In its submission of written evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee on Global Security, so the Sunday Telegraph reports, the Church of England claims Britain’s recent foreign policy has been counterproductive in terms of fighting Islamist terror. Rather than helping to minimise the risks of suffering it, Britain’s role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq has only served to recruit British Muslims to the cause of jihad and increase the risk it faces of suffering terror attacks.
According to the newspaper report, the church in its submission called on Parliament to use Tony’s Blair’s departure from government as an opportunity to ‘recalibrate its foreign policy towards the USA, Europe and the Middle East’.
In a comment piece in today’s Times, David Aaronovitch takes the Church of England to task for suggesting the invasion of Iraq has boosted recruitment to the ranks of Islamist terror. He cites the radicalisation of Ed Husain in 1993-4, as well as that of other British Muslims who became radicalised well before 2003, as evidence that western foreign policy has been less instrumental in causing Islamic terrorism than ‘Muslims and Islam in general’.
I do not see how the fact that recruitment to Islamic terrorism began well before the 2003 invasion of Iraq shows that the invasion has not enormously increased recruitment to the ranks of Muslims waging jihad both here, there, and elsewhere. And I think it must be conceded that it has done. See the overwhelming evidence that it has done in the very illuminating recent article 'The Iraq Effect' by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank.
Nor do I see how the pre-existence of Islamic terrorism before Bush declared war on terror shows that its ultimate cause resides less in western foreign policy than it does in the very nature of Islam and its adherents.
It can and should be frankly admitted that western foreign policy in the Middle East, including acts of military intervention there, has indeed enflamed Muslim animosity towards the west. This holds true as much of the west's current military action in Iraq as it does of western support for the creation and for the continued existence of the State of Israel.
Having said that, such facts as these by themselves in no way call into question either the moral legitimacy or strategic wisdom of western foreign policy towards the Middle East, including such military action and past and present western support for the State of Israel.
Doubtless, after it declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939, Britain suffered greater loss of life at the hands of the Nazis than it had suffered before it did. This does not show Britain was wrong to have gone to war with Nazi Germany then. Nor does it show that Britain would have suffered less at the hands of Nazi Germany than it did had it not gone to war with it in 1939.
Contrary to what Aaronovitch suggests, let it be frankly admitted that, to date, the invasion of Iraq has created more al Qaeda activists than might have been around had that invasion not taken place. It does not make that invasion wrong or misguided.
Nor does it mean that, ultimately, Britain and the USA would each face a lesser threat from Islamic terrorism than each currently does were they now to pack up and go home rather than see out to the end the difficult and hazardous course on which they have embarked of rooting out and defeating Islamic terror and those who engage in and sponsor it.
Finally, that, as Aaronovitch rightly points out, Islamic terrorism long antedated the Iraq invasion should not be used to suggest, as he does, that blame for it should be laid at door of Islam per se or its adherents tout court. Exactly how and why Islamic terrorism has emerged, or re-emerged, in modern times is a long complex and difficult matter. The fact that there have been long periods in which it has been absent shows it is not the religion of Islam per se or all who adhere to it who should be thought to blame for it any more than should western foreign policy.
There is room here for a bit more nuance and balance than is contained in either the appeasing cowardice of the C of E or the unduly inflammatory, because unwarrantably anti-Muslim, rhetoric of Mr Aaronovitch.
Comments (2)
Yes we have a serious problem. The problem is here, now, in our country. The answer from the establishment is to stick its head in the sand and hide behind the human rights industry. Plus the failure to understand that Islam is not just a religion: it is a political force with ambitions of world domination, backed by violence. I am not going to play the game of underwriting my comments by using the usual get-out clause propagated by the media: it is only a small group of fanatics that are the problem, the majority of Muslims are law abiding etc, etc,. However, I will say this: if it comes to a stark choice between supporting the Muslim Brothers (terrorists) or the western way of life, who do you think the moderate Muslims would support?
Beware Muslims show loyalty to their religion first and foremost.
Posted by mike | May 13, 2007 2:47 PM
Posted on May 13, 2007 14:47
Islamic terror has its roots in 7th Century AD.
Terror is one of the tools of jihad.
Terror, reprisals (including massacres) and enslavement were conducted continuously against the dhimmi (Christian and Jewish) populations through out dar al-Islam (the Islamic world).
The natural state in dar al-Harbi is war (that is in the West).
Conclusion : we have a serious problem.
Posted by Constantinople_1453 | May 12, 2007 9:04 AM
Posted on May 12, 2007 09:04