombers. No one is saying that the al-Qa'ida brand of terrorism started because of the invasion of Iraq. No one is saying we could make ourselves safe by pulling our troops out of Iraq. [Quite true: no one is saying that withdrawal from Iraq all by itself will end the al Qaeda campaign against Britain. People are saying, however, that withdrawal from Iraq will reduce the risk of al Qaeda terrorism here.] The point being made is obvious and true, however unwelcome to ministers. The likelihood of young Muslims, whether in Britain or elsewhere, being attracted to terrorism was increased by our action in Iraq.'

'We attacked a Muslim country on grounds which turned out to be empty. We broke international law. We faced no serious threat from Saddam Hussein and received no authority from the Security Council. We brought about the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis.'

'The Downing Street spokesman airily dismisses this by saying that nowadays Muslims in Iraq were killing Muslims. Yes, indeed, as a direct result of our invasion and the situation which we created. We removed a cruel and wicked dictator and substituted the scene of carnage and anarchy in parts of Iraq today. We created in Iraq a new base for terrorism, and the world, including Britain, is less safe because of that.'

'There is a danger that our ministers will be so busy defending the war they started that their judgement on what needs to be done now will be blurred.'

'There is no case for immediate withdrawal of British and American troops. That would almost certainly make a bad situation worse... [JNV's position is that instant withdrawal without replacement by an unbiased international security force would indeed carry a great risk of making a bad situation worse. See our recent briefing.] But it is not enough simply to repeat, as the Prime Minister does, that we will stay until the job is done...'

'Just as it is impossible to wage war without killing innocent people, so it is very difficult to occupy a country without making militants and using force in such a way which will do more harm than good... Even in the south of Iraq, where Saddam's downfall was welcomed most enthusiastically, British troops operate among people for whom foreign occupation is a humiliation. In central cities like Fallujah, the American presence is already part of the problem, not of a solution.' [Emphasis added.]

Lord Hurd declares that 'the urgent need is to negotiate an end to the violence, not with the suicide bombers, but with those on whom the bombers rely for support.' It is difficult to see how this can be done without, at the very least, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Notice that Lord Hurd rules out 'immediate withdrawal', but not a staged, structured withdrawal. Given that he also rules out 'staying until the job is done', it seems he must be in favour of some form of timetable for withdrawal. Notice also that he suggests that even the British sector of occupation is 'doing more harm than good', and he states bluntly that in a large part of the US sector, the US forces are 'part of the problem, not part of the solution'.

He intimates that it is the occupation forces themselves which are 'making militants' - they are generating the insurgency which they invoke as justification for their presence.

FOGGY DENIAL - BLAIR'S SUCCESS WITH THE GUARDIAN

Today's Guardian editorial, 'Rising to the challenge' (p. 25) is everything Tony Blair was hoping for from the liberal press. Given his change of propaganda stance yesterday, the Guardian is almost exactly where he is positioning the Government line.

Everything about the causes of the London bombings - 'the unique and complex nature of the Islamist terror challenge' - is just too, too complicated. The Guardian sighs over 'the obsession in some quarters with trying to establish that the bombings can be explained by hostility to Mr Blair following the invasion of Iraq.'

This linkage is referred to as 'the hard left's obsession with Iraq'. No mention in the editorial that 'the hard left' includes the Royal Institute for International Affairs, MI5 (see above), the Home Office and Foreign Office, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, the Joint Intelligence Committee (before the war), and Conservatives (such as Douglas Hurd, above, or those mentioned by Matthew Parris).

If that is 'the hard left' which the Guardian disdains, where is the Guardian itself on the right-left spectrum? Taking up a position beyond Genghis Khan?

To continue with the editorial, there is the customary zigzag maneouvre demonstrated by Mr Blair yesterday:

'Common sense says this [the linkage with Iraq] is probably partly true - since the Iraq war heightened Islamist feeling in this country - but that it is also far from the whole story... this is only one of the many incomplete and partial explanations being offered from different sides of the spectrum.'

It's all too complicated!

But, on the other hand, when you get away from these 'hard left' maniacs, you start to get a little more light on the matter: 'Those who obsess about so-called "Islamo-fascism" without conceding the importance of the Iraq war and other perceived injustices against Muslims may be closer to explaining the dynamics of terror'. In other words, those analysts who focus on certain authoritarian strands in Islam, rather the real-world injustices which drive some young Muslims to adopt these authoritarian positions, are getting closer to the heart of the problem.

Which is code for saying 'Islam is really the problem, not US-UK foreign policy.'

But we go back to the main message: it's all too complicated!

'The point here is not to pretend that any of these issues - from the Iraq war to asylum seeking [!] - is irrelevant to understanding the attacks that Britain now faces. Each of them is part of the story. But the larger point is that the bombings are part of a more complex set of factors that are not susceptible to simple solutions.'

It's all too complicated! Don't worry about changing British foreign policy, that's just a small part of the complex interplay of factors. Listen to the Prime Minister!

'Mr Blair articulates a better awareness than most of the big picture, as well as of the complexity and interconnectedness of things.'

Although, 'he too has his big blind spots - Iraq and the rule of law among them.' Nobody's perfect.

The whole point of the editorial is summed up in the flat statement that:

Withdrawal from Iraq 'would not bring an end to suicide bombing'.

It is astonishing the level of intelligence that the Guardian possesses into the thinking, outlook and strategic planning of the al Qaeda network, that this statement can be made so categorically. One can only marvel.

JNV welcomes feedback.