Chatham House, a UK think tank, has just released a report on the London terrorist attacks. In this report, the authors decry Britain's role in the War on Terror, saying,
the UK government has been conducting counter-terrorism policy "shoulder to shoulder" with the US, not in the sense of being an equal decision-maker, but rather as a pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat.While the report appears to blame the US—and the Iraq war—for the attacks, the authors would like to have their cake and eat it, too. They shy away from directly blaming the attacks on the Iraq war, but note that, "there is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has posed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism." While this is undoubtedly true, connecting terror attacks to the war in Iraq only gets it half right (or, rather, somewhat less than half). Do they suppose that if Iraq had never been invaded, there would be no terror threat?
British MP George Galloway certainly does. Here is an excerpt from his statement released on the day of the attacks:
We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world. We argued, as did the Security Services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.This point of view has also found currency among the anti-war set here in America. If only we could meet the terrorist's demands, they say. There must be a political-diplomatic solution. Unfortunately, unlike with the IRA or even the FALN, there is no political organization with which to negotiate a peace. The demands of al Qaeda and other nihilistic terror outfits cannot be met. Anyone who thinks they can be has a very short memory, indeed.We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.
Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.
Continued on the next page
Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
Even if we flew Osama to DC and signed a peace treaty, and gave in to all his present demands, there would certainly be new demands made by the terrorists shortly afterwards.
That is essentially what happened with the Barbary pirates (who were also Muslims) back in the early 1800s. We gave in to their original demands, only to be met with more outrageous demands later on. At last, we could no longer deal with their extortion, and we crushed them (millions for defense, not a penny for tribute).
2 - RJ
And the Barbary pirates haven't been back since.
And the Europeans, who were dealing with the same BS from these same savages, barely lifted a finger to help us, but still enjoyed all the benefits of our successful actions.
Sound familiar?
3 - Deano
Actually first the US paid them off, then after a few incidents Jefferson determined not the pay them, sent a very unsatisfactory expedition (founding the US navy and Marines)that failed to do very much, then the US paid them again (Jefferson changed his mind).
Throughout this muddling around the US embarassingly lost the frigate Philidelphia (ran aground) and her crew (captured & held hostage). The US then opted to attack them several more times (Jefferson changed his mind again), including the famous march through the Libyian desert led by Army Captain William Eaton, who, with a handful of Marines and a mercenary mob of cast-offs crossed 500-miles across the Libyan desert, capturing the city of Derna (and incidentaly leading to the words in the Marine hymn - "to the shores of Tripoli").
This in turn led to a treaty and the indirect release of the prisoners. In theory this also led to a halt on the pirate predation on US ships. In practice, it just made the pirates a little more careful in snagging US-flaged ships. Piracy continued through to the 1830's.
Sorry RJ, you didn't quite "crush" them...but you did discourage them for a time.
4 - Joshua Crumby
UK/think tank...There seems to be some contradiction there!
5 - Dave Nalle
The reason the Tripolitan adventure didn't work was that we stopped marching at Derna and didn't carry on to Tripoli and depose Yussef Karamanli . Jefferson was terrible at foreign policy. We had Karamanli's brother ready to take the throne, but Jefferson negotiated instead of finishing things off and putting him on the throne.
The Barbary Pirates lost their hold over the Mediterranean primarily because they didn't have the resources to build ironclad ships and once the European powers had modernized their navies that was that.
Dave
6 - BB
"This point of view has also found currency among the anti-war set here in America. If only we could meet the terrorist's demands, they say. There must be a political-diplomatic solution. Unfortunately, unlike with the IRA or even the FALN, there is no political organization with which to negotiate a peace. The demands of al Qaeda and other nihilistic terror outfits cannot be met."
Do you think perhaps by not making them public-enemy number one so they can come out of hiding might enable face-to-face negotiations?
So long as they are forced underground that possibility does seem rather remote.
7 - Anthony Grande
I don't know what the brain washed suicide bomber want(probabally their seventy something virgins), but Mosoui is waiting for the Americans leave so he can be the new dictator of Iraq.
8 - Pete Blackwell
BB, I think they made themselves public enemy number 1 one fall morning a few years back.
9 - td
Obviously we cannot satisfy their demands. But neither can we eliminate the grievances. These grievances will always exist because they are not just held by terrorists but by many in the middle east.
The problem is not that they have these grievances, but that some of them feel the need to fight us over these grievances. There are plenty of muslims who don't like western culture, but are willing to live and let live. It's just the few who turn to violence that pose a problem.
Similarily in the US there are many Christian fundamentalists who don't like abortion, but are willing to live and let live. It's just the few who bomb clinics that pose a problem.
The question is how do you assist/pressure middle eastern cultures to develope into populations that side more with the 'live and let live' crowd, and less with the 'bomb them' crowd.
And this is where the argument for diplomacy comes in. Because while you can't negotiate with those who have already go beyond the point of no return, you can try limit the number of future terrorists by working with middle eastern countries to reduce the spread of the extremist ideology within their societies.
And this is the catch-22 of the whole debate:
Diplomacy won't work for the generation that is already fighting us, but it may work for the next generation. Military action is needed to fight the current generation who won't negotiate, but it undercuts the diplomatic efforts by fueling the fundamentalist ideology.
Finally, I just want to add that I inculded economic pressure when talking about diplomatic efforts. Because many of the richest middle eastern states will not heed diplomatic efforts unless they are combined with economic pressure.
10 - valery dawe
That ridiculous "anti-war set here in America."
All those cool new weapons to play with, all that blood to be spilled, all that money to be made, and those peacenik party poopers want it stopped!
Are they nuts or what?
Imagine what life would be like for 58,000 GI's if they hadn't been ordered to invade Vietnam? Boring or what? And what kind of loser would have missed the opportunity to bomb the crap out of
Panama?
11 - Pete Blackwell
Valery,
I fail to see what your comment has to do with this topic. I wasn't saying that the anti-war people have no arguments. I was saying that some in the anti-war camp believe that withdrawing from Iraq will make us safe from terrorism (this is true even moreso in Europe). My argument is that it won't.
Your snide insinuation that I therefore relish the bombing of the innocent as some sort of macho bloodsport is way off base and totally unfair.
If you want to argue that point, why don't you take it up with someone who actually made it to begin with?
12 - E L Frederick
BB
Ok, so let me see if I get what your saying...
Your saying that we should back off and let them come out of the caves, regroup, in hopes of a peace treaty or an armistice?
Would you care to enlighten me on what blurb from "Al-Jazeera" the terrorist broasting network, gave you the impression that any of these people have any interest in peace?
Short of having the country of Israel dissolved, lineing up all the Jewish residents of the new Palistinian state, slaughtering them Hitler Style... then pulling out of Afghanistan, Iraq and the middle east, tucking our tails and staying on our side of the world do you think is going to make them happy?
You can reason with the unreasonable.
13 - valery dawe
What Galloway said is "....the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain." He was right.
The pro-war psychos in the US and the UK can't come to grips with the facts of life, one of which is, to use Ward Churchill's observation, "Some people push back".
The pro-war gang in the US argued that
terrorizing the people of Vietnam would make America safe and save American lives. It was a silly but deadly argument.
You are against ending the occupation of Iraq knowing, if you aren't sleepwalking, that the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation produces death and destruction. You may not relish that inevitability but you could at least try to recognize it.
14 - andy marsh
Yeah...some people push back...you do remember what happened 1408 days ago...right??? That's us over there...pushing back!
15 - E L Frederick
Yes, war has inevitable consequences that must be delt with.
While your asking questions, what about the Kurdish people who suffered under Saddam's iron fist. What about the non-bathists that Saddam wreaked havoc on. The Sunni's, how about them?
Just because we are losing American lives in Iraq doesn't mean that it wasn't the right thing to do.
We are losing more people per day to drunk driving accidents in the United States, where people are "safe" than we losing total in Iraq per day.
Removing Saddam was the right thing to do. It may not be popular, however it was the right and moral thing to do. We should of done it back during the first Gulf War.
As for the Taliban, anyone who can honestly say that Afghanistan was better off under the radical thumb of the Talbian as compared to now doesn't know anything about the Taliban. I would suggest you read "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid (A Pakistani Reporter)
16 - Pete Blackwell
Valery, I feel like you're in your own little world there, arguing against points that no one has made. Of course I realize that occupying a country causes death and destruction. Please point me to ANYTHING I've ever written that denies this.
An equally undeniable fact is that NOT occupying Iraq would cause death and destruction (especially now that we're over there). Are you in favor of one kind but not the other? That would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?
Or, are you like me, aware of and made uncomfortable by the moral ambiguities of the choices we've made and have been forced to make? I think that's a lot more defensible than you're Manichean worldview.
What I'm saying is that there is nothing we can do that will satisfy the hardcore terrorist types. Not pulling out of Iraq, not anything. When you quote Ward Churchill, a sickening fellow if there ever was one, you are endorsing his view that the grievances of the terrorists are justified and answerable. The whole subjet of the post I wrote was that this is not true. That doesn't mean we've done nothing wrong. It doesn't mean I love everything about the war (look up any of my postings on Abu Ghraib or Gitmo before you go off accusing me of such things). It just means that the situation is not so simple as the Galloways and Ward Churchills would have it, and, very importantly, it's not all a situation of our making. We may be throwing gasoline on a fire, but the fire was there to begin with.
17 - valery dawe
Andy, what exactly was Iraq doing 1408 days ago that prompted us to push back?
18 - andy marsh
continuing to disregard at least 14 UN resolutions...plotting to assassinate former US presidents...not honoring the no-fly zones...killing his own people...allowing the mutiliation of his countries daughters...not educating his countries daughters...should I go on???
or have you had enough???
19 - E L Frederick
All Saddam had to do was cooperate with the UN. All he had to do was treat his own people/citizens with the same basic "human rights" that everyone else is expected to hold to.
China does a better job of upholding the human rights of it's citizens than Saddam did, and China isn't exactly known for their "human rights".
Was it so much to ask that he govern in a way that didn't cause his citizens to die? Was it so much to ask that he not gas the Kurds?
Saddam was a modern day Hitler, and your saying we were wrong to invade and remove him from power by force?
20 - valery dawe
E L Frederick, so you believe the US heart bleeds for Kurds, non-Baathists, Sunnis and Afghanis???
You're joking!
21 - andy marsh
I believe that the U.S. heart bleeds for all men...and women who are not free!!!
22 - E L Frederick
Does yours? Is it ok for people to commit genocide? Is it ok when there are starving kids in Africa?
How you sit there and scream about the injustice of the US Armed Services men and women being killed yet have no clue why they are there or what their presence means to the formerly oppressed.
I just got back from a year in Afghanistan, not as a member of US Millitary, but as an un-armed US citizen working for the Army as a contractor.
I made and lost friends there. I think their blood on that soil means more to me than their number in the paper can mean to you.
23 - Shark
"...Is it ok for people to commit genocide?"
Only if they're on our side.
"..I think their blood on that soil means more to me than their number in the paper can mean to you."
Which obviously makes your opinions more valuable.
feh.
24 - valery dawe
Andy, Israel disregards UN resolutions. You're not suggesting the US should lob cruise missiles in its direction are you?
Let's pretend the US would never plot to assassinate a head of state. Allende.
Saddam was a nasty guy for a lot longer than 1408 days ago. He wasn't a very nice man in the 80s when Rumsfeld was his pal.
So what's the significance of your 1408 days?
25 - Shark
..or maybe this disqualifies you due to your vested interest:
"I just got back from a year in Afghanistan... as an un-armed US citizen working for the Army as a contractor."