In the wake of the London bombings, the British government was quick to downplay any link between the bombings and Iraq. The two had nothing to do with one another, according to Tony Blair. Instead it was all about "our way of life".
Now, it seems, the Home Office disagrees, with a draft report into the bombings saying that Britain's participation in the US invasion of Iraq was a key "contributory factor" which helped inspire and radicalise the bombers and put them on the path to mass-murder.
This doesn't excuse the bombers in the slightest - but it does suggest that, contrary to its claims, the British government's participation in Iraq endangered its citizens rather than making them safer.
9 comments:
You are naturally thinking short term?
Perhaps a long term view might be different?
Any proof for your point of view?
Just a few thoughts - I too was against the war.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/03/2006 01:29:00 PM
Right!
So what's the justification of all the bombings prior to the Iraq war.
9/11 or the USS Cole for example.
Or even closer to home the Bali bombings that targeted tourists from Oz, NZ, UK and the US plus all large number of local citizens.
Sounds like Muslims were use any excuse to kill and maim non-believers.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/03/2006 03:14:00 PM
there is alsothe long term perspectine. if terrorism is seen to have suceeded it might be more likey to occur again.
knee jerk opposition to terrorists or ignoring them might serve to reduce terrorism relitive to deep consideration on how not to agrevate them. (or maybe not)
Posted by Genius : 4/03/2006 05:41:00 PM
So icehawk, does the actions of a few crazies influence your opinion on whether or not the war was the right thing to do? Because that is what idiot and yourself appear to be saying - the war caused these people to bebave the way they did therefore the war was wrong.
The same argument could be made against pro-abortion laws - all those poor old Christians just driven to bomb abortion clinics - "So maybe if we followed different policies, there'd be less terrorists."
You might very well have opposed the war for valid reasons but letting crazies validate your views might be a bit unwise.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/03/2006 10:25:00 PM
neil:
I think the fact is that the war was a major factor in radicalising those who bombed the London trains/buses. This is less a comment on the validity of the war than a judgement on the psychology of those specific terrorists.
Posted by Muerk : 4/03/2006 11:20:00 PM
I think the radical muslims feed off the arguments of the far left as do the modern "fascists". And the left opposes the US in a pretty kneejerk fashion - partly due to the adversarial political system (and that they are conspiracy fiends).
It is the fact that the far left have created the meme that means that doing a conspicuous thing amounts to agrevating terrorism even if that thing is a net good.
Posted by Genius : 4/04/2006 06:45:00 AM
If the central part of this particular argument is that in overall terms the war has lead to terrorism then it can't be denied that this was the case with the London bombers.
But a necessary follow-up to arguing against the war on this basis is to consider the impact of the pre-invasion status quo. Back then the situation with Iraq was already being used as a recruting tool by al Qaida - specifically the US troops in Saudi Arabia (necessary to deter Saddam) and the human cost of keeping Saddam in his box (the sanctions).
So what we have is a problemn that lead to terrorism - keeping Saddam boxed in, and a solution that has lead to terorism - the invasion. So in effect we had the choice of two bad options. What we are really debating is which was worst.
Other issues that should be considered include the on-going impact of Saddam's repression of the Shi'ite community - the major cause of the current inter-communal violence - and the fact that the two countries responsible for keeping Saddam in his box had decided that the Saddam problem needed to be delt with once and for all.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/04/2006 08:17:00 AM
Actually Icehawk, I agree with you, that it is all but impossible to firmly evaluate, politically, morally, or otherwise, the situation in Iraq at present. I tend to agree with Christopher Hitchens that the correct decision was made, but whether Iraq will be a mess or a success in 5 years is unfortunately, still an open question. All one can do, it seems to me is support earnest efforts, conducted by Americans and Iraqis, to build a functioning, secure, democratically accountable country.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/04/2006 04:19:00 PM
icehawk, I did moderate my view somewhat in the second post anticipating some of your objections and refelcting a less than certain view of events than I have had.
I acknowledged that the war has created terrorism but also pointed out that the status quo was aslo doing this. I left it open as to which course of action was the least worst but suggested other factors to be considered.
I agree that such actions as the London bombers do need to be considered in weighing up the war. But if you feel that the pro-war side tends to ignore such consqeuences then what I feel is that the anti-war side don't fully acknowledge that the pre-war situation was hardly satisfactory and didn't offer an alternative apart from "keeping Saddam in his box", ignoring the consquences of that in terms of recruiting terrorists and continuing the communal strife in Iraq etc.
Personally I can't say that I support the war now, but looking back at other options I really can't see that there was a less worse option.
With all the comparisons being made to Vietnam I'm continually surprised that a far more relevant comparison is hardly ever made - with Bosnia and Kosovo. The former Yougoslavia had much in common with Iraq - a country of religious and ethnic diversity ruled by an authoritarian regime. The move to democracy there involved a far greater percentage death toll and ultimatly required outside intervention to bring the confict to an end. Was that the non-invasion future for Iraq? I can't be certain but it was a distinct possibility.
As for the actual present I think that the timetable for the withdrawl of coalition troops should be set by the Iraqi government who, dispite all the talk, still want them there to to counter the insurgency.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/05/2006 09:44:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).