The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 55: 31 August 2005

JACK STRAW WRESTLES WITH REALITY

JACK STRAW ON THE RADIO

Ben Russell in the Independent today reports, 'Straw backed memo saying war would anger Muslims':

'Jack Straw has admitted that he authorised a memorandum to Downing Street - which was later leaked - warning that the war in Iraq could exacerbate Muslim extremism in Britain.'

'The Foreign Secretary said he had "agreed" a letter from Sir Michael Jay [top civil servant at the Foreign Office] warning No 10 that British policy in the Middle East and Iraq was a "recurring theme" in the underlying causes of extremism.'

'Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4 yesterday: "It was written 15 months ago and what's said in this letter is nothing different to what I said at the time, indeed I agreed the letter." '

'Mr Straw denied that the war led to Britain becoming a greater terrorist target. He said: "Would we have been safer had we not taken the military action in Iraq?" '

' "Now, no one can say for certain but it is my judgement that, because we were in any event a target, and so was the rest of the world, for this extremist terrorism well before Iraq, that there is no guarantee whatsoever that we would have been safer had we not taken military action in Iraq." '

(Philip Webster in The Times also notes this admission on BBC Radio 4's flagship Today programme. Nothing detectable in the Guardian.)

Straw also said that he 'refuted' (a sadly prevalent misuse of this perfectly good word) any suggestion that if Britain had not invaded Iraq, we would have been 'immune' from this type of attack.

So he made two responses to the charge put by BBC interviewer James Naughtie that the letter from Michael Jay 'contradicted' the assertion of ministers that there was no connection between the war in Iraq and the risk of terrorism here in Britain:

1) There is 'no guarantee' that not invading Iraq would have made Britain safer from terrorism.

2) Not invading Iraq would not have made us 'immune'.

Both statements are perfectly true, and perfectly irrelevant to the question at hand.

THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

The question is not whether 'not-invading-Iraq' would have 'guaranteed' a reduced risk of terror, or whether it would have made Britain 'immune' from al-Qaeda-type terror.

The first question is whether invading Iraq 'heightened' the risk of al-Qaeda-type terror, as the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) warned Tony Blair it would do - on 10 February 2003, five weeks before the start of war. The fact that London was not bombed by al-Qaeda-type terrorists before the war, and has been bombed by such terrorists since the war, is prima facie evidence that the risk of terror has indeed risen. Independent analysts in the Royal Institution for International Affairs (Chatham House) support this analysis.

The second question is whether the Prime Minister, and the British Government, entered into the war knowing that this 'heightened' risk of terrorism was the predictable consequence of their illegal, unpopular and illegitimate action. This has already been established by reference to the JIC warning.

The next question is whether the Government has deliberately misled the British people about the connection between British foreign policy in general, and the war in Iraq in particular, and the 'heightened' risk of terrorism in Britain. A reading of the Home Office/Foreign Office report 'Young Muslims and Extremists', drawn up in spring 2004, and the statements of ministers since the 7/7 attacks, demonstrates a deliberate dishonesty.

THE KEY QUESTION

Question 4 is the question Jack Straw was wriggling away from: whether a different course of action in the past - or in the future - would have resulted, or now result, in a lessening of the risk of terrorism.

The Foreign Secretary is desperate to keep the issue historical, and to frame it in terms of whether or not invading Iraq in March 2003 would have affected the risk of terrorism in Britain. Mr Straw wants to make this an academic 'what if' exercise, when he knows full well that it is the most politically charged and present issue in Britain today.

The central question being posed in relation to all these leaked documents is whether withdrawing from Iraq now would reduce the risk of terrorism in Britain in the future.

For the authentic anti-war movement, this question of self-interest is irrelevant. The occupation is wrong, and should be ended even if it increases the risk of terrorism in Britain.

For much of the British population, however, who are unenthusiastic and uncomfortable about the occupation, but who see no acceptable alternative, the question of self-interest is extremely important, and can tip the balance in favour of withdrawal.

The fact that withdrawal from Iraq will reduce the risk of terror, is therefore of critical significance, and this explains the Government's desperate attempts to distract attention from this prospect, and to mislead the British people.

Withdrawing from Iraq now will not and cannot make Britain 'immune' from the threat of al-Qaeda-type terror. It may not even dramatically reduce the risk of terrorism - the continuing British participation in the occupation of Afghanistan is also a burning grievance for al-Qaeda and its supporters. But it would require a great deal of evidence to prove that it would not significantly reduce the risk of terror.

THE 7/7 BOMBERS' MOTIVATIONS

Let's look at the 7/7 bombers.

The key figure in Leeds, Mohammed Siddique Khan, was apparently overcome with rage over the invasion of Iraq:

'Though usually preoccupied by local affairs, Mr. Khan strongly opposed Britain's joining American forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "You could not carry out a civilized conversation with him on Iraq," said Arshad Chaudhry, head of the Leeds Muslim Forum, an umbrella group of local Islamic leaders. But his anger aroused no suspicion: Many others, Muslim and otherwise, vehemently opposed the conflict, too.' (Wall Street Journal, 25 July 2005)

Mr Khan had apparently become 'radicalised' earlier, though the exact timing is unclear from newspaper reports. It seems to be linked to 11 September, and the aftermath. As we noted on 17 July, a Sunday Telegraph profile of the Leeds trio, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammed Sidique Khan, notes that 'it was in a backstreet bookshop that the trio "turned religious" about four years ago, says one friend.'

How did a bookshop have such an effect? The 'friend' says that the conversion of the three men coincided with the opening of 'Iqra', an Islamic bookshop, in Beeston in Leeds:

'I think the shop is innocent,' the friend says, 'but I think it sold under-the-counter stuff, videos of what was happening in Bosnia, Iraq and Chechnya. Stuff the television could not show. Rapes, murders, mutilation, all saying: "Look what is happening to your Muslim brothers and sisters." You see that and you start to get angry. That was the beginning.' The 29-year-old, who refused to give his name, added: 'From that, you feel you want to learn more about religion, about your Muslim brothers and sisters around the world getting murdered.'

The profile says of Mohammed Sidique Khan, 'close friends deny knowing anything of his weapons training at remote Afghan camps, some confess to branding him a "fruitcake" because of his ranting about Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan.'

'One man - who telephoned the BBC and also contacted police over his concerns... [said Khan's comments] were "a little extreme. He and his friends were very upset with what was happening to Muslims around the world. I thought he was a bit of a fruitcake, an odd fish." '

This confirms that the driving motivation for the bombings is the horrific abuse of Muslims around the world, and Western support for this abuse - and the case of the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers, British support for, and participation in, such abuse.

If Britain were to reduce its support for, and participation in, such abuse, the rage would lessen - perhaps not immediately, perhaps not proportionately, but it would lessen. There is no evidence so far that hatred of Britain would continue at its present levels even with a withdrawal from Iraq.

LONDON: THE CLAIM OF RESPONSIBILITY

Let us recall in this context the claim of responsibility made for the London atrocities on an al Qaeda-linked website. This contained the following statements:

'it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan'.

'We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.'

There is an offer to Denmark, Itay and other foreign partners in the US occupation, and, by implication, to Britain and the US.

If we go back earlier, we find the offer of a truce from bin Laden himself.

MADRID: BIN LADEN'S TRUCE OFFER

After the Madrid bombings, Osama bin Laden released a message to Europeans:

'... in order to deny war merchants a chance and in response to the positive interaction shown by recent events and opinion polls, which indicate that most European peoples want peace, I ask honest people, especially ulema, preachers and merchants, to form a permanent committee to enlighten European peoples of the justice of our causes, above all Palestine. They can make use of the huge potential of the media.'

'The door of reconciliation is open for three months of the date of announcing this statement.'

'I also offer a reconciliation initiative to them, whose essence is our commitment to stopping operations against every country that commits itself to not attacking Muslims or interfering in their affairs - including the US conspiracy on the greater Muslim world.'

'... The reconciliation will start with the departure of its last soldier from our country.'

... As for those who want reconciliation, we have given them a chance. Stop shedding our blood so as to preserve your blood. It is in your hands to apply this easy, yet difficult, formula. You know that the situation will expand and increase if you delay things.' (BBC translation)

This is confirms the analysis of Michael Scheuer, who ran the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, who says that Osama bin Laden has ‘clear, focused, limited and widely popular foreign policy goals’, and that he is out to 'drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy America, much less its freedoms and liberties' (Anonymous, Imperial Hubris, p. xviii)?

If the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were to end, whether or not the al-Qaeda leadership is genuine in such offers, it is overwhelmingly likely that the willingness of young people to carry out anti-Western terrorist attacks (which they regard as justified retaliation) will be reduced, and the security of people in Britain, the United States and elsewhere will be correspondingly increased. It is overwhelmingly likely that the recruiting, financing and logistical support offered to al Qaeda would drop.

Given the logical nature of this analysis, it requires substantial evidence to refute it.

No such evidence is offered, only evasion and deceit.

JNV welcomes feedback.