A CLASSIFIED study commissioned by Metropolitan police into the financial cost of their anti-terrorism operations in the capital has been seen by reporters at The Daily Mail. The resulting article focused on one passage in particular. In response to the question 'What is new about the security situation?' report author Bob Whalley, formerly a senior civil servant at the Home Office, wrote that Islamist terror was being energised by the 'ongoing 'rallying cry' issues such as Palestine and Iraq which provide a ready claim for legitimacy, even for opportunistic threats or attacks.' The Daily Mail article used this comment as a foundation from which to launch an attack on the PM's military support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, which it clearly considers responsible for triggering the 7/7 atrocities. This hypothesis has found much credence in the UK, largely due to its espousal by much of our news media. But, as theories go, it is a fundamentally flawed one.
Undoubtedly our participation in OIF has further inflamed the feeling of resentment amongst a considerable portion of Britain's Muslim population towards their host nation (although there is not much Britain can do about the Israel-Palestine impasse), which is especially unsurprising given the unrelentingly negative coverage of the conflict and its aftermath by our mischievous left-wing news media. In this respect Anthony Blair and his cohorts are wrong to deny that the liberation of Iraq and, more specifically, the post-liberation period has deepened the hostility of a significant number British Muslims towards their government and the unfortunate dhimmi next door. Indeed, it is now a safe assumption that any subsequent British involvement in conflicts against Muslim countries, no matter how morally righteous that conflict might be, will invoke a similar domestic backlash. It is also true that the ongoing Islamist insurgency in Iraq has succeeded in effectively scuppering the opportunity provided by the removal of Saddam Hussein to establish a genuine liberal democracy, much to the detriment of the harassed Iraqi people. Whether Bush's recent promise of extra troops and new approach will make an impact remains to be seen.
However, with this 'no involvement=no threat' school of thought continuing to garner popular support throughout the UK, it must be remembered that the domestic terrorist threat existed before our participation in OIF and that countries who did not support the liberation have themselves since been targeted by jihadis. The French, for instance, have pointedly opposed America's prosecution of the War on Terror and were particularly critical of the decision to liberate Iraq. Did their absence from the ranks of the Coalition of the Willing erase them from the Islamist to-hit-list? Not if this is anything to go by.
Simply adopting a 'head in the sand' attitude towards foreign affairs will not protect us from further atrocities and, if anything, such displays of spinelessness will only embolden our opportunist foe. The bottom line is that we cannot have a dynamic and rational foreign policy if it is to be based upon what will and what will not upset the delicate sensibilities of our vocal Muslim population. (Although, having written that, with few exceptions, such sympathetic considerations already play a significant role in the formulation of our domestic policies.) And, whatever your attitude to the situation in Iraq or the War on Terror, Islamism poses a serious threat to every Western nation and every Western citizen regardless.
Undoubtedly our participation in OIF has further inflamed the feeling of resentment amongst a considerable portion of Britain's Muslim population towards their host nation (although there is not much Britain can do about the Israel-Palestine impasse), which is especially unsurprising given the unrelentingly negative coverage of the conflict and its aftermath by our mischievous left-wing news media. In this respect Anthony Blair and his cohorts are wrong to deny that the liberation of Iraq and, more specifically, the post-liberation period has deepened the hostility of a significant number British Muslims towards their government and the unfortunate dhimmi next door. Indeed, it is now a safe assumption that any subsequent British involvement in conflicts against Muslim countries, no matter how morally righteous that conflict might be, will invoke a similar domestic backlash. It is also true that the ongoing Islamist insurgency in Iraq has succeeded in effectively scuppering the opportunity provided by the removal of Saddam Hussein to establish a genuine liberal democracy, much to the detriment of the harassed Iraqi people. Whether Bush's recent promise of extra troops and new approach will make an impact remains to be seen.
However, with this 'no involvement=no threat' school of thought continuing to garner popular support throughout the UK, it must be remembered that the domestic terrorist threat existed before our participation in OIF and that countries who did not support the liberation have themselves since been targeted by jihadis. The French, for instance, have pointedly opposed America's prosecution of the War on Terror and were particularly critical of the decision to liberate Iraq. Did their absence from the ranks of the Coalition of the Willing erase them from the Islamist to-hit-list? Not if this is anything to go by.
Simply adopting a 'head in the sand' attitude towards foreign affairs will not protect us from further atrocities and, if anything, such displays of spinelessness will only embolden our opportunist foe. The bottom line is that we cannot have a dynamic and rational foreign policy if it is to be based upon what will and what will not upset the delicate sensibilities of our vocal Muslim population. (Although, having written that, with few exceptions, such sympathetic considerations already play a significant role in the formulation of our domestic policies.) And, whatever your attitude to the situation in Iraq or the War on Terror, Islamism poses a serious threat to every Western nation and every Western citizen regardless.
No comments:
Post a Comment