A Liberal Response

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has responded to the London Bombings in the usual muddled and incoherent way that typifies his party’s statements and policies. Kennedy’s remarks were disingenuous as they belie his previous remarks, and basic common sense.

In their search for the centre-ground (and therefore a perceived greater share of the vote) they are unable to take a moral or strategic position on the attack. Kennedy was between a rock and hard place and the right were waiting – claws drawn – to attack anyone brave enough to state the blindingly obvious that the Iraq war has further fanned the flames of extremism and has a causational link with the attacks.

Kennedy was anxious to claim no “causal link” between the attacks and the war in Iraq. But he claimed that we had been targeted because of our involvement. Sorry; come again?

Kennedy yet again has proved toothless and impotent in representing liberals; thankfully some strategists do not share Kennedy’s views.

Chatham House (international think-tank; formally the Royal Institute of International Affairs) has pointed out, Iraq – and our subordinate partnership with the Bush administration - has significantly weakened us in the fight against terrorism. The institute stated that Iraq has “given a boost to the al Qaida network.”

The pro-war right are now in a frenzy attempting to deflect criticism towards the left, as their strategy to ‘create an enemy’ becomes a reality. The right need this war to drive their pro-military agenda.

Oh of course the right cry that 9/11 pre-dates the Iraq invasion, this of course is nonsense as the war had been rambling on since the first Gulf War when the US led Security Council imposed sanctions on the Iraqi nation. As Saddam continued to enjoy a palatial existence, it was his people that suffered the misguided strategy of suffocation that got the international community nowhere. However it did cost over half a million Iraqi children their lives. Madeline Albright commented - to CBS when asked about these deaths – they “were worth it”. How does the international community reconcile 500,000 dead children with no progress? How was it worth it?

Ally the above with proven evidence that the first Bush administration facilitated the invasion with its ambiguous ambassadorial exchanges with Saddam, and you have a real picture of the history of this conflict. Saddam claimed that some of the oil rich Kuwaiti land historically belonged to Iraq; the US ambassador to the ME explained that the US has no policy of involvement in Iraqi-Kuwaiti conflicts. The transcripts of this exchange are available on the web.

April Glaspie (U.S. Ambassador) to Hussein on 25 July 1990:

“We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. James Baker [US Secretary of State] has directed our official spokesmen to emphasise this instruction.”

The western governments love to dismiss Islamic discontent as some intangible ‘hatred’ of western freedoms and values…how so? Bin Laden himself (in his telecast before the `04 US election) dismissed this claim explaining that if he hated western freedom why have “we not attacked Sweden?”

************************

The Iraq war was the least effective and most bizarre way to address the ideological conflicts that exist between neo-conservatives and Islamic Fundamentalists. The Neocon’s are imperialists who are manifested in a US military and corporate agenda. Dating back to Nixon and Reagan their self-interest and obsession with power has shaped the global climate.

The Islamic fundamentalists are religious zealots, but ones who deeply resent western occupation of their historical lands. They returned from post-soviet Afghanistan to find US bases in Saudi Arabia (at the time of 9/11 the US had 5,000 combat troops in Saudi Arabia) and their leadership had become eunuchs to US power and influence. OBL believes that America is built on a house of cards and that a few well-placed nudges will bring the house down. He knows he cannot expel the US army from the ME with direct force, so he intelligently attacks the foundations of western power; the supposed safety the governments can provide their people. He believes that by undermining the security of western societies their people will demand change.

A recent book by Robert A. Pape – called “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” - has analysed all terrorist incidents since 1980 and found that over 95% can be put down to resistance to occupation; continued violence in Iraq and Palestine support this. It is simply irresponsible to try and dismiss Islamic terrorism as religious or somehow demonic; this merely allows the right and the controlling governments to deflect criticism from their actions and policies. This is the true ‘Fog-of-War’. As with western and soviet propaganda during the Cold War, truth is suppressed in favour of an almost religious polarising ideology.

The neocon argument for Iraq now claims that by fighting insurgents in Iraq we are “not fighting them here [meaning America].” Bush even claimed this in the days following the London attacks in a staggering display of insensitivity. The reasons for this war change every week as the weakened leader makes sense of his shattered presidency.

While I would agree that Europe’s Muslim communities need to do more to address their internal extremists and the psychopaths who strap on explosives, we Westerners must not be brainwashed by the our government’s – and the right’s - constant non-truths and lies about the root cause of all this death and destruction.

************************

Why does our government persist in using demonic terminology to describe al Qaida?

On the radio this week (Today, BBC R4) two ‘experts’ were asked, “should Tony Blair negotiate with an al Qaida representative [if possible]?” Both interviewees stated that al Qaida did not have a political angle so could not therefore be negotiated with; both went onto claim that the organisation was ‘evil’. I’m sorry???? Osama bin Laden has always sought a political conclusion, US and western military powers out of the Arabian peninsular and other Islamic lands. As Pape explains:

“No matter how you slice it,” he says, “it’s American policy that’s underneath this, not Islamic fundamentalism.” Washington Post

Calling al Qaida ‘evil’ is predictable in world where politicians were weaned on Cold-War propaganda, when you do not want to discuss real issues it’s easy to use dismissive and emotive terms to rule out real debate and/or diplomacy.

Why not talk to al Qaida? If indeed 95% of terrorist attacks are fuelled by occupation, this enforces the adage “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Al Qaida operatives are not killing people out devilment or religious fundamentalism (remember 70% of suicide bombers in Lebanon were Christians); they believe they have a legitimate political goal.

I do accept that some of the actual bombers were poisoned by – deliberately fostered - religious hatred and fervour; I refer to the al Qaida movement as an entity with it’s own strategic goals.

So if we want to continue to have a military presence in east and central Asia we have to accept the violent ramifications, and not to continue to attempt to dislocate ourselves from the effects or our actions. Are occasional terrorist attacks worth the strategic/economic benefits of our military occupations? This is the question we need to ask ourselves.

I’m sure these are the real discussions in the corridors of power, at the Whitehouse and Number Ten, but these are not the discussion one wants in the public domain. How can politicians level with the public when limbs are being separated from torsos because of policy? So lets not be brainwashed by incessant rallying calls about evil’ ideologies. This is about politics and strategy leading to human conflict.

What we need is an intelligent debate on the subject…more next time.