Opinion - News Analysis   

The reality of the `war on terror'

Richard Norton Taylor

IF MINISTERS and MPs cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq has increased the threat from terrorism, then let others do so. We can begin with senior officials responsible for protecting Britain's national security and its interests abroad.

On February 10, 2003, a month before the onslaught on Iraq, Whitehall's (UK civil service officials') joint intelligence committee told Tony Blair that "Al-Qaeda 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." It added that the collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare agents or technology finding their way into the hands of terrorists.

On Monday, the Royal Institute of International Affairs published a paper co-written by Paul Wilkinson, a professor at the University of St. Andrews, U.K. He is no radical polemicist, rather an epitome of conventional wisdom. "The U.K. is at particular risk," warns the paper, "because it is the closest ally of the United States" and joined the U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. It says a key problem facing the government is that it "has been conducting counter-

terrorism policy `shoulder to shoulder' with the U.S., not in the sense of being an equal decision-maker, but rather as a pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat."

Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for Britain, the authors continue, since "it gave a boost to the Al-Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, and deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist the Hamid Karzai Government and to bring Osama bin Laden to justice."

Al-Qaeda is now as much of a concept as an organisation or network. It blossomed in Afghanistan, and the U.S. soon became a target, partly because of its military presence in West Asia. In what sounds like a perverse justification of the invasion, Mr. Blair and George W. Bush say Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists. Britain and the U.S. must ensure that the insurgents and foreign fighters are defeated and not allowed a victory in the "war on terror" — a phrase that makes security and intelligence agencies and military commanders cringe, for it suggests that the fight against terrorism can be won by force of arms. It is the causes, they say, that matter. And these include the Government's foreign policy.

The security and intelligence agencies, along with most among the senior ranks of Whitehall, opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it could not be justified. They knew the Bush administration was not telling the truth when it claimed there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Baghdad. Officials who expressed concern about the claims were slapped down by Foreign Office diplomats — though they also, privately, opposed the war — because of the damage such honesty might do to U.S.-U.K. relations.

If Whitehall opposed the war, it was horrified at Washington's failure to consider the consequences and its dismissal of British suggestions. The security and intelligence agencies had their own specific concerns: Britain's alliance with the U.S. did not help their attempts to recruit agents or informants where they most needed them, in the mosques and the souks. They were angry at the way the Pentagon paraded pictures of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

"Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6 (British intelligence), told a meeting chaired by Blair on July 23, 2002, the minutes of which were leaked to the (London) Sunday Times and are now making waves on websites in the U.S. (but not in the U.K.).

The limitations of intelligence were amply demonstrated in London on July 7. The security and intelligence agencies have said they will learn lessons. Is it too much to hope that Mr. Blair and his foreign policy makers will too? —

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

(Richard Norton-Taylor is security affairs editor of the London-based Guardian newspaper.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Vikram Sarabhai's vision and SLV-3
The Tiger and the Golden Bear
Lal Krishna Advani's war with the parivar
Shifting balance in Central Asia
The reality of the `war on terror'
Nuclear bargain may prove costly in long run
Events of 1968 show violence is not new
A new chapter
RSS-BJP row
7/7 and after
Manmohan's praise

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu