Since the London bombings, critics of the Iraq war have tried to blame Britain's involvement in that war as the cause of the bombings, the implication being that if Britain had kept out of the war, they would not have been bombed. The latest round in such criticism arises from a memo by
Chatham House, a British think tank, which concludes
The UK is at particular risk [of al-Queda terrorist attack] because it is the closest ally of the United States, has deployed armed forced in the military campaigns to topple the Taleban regime in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and has taken a leading role in international intelligence, police and judicial cooperation against Al-Qaeda and in efforts to suppress its finances.
The expected response was given by
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw:
The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq, and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq.
They struck in Kenya, in Tanzania, in Indonesia, in the Yemen, they struck this weekend in Turkey which was not supporting our action in Iraq.
It is the terrorists who will seek any excuse whatsoever for their action and it is the responsibility of people in the civilised world to stand up to that terrorism and not provide them with any excuse whatsoever.
To respond to those who would conclude that Britain should not have ever gotten involved, British Defense Secretary John Reid uses the analogy of facing down a bully:
And the idea that somehow by running away from the school bully, then the bully will not come after you is a thesis that is known to be completely untrue by every kid in the playground and it is also refuted by every piece of historical evidence that we have.
First off, what is the Chatham House paper really saying? Primarily, it is an analysis of British anti-terrorism policies, addressing the complexities peculiar to Britian because they must face threats from both foreign terrorists--al Qaeda--and domestic terrorists--opponents of the Good Friday accords in Northern Ireland. Chatham House argues that a pre-9/11 focus on the domestic front left the door open for the foreign terrorists. The broad theme of the paper seems to be that the UK government has good ideas for combatting terrorism, but the implementation of those ideas is questionable.
Of relevance to the debate the memo is being thrown into, Chatham House's primary argument seems to be that the war in Iraq aided in al Qaeda recruitment.
There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism. It gave a boost to the Al-Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment, and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, and deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government and to bring bin Laden to justice.
Can even the most adamant supporters of the Iraq war argue with a straight face that the sight of US and UK bombs falling on Arab homes during the war, of American and British military forces patrolling the streets of an Arab country, and of course the images out of Abu Ghraib had no impact on al Qaeda recruiting? I would think this would be pretty much a given. Is Chatham House arguing that a head-in-the-sand approach would have prevented the London bombings? No. Straw's totally correct comments on the breadth of terrorist activities are irrelevant to Chatham House's arguments.
Now, Reid invokes the analogy of the bully to argue the head-in-the-sand approach would not work. Let us push this analogy even further. Most will agree that ignoring a bully will not protect one against him. This is Reid's point. Avoiding confrontation with al Qaeda will not ensure security against bin Laden's attacks. But what does confronting a bully bring? In the end, perhaps one will put the bully down. But in the mean time the bully will continue his bullying ways. If I am confronting that bully, will he not target his activities more on me than on those who avoid him? Sure.
The point is simple. Reid argues that we should confront terrorism. Certainly that's true, and one of the reasons we should not have gone into Iraq: we should have focused on confronting terrorism, not gotten sidetracked by regime change in Iraq. But there is a price to confronting terrorism, namely that they will target their fire more on us than on those who do not confront them. That does not mean those with their heads in the sand will escape the terrorists' wrath, but they will hit the US and allied countries more than, say, France.
The governments of both the US and UK should be honest enough with their people to admit there is a price to fighting terror, and it is not just the casualties on the frontlines. By choosing to go after al Qaeda, our nations are more at risk and domestic vigilance against terrorism must be heightened. In denying this simple and obvious truth, both governments deceive their people, thinking they cannot handle the truth. They are the ones with their heads in the sand.
Now, having said all that, the media are being irresponsible in their coverage of the memo. Reuters'
headline is "Backing U.S in Iraq put UK at risk, think tank says" which totally misrepresents what Chatham House is saying.
Be that as it may, government discourse should be based on facts, not the spin of newspapers trying to generate a controversy.
