Dogs of War

And Caesar's spirit, raging for revenge,

With Ate by his side come hot from hell,

Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice

Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war

1. No, we’re not gearing up for war (yet)

I don’t really have time to be writing as much as I used to be but I thought I’d just write a post with an assortment of recent issues. Firstly, The Guardian has yet again managed to exaggerate and misrepresent British foreign policy. They start the article of their front page ‘UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears’ with

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

There are so many things wrong with the story, its hard to know where to start. Firstly, looking at the quotes of the officials, it is no big change in British government policy nor is it as apocalyptic as the Guardian is making it sound. One quote from the officials state

The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table.

But what about the plans!? The Guardian admits ‘there are no hard and fast blueprints.’ But what about other preparations that Guardian mentions?! Well, here’s another quote:

I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others.

And just to really drive the point home, a MoD source told The Telegraph ‘We have contingency plans on everything... It doesn’t mean anything will come of it but at least someone is thinking about this sort of thing.’ And lets assume that there were full blown preparations for a military confrontation with Iran – it simply doesn’t mean anything. David Cameron would still have to lobby for support for the war. This isn’t a dictatorship where the UK can simply go into war without any recourse (people made the same misguided argument about Blair).

2. Neither is the U.S

I’m not denying that war with Iran won’t happen in the future, but the current apocalyptic vision seems to be misleading to me. Firstly, it should be kept in mind that the U.S has tried to downplay any suggestion that its seeking a military confrontation with Iran, ‘saying it would rather exercise and exhaust "tough diplomacy" first.’ Secondly according to various reports in American and Israeli media the ‘U.S. is "absolutely" concerned that Israel is preparing an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.’ Thirdly, it looks like the U.S is going to use the upcoming IAEA report to ‘further isolate Iran’:

Over the longer term, several senior Obama administration officials said in interviews, they are mulling a ban on financial transactions with Iran’s central bank... Also being considered is an expansion of the ban on the purchase of petroleum products sold by companies controlled by the country’s elite military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The recent publicised links between Al Qaeda and Iran are only news to people who haven’t read the 9/11 Commission Report. (This is not to entertain the frankly ridiculous idea that Iran had any foreknowledge of 9/11 – as the commission itself said). So, to repeat, there may be a war but the signals that people are reading into are simply not there.

3. In defence of President Obama

I wanted to talk about this blogpost on a website called ‘British Neo-libertarian.’ I read it a lot and I find myself disagreeing with it all the time. It tries to argue that the U.S withdrawal from Iraq is misguided – and it fails terribly to provide any sound reasoning. The first false assumption is:

In 2006, when troop levels dropped in Iraq, there was an explosion of violence... [Then] President Bush decided to reinforce troops in Iraq to root out al-Qaeda through General Petraeus. It has been a large success (Study the US military troop level, and civilian fatalities). It is a simple fact that more US soldiers works in creating conditions for better results.

This simplistic view of the Surge simply withstand scrutiny. While it certainly played a role, as Douglas Ollivant has written, it was primarily the realisation of defeat for the Sunnis that allowed for a settlement:

By late 2006, it was becoming quickly apparent to the Sunni that they were losing, particularly in Baghdad, as entire sectors of the city, and virtually the entire East side, were systematically cleansed of Sunni residents.. The mounting casualty count fundamentally changed Sunni outlooks and caused them to begin to look for a way to reach a settlement

There are many factors in what led to the drop in violence – form concrete barriers to operations against Al Qaeda. It’s also worth noting that the U.S military found Al Qaeda documents and used them to convince Middle Eastern and North African nations to stop would-be suicide bombing leaving the country. General Petraeus credits this diplomatic initiative as being the primary reason for the 85% drop in suicide bombings. So this simplistic and quite frankly propagandistic account of the Surge quelling violence is wrong.

The rebutting of this assumption goes some way in showing how the remaining presence of U.S soldiers will not necessarily make things better or worse. Iraq’s security woes wont be fixed overnight – but as Ollivant wrote in Foreign Policy, ‘these technical gaps can easily be filled, and the market will respond quickly to Iraqi petrodollars.’ Surely someone with libertarian in their blog name will see the utility in this argument? The argument that Iran’s position should determine U.S presence is similarly misguided.

It’s based on the false notion that Iraq is or is going to be a Iranian client state. This is just nonsense; Iran’s staunchest ally won only 20 seats out of over 300 in the last election. Indeed, this was lower than they achieved in 2008 and Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi credits this to the fact that the party was seen as an Iranian client. And, as the New York Times reported in July 2011, ‘Iraqi security forces have unleashed a sweeping crackdown on Iranian-backed Shiite militants responsible for most of the lethal attacks.’ American withdrawal wont stop these operations and wont change Iraqi reluctance toward Iran. If anything, withdrawal will take the rug out from under Iran.

It just seems hard to deny: Iraq is not a puppet state of Iran or the United State. The very fact that a sovereign Iraq has stood by its guns and refused to support even a mild presence also shows, yet again, that this isn’t some pansy puppet government. The security situation may get worse, there may be a series of bombs going off as has happened in the last two months, but they do no justify U.S presence any longer. 

Twits

Using descriptions from Twitter, the above picture of a Metropolitan Police officer was generated.

I’ve been using Twitter to follow the recent riots in London – for its many virtues (people were tweeting actual videos and photographs), there were an equal amount, if not more, vices. Aside from rumours raging (false reports of riots in areas there were no riots), the fringe elements of British society decided to come out and make as many political points as they could. The radical rapper Kareem Dennis, known as Lowkey has several tweets which sum up the kind of nonsense that was being posted:

Unfortunately this is the only language the Metropolitan Police understand or respect.

Rich people don't loot and happy people don't riot. Nothing is black and white

When you collectively brutalise a community why wouldn't that community respond brutally?

To answer his question: this isn’t the “community” doing anything, it’s a group of thugs. According to Dennis, two wrongs really do make a right, or at least allow for an “understanding.” I handle this baloney about the false distinction between understanding and excusing in another post so I wont handle it here. But you can clearly see it: if someone is treated brutally and the only language the ‘aggressor’ understands is attacking shops, post offices, public transport – can you really blame him? No, you have removed moral culpability.

When people have NO other way of holding the police accountable for their brutality, what do you expect?

What do I expect? If that were the case, I expect you to use your democratic rights, to protest, to lobby, to hold members of parliament who refuse to deal with the issue accountable using your ballot. It’s called being civilised in a democratic society. And thats assuming that these protests are exclusively about brutality, they are not. Currys, Vodafone has nothing to do with brutality, the local curry house, the people made homless have nothing to do with this. 

The British army is burning Afghanistan and Libya as we speak, so I think you can get over a Bus.

There is a difference between sovereign nations responding to an attack by clearing out an illegitimate government, with massive human rights violations, which harboured the responsible individuals to stop future attacks in self-defence. The Afghan people have consistently supported the assistance. And we responded to the call of the Libyan people to stop their manic leader from killing them.

When the British Army burns whole countries you know nothing about and loots them of their natural resources where is your indignation?

You’re obviously referring to Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Libya. Who do you know that knows ‘nothing’ about these wars? You may have uneducated friends, I do not. As for ‘looting’ their resources, in Iraq there was an auction for Iraq oil deals in 2009: the winners were mostly Russians and Chinese. Even after the rise of oil prices in the U.S, the Iraqi government refused to lower the price. “Looting” indeed.

In this country you are factually more likely to die at the hands of the police than at the hands of a terrorist.

Oh really? According to the IPCC’s report ‘Deaths in or following custody’ only 5% of the 333 deaths between 1998-2009 were a result of police restraint. That’s 16 people. And even then, 13 officers were brought to trial, and they were all found not guilty. But, let me guess, a British court of law isn’t good enough for you? There were 52 victims of the 7/7 attacks. That was one attack: as I mentioned in the last post, 12 attacks were stopped between 2000-2009. And to really make your conspiracy-laden head explode, the current threat level for international terrorism is “substantial – this means there is a strong possibility of an attack.” So, there are more victims, more frequent and higher risk from terrorism.

Another radical self-described activist Jody McIntyre re-tweeted:

Don't salute people terrorising small business' but love hearing bout major corporations being set alight #salute

Lowkey also said that he didn't ‘have sympathy for M&S or footlocker.’ Yeah, because these major corporations are part of “police brutality” right? Because its not people who live in the community who use and work in these shops? Because it’s not individuals who own corporations? Because small businesses don’t strive to be bigger and better? Cool story bro.

I haven't mentioned Mark Duggan because I think it imprudent without waiting for the conclusions of the IPCC. However, even if the police stabbed him in the face repeatedly, the response is not attacking public transport and terrorising communities. It is holding people through the democratic and justice system. But somehow I doubt people like Dennis are able to engage in rational discourse. We should count ourselves lucky that 9/11 truther extremists like him are a fringe.

Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner

Bush's famous 'They hate us for our freedom' has been mocked since he first stated. I've never really liked that debate between 'is it because of us or because of what we do?' debate because its based on a false dichotomy. Absolutely, our foreign policy (by which I mean the West), has contributed to the terrorism. But, there are some things in our foreign policy that are so inherent in what we are that they are non-negotiable. 

I'm currently reading Peter Bergen's 'Longest War: The Enduring Conflict Between American and Al Qaeda' and he falls into this mistake. To illustrate, he wrote the following in a recent article: 

Yet, in all the tens of thousands of words uttered by bin Laden, he was strangely silent about American freedoms and values. He didn’t seem to care very much about the beliefs of the “crusaders.” His focus was invariably on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Yet, things aren't that simple. Elsewhere in the book, Peter Bergen admits that Al Qaeda seeks Taliban-style rule governments across the Middle East. Of course, our intervention could stop this but does that mean it has little to do with our values? I don't think so. Our continued assistance and our liberation of Afghanistan does encompass our foreign policy, but our decision to support a democratic government is our values at work. When Australia decided to safeguard the independence of East Timor and the elections that followed - it was a foreign policy decision but more accurately described as a just decision. In any event, I'll write another post hopefully about Al Qaeda and Western intervention but this post is specifically about the radicalisation of the 7/7 bombers. 

There is a thin line between explaining something and excusing something. If I tell you that someone has done something because of a wrong committed against him, it sanitises the action of the criminal. This encompasses the kind of nonsense that while it is wrong to blow people up, it is nonetheless 'understandable.' George Galloway being an obvious example. Its worth asking, then, when exactly did the 7/7 bombers become radicalised? Did Iraq solely cause their anger? To save time, page numbers correspond to Islamist Terrorism: British Connections which was put together by the Centre for Social Cohesion. 

Mohammed Sidique Khan (also known as 'Sid') taught handicapped children but it appears he was radicalised in the late 90s. MI5 were conducting surveillance on him long before 9/11 and Iraq in January 2001. In the summer of 2001 (again, before 9/11, obviously), he decided along with the Mike's Place bombers Omar Sharif and Asif Hanaf to recruit people to go to training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan (p.213).  Both Khan and Tanweer went training, not in Iraq, but in Pakistan in 2004-5 with Harakat ul-Mujahideen (a group linked with the beheading of Daniel Pearl). Khan also travelled to Pakistan for training in July 2003 in Afghanistan.

Shezhad Tanweer, aside from training with Khan in 2004-5, is said to have visited Pakistan 5 times in between 2001-2005 (p.216). While in Pakistan in 2002, Tanweer worked with Tablighi Jamaat. According to the FBI, there is a link between Tabligi Jamaat and Al Qaeda but not everyone seems to agree. Tanweer visited his family in Pakistan where he made several anti-American remarks and more importantly, glorified Bin Laden. According to his family

'He said bin Laden was his hero and everything he did was right. He believed that America had made Muslims suffer all over the world. He also used to say about Kashmir that India was committing great atrocities against the Muslims. When his father in England gave him money to buy clothes he would not spend it on himself, but for buying coats for those waging the jihad in Kashmir.'

The third bomber Germaine Lindsay handed out leaflets supporting Al Qaeda in 2000-1 and spent his time in 'radical circles in Luton (p.220). In 2002, after returning from Mecca, Hassib Hussain started openly praising Al Qaeda, referring to the highjackers as 'martyrs.' According to the BBC:

Not long after his return from the pilgrimage, someone noticed he had written 'Al Qaeda - No Limits' on his religious education school book.

The simplistic Iraq-"explanation" (or excuse) of the 7/7 attacks is not full proof; the bombers clearly had a history of Islamist radicalisation, and nor were their militant activities limited to after 2003. It is clear that they agreed the ideology of Al Qaeda. 

Problematic Intelligence

The Iraq Inquiry recently published declassified documents on its website; its expected that the media should report on these things and it should be called into account when it misleads. No paper or outlet is perfect or absolutely objective but that does not mean all sense of proportion is lost. The Guardian requires to be called to account (this is not new, this is not revolutionary) and this is a perfect case in point.

One of the documents released was a letter sent from Richard Dearlove (MI6 Head 1999-2004) to the then British Ambassador to the U.S, David Manning. In their article about some of the recent declassified documents, The Guardian writes about the document:

Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".

That sounds very sinister. MI6 here is apparently saying that the removing Saddam is "prize" because of oil supplies. Very sinister, indeed. Except, the Guardian didn't quote the full paragraph which gives a much wider reason of why removing Saddam was a good goal. The full sentence reads (.pdf):

"The removal of Saddam remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies; engage a powerful and secular state in the fight against Sunni extremist terror, open political horizons in the GCC states, remove a threat to Jordan/Israel, undermine the regional logic on WMD."

The assessment goes on to say:

Working for regime change could be a dynamic processof alliance building which could effect climatic change in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

So, not so sinister at all. This document is pretty interesting and it provides more documentation of MI6 belief about WMD.  Its a shame The Guardian decided to butcher a sentence which changed the context so radically.