The British government is very much on the back foot over Iraq, from where deeply shocking acts of violence appear, it seems, each and every evening on the television news. Civil war could be just around the corner. Iraq damaged Labour in the May general election and also the Conservative Party which imprudently had backed the war. Now the majority view in Britain — as in America — is that the war was a mistake. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have been going out of their way to attempt to persuade the public that the bombing of London on July 7, which killed 56 commuters and injured over 700, was nothing to do with Iraq.
The government’s case is weakened from the start by a fact the government wishes us to forget. It was warned over and over again, by those in a position to know, that invasion was likely to increase the terrorist threat rather than to diminish it.
It was two years ago that the House of Commons’ Intelligence and Security Committee — an unsatisfactory committee that is too much in the prime minister’s pocket — disclosed that the Joint Intelligence Committee had warned Tony Blair that removing Saddam Hussein’s regime would make it easier for terrorists to get nuclear material, and might also make the United Kingdom a more attractive target for Al-Qaeda.
Many at Westminster and in Whitehall, particularly those with personal knowledge of defense and international affairs, produced similar views. For example, Lord Douglas Hurd, an outstanding Conservative Foreign Secretary, wrote in February 2003 that attacking Afghanistan had not necessarily made the world safer: “We kicked the hornets’ nest to pieces and the hornets buzz more angrily around us.”
In July 2002, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, chief of the Defense Staff between 1982 and 85, wrote in a highly significant letter to The Times that conflict with Iraq might provide: “... one of the mainsprings of motivation for terrorist action in the region, and indeed over a wider area...Petrol rather than water would have been poured on the flames and Al-Qaeda would have gained more recruits.”
We learnt from the Hutton Inquiry in 2003 that the chief of the Defense Staff and the heads of Britain’s individual armed services had a meeting with Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq. They warned against such action. I would find it hard to believe that one of the arguments they employed was not the risk of increasing terrorism.
I think the view at Westminster before the invasion was that Iraq was not a terrorist threat as Saddam Hussein’s regime was basically secular. I think the view at Westminster today is that Iraq is now a terrorist threat and a place where Americans can be attacked and are vulnerable. Hundreds of extremists, including many from Britain and other parts of Europe, are fighting in Iraq and some of those trained and experienced fighters will return home.
Jack Straw was clearly cross when, on July 18th, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Economic and Social Research Council — two highly respected think tanks — published a heavyweight analysis on the United Kingdom’s approach to the terrorist threat. It contained these words: “... 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 pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat. There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK.”
Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, whose party gained seats in the general election, has angered the government by blaming the Iraq war for a rise in terrorism: “Now we have the worst of both worlds. An unstable Iraq, free of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, but facing the tyranny of the suicide bomber and a training ground for terrorists who had no purchase in that country before.”
George Galloway, MP also annoyed No. 10 by suggesting Blair had “paid the price” for the Iraq conflict.
My personal view is that long before Iraq, and even Sept. 11, 2001, London was regarded as a potential target by international terrorists. It is a major world city, an important communications center and the capital of a staunch ally of the United States. The government is entitled to say that fear of terrorism should not overrule all other foreign policy considerations. But it is never going to win the argument that what happened in London on July 7 had no conceivable links with Iraq’s recent tragic history.
A recent public opinion poll suggested the public does not agree with the government’s position on the matter. Finally, the blame for the London bombings must rest on the shoulders of those directly responsible.
