Further thoughts on today

[azekeil]

So, here are some things I believe:

• The war in Iraq was entered into for the wrong reasons.
• Until recently, I felt the prospect of our troops staying in Iraq (and Afghanistan) was not certain, and that withdrawing them as soon as appropriate would be wise.

There are many other things, but this is the crux of it for the point I wish to illustrate. I was talking with kissycat1000 who helped me to realise that the 'statement' claiming that al-Qaeda are responsible for the attacks sets off the following chain of events:

1. Any nation threatened by terrorism must adopt the position that the terrorists' position will not be benefitted by their actions. To do otherwise sets a dangerous precedent.
2. Blair as expected lays down this message in response to the attacks.
3. As a result, Britain must now not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan any time soon, nor in a way that could be construed to be complying with the 'statement'.

The terrorists must know that by bombing and releasing their 'statement' that this would be the outcome:

• ..and are so wrapped up in their method and principle of the matter rather than the outcome that they don't care
• ..or they actually believe there is some other way we will respond despite the obviousness of the above.

I don't believe the terrorists believe the latter.

The only other option (and my hope) is that their 'statement' is falsified by dumb extremists on our side wishing to pin the attacks on 'the enemy', hoping to garner public support for the war.

The crux of the matter is it may be the case that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks but by specifically mentioning the reasons they are carrying out the acts of terrorism in their 'statement' they are effectively ensuring those reasons continue to exist.

All logical outcomes are therefore very depressing thoughts.

Comments

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

The 'statement' above claims that:

"Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London."

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

That's answering the question "What has the terrorism got to do with Iraq?".

My question was "What has Iraq got to do with terrorism?".

To the best of our government intelligence reports, Iraqis weren't involved with any terrorism, weren't supporters of any terrorism, the former Iraqi secular government under Saddam Hussein was indeed an enemy of Muslim fundamentalism (and an enemy of Usama bin Laden in particular) and was, for many years, at war with Muslim fundamentalist regimes elsewhere, such as Iran.

Just because some nutter claims to do something awful on behalf of Reason X does not mean that those involved with Reason X had anything to do with something awful.

It's simply not true, nor logically consistent, to suggest that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism.

[easternpromise.livejournal.com]

Good point. But a bit of a moot one, if you don't mind my saying so.

It matters not a jot whether Iraq ever sponsored terrorism as a state or not.

These 'mujahideen' as they like to call themselves (I take umbrage with this title, I shall explain why later) are using this as just one part of their ideology - defend your Muslim brothers in Iraq from the Zionist oppressors - and Iraq has absolutely no say in the matter at all. Iraq meets every one of their criteria for "go blow up London, ug!": it's an Arab, Muslim state, the cradle of Islamic civilisation (yada yada) and it's just been occupied by the Big Bad USA.

It was always going to become a beacon to aspiring terrorists to use as a pretext to carry out attacks.

* On Mujahideen: the very title mujahid gives these people a currency and a value that they don't deserve to have. Mujahid implies that they are fighting a righteous war sanctioned by God (Jihad) and that, crucially, every other true believing Muslim has a duty to join with them and fight. It's one hell of a big claim to make...

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

Yes, quite, but I also don't see why it matters a jot whether some random terrorist choose to pick Iraq as their rallying cry instead of, say, the colour of our hats.

The reason we invaded Iraq was because the government refused to give UN weapons inspectors full access to all sites they wished to investigate, as demanded under UN resolution 1441. That is the only reason presented to Parliament.

We will presumably remain there until A. this investigation is complete (which seems to be the case now; it has been effectively completed and no WMDs were found) and B. the country is able to govern itself peacefully (which does NOT seem to be the case now).

Nothing else should affect our decision to remain there.

Terrorism should neither cause us to withdraw nor to remain.

If, before the London bombings, we were planning to leave in a few months, then we should still leave in a few months. Because the bombings shouldn't affect us either way.

That's why I don't agree with Axekil's proposition that "As a result, Britain must now not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan any time soon".

I don't agree. If, before the London bombings, we were planning to leave over the next six months, then we should continue doing so.

I reckon the UKUS coallition has been planning to (substantially) withdraw from Iraq sometime between just before the end of this year and the middle of next year. I don't think the London bombings should cause us to shorten nor extend that.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Exactly, but if there is any chance that pulling out when we had originally planned could be seen to be acquiescing to the terrorists then that is no longer an option for us.

Hopefully in practise this will not be much of a difference. But the attack will rally extremist insurgents in Iraq and prolong the struggle now - never a good thing.

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

That's allowing terrorism to affect our judgement and I don't agree.

That would allow, for instance, Israeli extremists to bomb London and falsely claim them on behalf of Iraqi extremists in the hope of extending the coallition stay in Iraq.

This isn't like the Ireland suitation whereby we could authenticate claims from the IRA using codewords. We have no real prospect of being able to authenticate these claims. They could be counter-insurgents.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

That's allowing terrorism to affect our judgement and I don't agree.

True, but I feel the situation in Iraq will be changed by the attack, meaning we need to change our response - whether or not this was caused by the terrorists it's still an effect that needs to be dealt with.

One would hope however in your example that the Iraqis would deny the allegations and not allow it to descend into a worse mess than it already is.

I think my main point is that I can see no logical way that the situation as it stands can be alleviated, or that any good can come of the policies everyone is following.

[easternpromise.livejournal.com]

One would hope however in your example that the Iraqis would deny the allegations and not allow it to descend into a worse mess than it already is

How can they deny an allegation which doesn't directly implicate them in an attack? They've been used as the pretext, sure, but the group doesn't claim to be Iraqi. How can Iraq deny that it has been cited as a factor in compelling a group of people to formulate a terrorist attack? It's a fact, not an allegation, surely?

I have to say I agree with aoakley in that we can't allow our foreign policy to be dictated to by terrorists. As it stands, we were already planning on sending more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in any case, and this does to some extent strengthen the requirement for that to happen, but if we had been due to pull out altogether a terrorist attack shouldn't change our decision to do that.

I think my main point is that I can see no logical way that the situation as it stands can be alleviated, or that any good can come of the policies everyone is following.

There's little hope for it being alleviated. One would hope that once Iraq is stable and settled then that may take away some of the impetus for attacks of this nature, as a peace deal in Palestine might also go some way to doing, but I have my suspicions that these terrorists will then just come up with some other excuse. It seems to me they enjoy making trouble and any kind of pretext is 'a-ok'. Fact is, no government can bow to terrorism - it just invites more...

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I agree with easternpromise above - it's a bit of a moot point. The terrorists implicate themselves with Iraq by their statement that the attack was retaliation for the 'massacres' carried out by British troops in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

Even if the statement is falsified I don't believe that any group that carries out such attacks should expect any less, even if it was not what they intended. Plus we have yet to hear Iraq decry the attacks and try to separate them from Iraq as a country. The terrorists should expect themselves to be associated with Iraq (and Afghanistan).