The War on Terror – An honest debate

Has anything really changed in the weeks following the bombings in the London Underground? Obviously many families have felt the impact personally as loved ones were hurt or killed, and Londoners will be fearful every time they board a bus or tube train, but has anything really changed?

Today another more lethal explosion has claimed the lives of over 80 Egyptians as militant groups yet again attempted to destabilise Hosni Mubarak’s administration. In the Middle East this war between militants and governments has raged for decades as the Islamic world opened up to Western influence and economic co-dependence.

I have mentioned in a previous post a recent book released by Robert A Pape where he argues that over 95% of suicide bombers are fuelled by occupation not fanatical religiosity. Pape analysed 462 suicide terrorist attacks to assess the strategic goals of the attacks, he reviewed documents and the religious background of the attackers. Pape found that 57% of those assed would be accurately described as secular, not fundamentally religious. Even in the case of al Qaida, Osama bin Laden has consistently made his strategic goals clear.

Al Qaida seeks the expulsion of Western military forces from land they perceive as inherently Islamic. It’s also true that they also have the more ideological goal of creating a kingdom under strict Islamic law, but this objective is not the cause of the relatively new phenomenon of attacking on Western soil. They attack us because we exert our influence over their region.

So why do our elected politicians repeatedly use rhetoric that dehumanise Islamic militants and consistently refute any legitimate strategic aim?

President Bush has consistently stated that the terrorists “want to destroy our way of life”. Mr. Bush claims al Qaida hate American values and freedoms, while bin Laden himself has rejected this, and stated that his goal is indeed strategic and is – in his eyes and among millions of Muslims around the world at least - legitimate.

Lets go back to the first Gulf War. We know that April Glaspie’s handling of the diplomatic exchanges prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait were ambiguous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst but what US imperial interests would be served by conflict in the region?

Firstly we have the close relationship between the Saudi royal family and the Bush administration. The Saudi royal family enjoys vast wealth through oil exports and its tight control of its people; it allows the countries Wahhabist cleric’s control of the educational system and influence on lawmaking, in return for their support and legitimacy. The Saudi People are given scant democratic representation and the recent elections in Iran – much maligned by the Whitehouse - would put the Saudi’s to shame (the House of Saud recently allowed limited local representation for strictly vetted candidates).

Members of the Saudi elite – including members of the bin Laden family – have been regular visitors to the homes of George W Bush and his father former president George HW Bush. So what links the Bush’s and the Saudi’s?

Of course it’s oil and regional influence.

The most significant footnote in the first Gulf War was the huge military presence the US maintained in the region after the conflict had been resolved. This might would give the US increased regional influence and a foothold above the worlds largest proven oil reserves. The Saudi princes in return saw the suppression of the regions most powerful agitator Saddam Hussein, and secured their favoured relationship with the world’s last remaining super power.

To dismiss the above as a conspiracy would be ignoring US intervention in Central America, and more recently their secretive moves in the central Asian Republics. Whether or not there is any water in this argument is irrelevant to angry Arabs who see foreign – mainly Christian – troops based on their lands, and propping up their oppressive leaders.

So is it appeasement to highlight these issues?

How can it be? We must address the reactions in the Islamic world to our policies, to ignore a causation link between terrorism and our military and economic influence would be ignorant and dangerous. However our political leaders do exactly this. Anyone who highlights this is an appeaser.

It is also true to say that this is an Islamic problem (as outlined on numerous occasions by Tom Friedman), and that Europe’s Muslim communities must do more to seek out and destroy their fanatical fringe elements.

An improved dialogue and mutual respect between the security services and the Muslim leaders should be fostered, and concerted efforts to greater integrate their young into mainstream British culture and industry should be undertaken.

We must also stand united against undemocratic regimes such as the Saudi model above and the military dictatorships such as that of Pakistani leader President Musharraf, we must have the strength to deliver on our promises and not show pluralism in our actions. Bush and Blair are seen alongside Musharraf as enemies of Islam throughout the Middle East and the Asia. Hugh Sykes – the BBC journalist - interviewed protestors outside the Red Mosque in Islamabad yesterday; the level of hatred among these Pakistanis was disturbing in the least. The Bush team has repeatedly praised the Musharraf administration for its help in the fight against terror. By allying ourselves with dictators we are further inflaming the resentment in these unstable regions.

So will the Right allow a reasoned and informed debate on the real causes of al Qaida’s terrorism or will they ensure that blindness and ignorance will suppress intelligent discussion?

The Western response is ‘we will not negotiate with terrorism”, when what they actually mean is “we will not negotiate our policies.”

The current world order is not up for negotiation.

Sadly by not resolving the root causes of discontent in the Islamic world, we help it fester and produce yet more fanatics willing to blow themselves up for bin Laden’s cause. Our security forces have proved that they cannot watch every bus and rail station, and if these early tragedies are not heeded we are increasingly susceptible to attacks with far greater loss of life. Are our water supplies and nuclear facilities secured?

So get used to bomb alerts and attacks in the future because al Qaida are not going away, they’re just getting warmed up.