London is no stranger to terrorist attacks. In 1996, the Irish Republican Army even launched a mortar assault on 10 Downing Street. But Thursday was a watershed: For the first time, Al-Qaeda struck. The casualties, 50 fatalities and over 700 injured, set a new record, one the city will look to avoid repeating as the 2012 Olympics approaches.
In a sense, July 7 is England’s 9/11, the worst calamity to strike the country since World War II. Yet there is every sign that Britain is coping remarkably well. In fact Home Secretary Charles Clarke insisted that the pursuit of normalcy was a sign of strength, and denied the victory to the masterminds of the attacks. After much speculation, the G-8 agenda returned to discussions of poverty, development and Africa.
Unfortunately, as London bounces back, the rest of the world is still reeling from the aftereffects of 9/11. Worse still, attempts to thwart Al-Qaeda have had the exact opposite effect. For jihadists, Iraq is the staging ground for World War III.
President George Bush unabashedly manipulated 9/11 and the “war on terror” to sanctify his “war in Iraq”. All three are now synonymous in his presidential lexicon. On June 28, in Bush’s address to the American people, he made clear that “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania.” Apparently London, and Madrid are the new front lines.
Tony Blair is the one person who could gently remind Bush that no respectable sources of intelligence had ever linked Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In fact, ever since British and American troops “liberated” Iraq, Al-Qaeda has taken up residence in the Sunni triangle.
Please, Mr. Blair, you must do better than simply reacting to American provocation (see the Downing Street Memo). You followed Bush into one war, and now you must take the lead in ending another, the “war on terror”. You know that terrorism is a modern disease. Ancillary operations in this “war”, from rendering of terrorist suspects to countries that will torture them to reported death squads in Iraq, are eroding the moral standing of both countries and spreading the contagion.
Neither of you can champion the virtues of democracy while demonstrating utter disregard for basic human rights under the guise of fighting terror. The challenge is one that the UK has faced for decades; the US is still struggling to find its footing. I beseech you, Mr. Blair, set Bush right. Perhaps ending hunger, disease, famine and war in Africa is far simpler than convincing Bush that he has erred.
If he chose to tackle Bush’s misconceived “war on terror”, Blair could call on the support of retired US Gen. Anthony Zinni. Zinni was commander-in-chief of Central Command, basically all US forces in the Middle East. When he retired, Bush appointed him Middle East envoy. But Zinni was outspoken in his opposition to the war in Iraq, and quickly fell out of favor with the administration.
He hasn’t stopped talking about what ails American policy or how to defeat terrorism.
At a recent discussion at the nonpartisan Aspen Institute in Washington, DC, Zinni asserted, “terrorism is a tactic. We declared war against a tactic.” The current emphasis on striking back, fighting without a coherent strategy, declaring war on shadowy figures whose stock among disaffected youth soars as a result — all these fail to deter Al-Qaeda’s recruitment and franchise operation.
According to Zinni, a deep sense of injustice attracts angry young men to Osama’s extremist ideology.
The remedy? Challenge OBL’s pernicious ideology.
Fortunately for Bush and Blair, who are well advised to steer clear of inter-Islamic discourse, King Abdallah of Jordan has intervened. Last week, moderate Islamic leaders, both Shiite and Sunni, met in Amman and showed a united front, a gesture to extremists that they had not succeeded in hijacking Islam. All participants, including Ayatollah Sistani and senior Saudi ulema, signed off on a joint statement at the conclusion of their conference in Amman, Jordan. “We call for casting aside disagreement between Muslims and unifying their words and stances; reaffirming their mutual respect for each other; fortifying mutual affinity among their peoples and states; strengthening the ties of brotherhood which unite them in the mutual love of Allah.”
Not exactly the Al-Qaeda credo.
Harvard University terrorism expert Jessica Stern has spent time with extremists, discussed their ideology with them and written extensively about her experiences. In the “war on terror”, you might expect her to have a senior policy position in the White House. Not so. The good news is that her expertise is available to all. In the July/August 2003 edition of Foreign Affairs, she wrote that Al-Qaeda’s survival post-9/11 was largely due to its “protean”, or constantly evolving nature. She concluded, “Unless Washington and its allies show a similar adaptability, the war on terrorism won’t be won anytime soon, and the death toll is likely to mount.”
C’mon Tony. The signs are clear. It’s evolutionary: Either the US drops the “war on terror” sound bite and replaces it with a real international coalition, fully integrated Muslim partners and clearheaded, long-term strategy or those backing liberal, free market democracy may find themselves outdone by nihilists.
But even this realignment of resources and show of solidarity will fall flat unless Al-Qaeda recruitment starts to decline as precipitously as has the US military’s in the past six months.
Plotting a trajectory straight through the heart of Al-Qaeda is far simpler than reforming African governments. But there are things we can do to weaken and ultimately destroy this terrorist outfit. Let us start with Palestine.
In 2002, President Bush called for the creation of a Palestinian state in 2005. In 40 days, with Gaza disengagement, he has the first real opportunity to make good on his pledge. Yet he has failed. Of course, he’s not one to take responsibility for policy disappointments, so the Palestinians are likely to bear the brunt of his scorn when 2005 closes and no state emerges.
Is it in America’s or Britain’s best interests to allow Sharon, like other Israeli prime ministers before him, to use the pretext of the government’s imminent collapse (and a Bibi take over?) to dictate the terms of peace, to flout the “road map”, to trump human rights and dignities because of “security” and get away with it?
Tony, please, get us back on track. Remind Bush of his promise to the Palestinians and of his avowed support for Israelis. Both need a two-state solution by year’s end. So does the entire world.
— Maggie Mitchell Salem is a Middle East analyst based in Washington, DC. She was formerly director of communications and outreach at the Middle East Institute.
