The Link between Foreign Policy and Terrorism

The British government has insisted on its claim that its foreign policy has had no impact upon anger and violence. Instead, Tony Blair has adopted the neo-conservative mantra that it is Islam that is the problem. The below key intelligence reports and political statements conclusively prove that the foreign policy of western governments perpetuate violence . UK MoD Defence Academy In September 2006, it was revealed that a research paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence's Defence Academy stated that: "The war in Iraq...has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world…Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act." Senior Cabinet memo A leaked memo by senior UK Cabinet officials demands a "significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity". The memo also suggests that in an ideal world "the Muslim would not perceive the UK and its foreign policies as hostile". Sir Richard Dannatt [Head of the British Army] In an interview with the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Head of the British Army, said that the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems" and they should "get out some time soon". Chatham House A report in July 2005 by Chatham House, the respected thinktank on foreign affairs, concluded that there was "no doubt" that the invasion of Iraq had "given a boost to the al-Qaida network" in "propaganda, recruitment and fundraising", while providing an ideal targeting and training area for terrorists. "Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign." JTAC assessment On 19 July 2005, the New York Times published extracts from an assessment, drawn up in mid-June 2005, by the UK’s Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC). The most striking sentence in these extracts was: “Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the UK” JIC assessment In April 2005, a report drawn up by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) was even more explicit about the motivating effect of the invasion of Iraq. It was entitled International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq. The following extracts from it were published in The Sunday Times on 2 April 2006: “It [the invasion of Iraq] has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.” “Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate.” “There is a clear consensus within the UK extremist community that Iraq is a legitimate jihad and should be supported. Iraq has re-energised and refocused a wide range of networks in the UK.” “We judge that the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term. It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.” Young Muslims and Extremism Report A 2004 joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier prepared for Tony Blair - 'Young Muslims and Extremism' - identified the Iraq war as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis stated: "It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US." "The perception is that passive 'oppression', as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to 'active oppression'. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam." (Robert Winnett and David Leppard, 'Terror in London, Leaked No 10 dossier reveals Al-Qaeda's British recruits,' The Sunday Times, July 10, 2005) MI5 assessment [UK Security Service] The MI5 website states, “In recent years, Iraq has become a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.” ISC assessment The intelligence services warned the UK government, prior to the invasion of Iraq, that military action against Iraq would increase the threat of terrorism to Britain. The Intelligence & Security Committee (ISC) report published on 11 September 2003, quoted a JIC assessment, entitled International Terrorism: War with Iraq, dated 10 February 2003: “The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.” (ISC report, Paragraph 126) US National Intelligence Estimate On 24 September 2006, The New York Times published an article, entitled Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat. It was about a US National Intelligence Estimate entitled Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, which was completed in April 2006. National Intelligence Estimates are formal assessments on specific national security issues, signed off by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte. They express the consensus view of the 16 US spy agencies, based on raw intelligence supplied by all of them. This Estimate is the first formal appraisal of “global terrorism” by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began. In an effort to undo the damage done by this leak, President Bush has declassified and published the “key judgments” in the Estimate. But the “key judgments” merely validate the headline on The New York Times article: “We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." "The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." "Four underlying factors are fuelling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad”; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims - all of which jihadists exploit.” Former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi A few days after the July 2005 London bombings, the former Italian PM Berlusconi, said, "Even intelligence from other countries shows the three Bs—Bush, Berlusconi and Blair—are considered the most exposed to this type of risk." Michael Scheuer – First head of CIA Al-Qaida desk Michael Scheuer, worked for the CIA for 22 years, and was the first head of its al-Qaida desk, serving in this capacity for two years. While still working for the CIA, he wrote a book entitled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is losing the War on Terror, which was published in 2004. His view, as summarised in this book, is as follows: “… the greatest danger for Americans confronting the radical Islamist threat is to believe – at the urging of US leaders – that Muslims attack us for what we are and what we think rather than for what we do. “Rhetorical political blustering ‘informs’ the public that Islamists are offended by the Western world’s democratic freedoms, civil liberties, intermingling of genders, and separation of church and state. However, although aspects of the modern world may offend conservative Muslims, no Islamist leader has, for example, fomented jihad in order to destroy participatory democracy, the national association of credit unions, or coed universities. … “Al-Qaida’s public statements condemn America’s protection of corrupt Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances. Bin Laden’s supporters thus identify their problem and believe its solution lies in war. “[Scheuer] contends they will go to any length, not to destroy our secular, democratic way of life, but to deter what they view as specific attacks on their lands, their communities and their religion. Unless US leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly, even moderate Muslims will be radicalized into supporting bin Laden’s anti-Western offensive.” US Defense Science Board The US Defense Science Board, which exists to provide independent advice to the US Secretary of Defense, produced a report in September 2004. The report is on Strategic Communications, that is, the means whereby the US gets its message to the world. It concludes bluntly that communicating with the Muslim world is impossible at the present time: “Thus the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim World is not one of ‘dissemination of information’, or even one of crafting and delivering the ‘right’ message. Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none – the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam.” (page 41) And, according to the report, the US is not believed because of its policy towards the Muslim world, and the problem has got much worse since the US invasion of Iraq: “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies. “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. “Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved. “Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination. “Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support. “What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of ‘terrorist’ groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.” (pages 40-41) Kenneth Clarke MP [former Chancellor of the Exchequer] Prior to the invasion of Iraq, many opponents of the action warned that it would give a stimulus to al-Qaida and associated groups. For example, speaking in a debate in the House of Commons on 26 February 2003, Kenneth Clarke said: “The next time a large bomb explodes in a western city, or an Arab or Muslim regime topples and is replaced by extremists, the Government must consider the extent to which their policy contributed to it. That is why hon. Members should pause and why, unless evidence is produced for a breach and a material threat, my judgment today is that we should not go to war.” Ken Livingstone [Mayor of London] "An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international cooperation and global stability." (quoted by Tariq Ali in The Guardian on 8 July 2005)