7/7

The London terrorist attacks have brought out many of the emotions of 9/11 (funny how Bali or Madrid didn’t quite match up). The instinctive reaction, quite understandable, is to say that one won’t give in to terrorism, and that a nation’s policy cannot and will not be dictated by terrorists. But another reaction is that perhaps Britain would have been spared this tragedy had she not blindly followed America into what is thought of by many in the Muslim world as an unjust war; a war that has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis as well as coalition troops. This is not a popular reaction, and many who believe it might choose to keep quiet rather than be accused of excusing terrorism.

Many will of course argue that it is nonsense anyway: since when, they will say, have terrorists had a rational explanation for what they do? They will argue that Iraq has nothing to do with it: that there was no war in Iraq on 9/11, and yet America was struck. But this argument presumes that terrorism is by definition irrational, and that terrorists are by definition nihilists, neither of which is true. Terrorism may be abominable, but it is rarely irrational. The terrorists do indeed have a rationale: it’s just that we often don’t want to hear it. Years before 9/11, Al Qaeda openly declared jihad against America, not because they “hate our freedoms”, but because we stationed large numbers of our decidedly non-Muslim troops on Saudi soil, which is, according to the Wahabist school of extreme Islam, a sin, and refused to leave. Yes we were in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Saudis, but Osama and company hate the Saudi rulers as much as they hate us for that very reason. But how many Americans knew what Osama’s original beef with us was all about? Or even know today?

I’m not sure that as the world’s pre-eminent power, and with interests as far flung as ours, we will ever be immune from the kind of hatred that manifests itself in suicide bombings or mass murder. But other nations could be immune from Islamic terrorism if they (as the Spaniards after the Madrid bombings) choose to be. While Tony Blair is right to say that we cannot let the terrorists win, shouldn’t we at least know or recognize what a win to them is? Terror should never be rewarded, but what if what the terrorist wants is what is right? What if what is a ‘win’ to the terrorist is what is right? Do we refuse to comply simply because the terrorist has acted? It’s a difficult question. In this case, the terrorists, or at least those who have claimed responsibility, have said the bombings are in retaliation for Britain’s role in the occupation of Iraq. If you are a Briton, do you believe in the Iraq war? Do you believe in Britain’s continued part in the occupation? Tony Blair does, and thus won’t be deterred by the attacks one bit. He will sleep tonight, knowing that whatever the price, Iraq is worth it. One has to wonder if the relatives of those who perished and were injured today feel quite the same way.