Norman can’t get enough T.W.O.T.
Further criticism of the foreign secretary regarding the phrase ‘war on terror’ – from Richard Beeston:
On substance his argument is flawed. As Osama bin Laden made clear in his statement this week, the al-Qaeda leader, his No 2 and his global organisation are alive and well. Bar some inauguration surprise, the fugitive Saudi terrorist is likely to see off Mr Bush, who steps down on Tuesday. Al-Qaeda and its offshoots are still well armed and funded and running operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South-East Asia and North Africa, not to mention mainland Britain. Since 9/11 they have succeeded in attacking targets across the globe – Bali, Madrid, Jedda, London, Istanbul, Baghdad, Algiers, Islamabad and Amman to name a few. They are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, mostly fellow Muslims.
Mr Miliband cited General David Petraeus, whose tactics are credited with turning around the situation in Iraq, as a commander who understood that America could not kill its way out of the problems in Iraq.
That is true. But what America did do under Mr Bush and General Petraeus was commit tens of thousands more troops to the battle and win over the support of key elements in the local population. The Americans, with their new Iraqi allies, then dismembered al-Qaeda in Iraq in a series of decisive military actions.
Clearly if there are moderate, biddable elements in the Taleban, in Hezbollah, in Hamas or among other militant groups around the world, then the governments concerned should act to engage them. But let us not kid ourselves about al-Qaeda and its allies. We may not want to call this a war but they do.
As I hinted at before, shelving the term “The War On Terror” has nothing to do with whether or not it’s an apt phrase and everything to do with the fact that it’s part of George W’s toxic legacy: our own governments invading our privacy, suspending civil liberties, criminalizing entire communities, an illegal war, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons abroad and torture. Which politician would want to be associated with such a miserable failure?
As for Richard Beeston’s article, a few points. In spite of what our friends in the “only democracy in the Middle East” would like us to think, Hamas and Hezbollah have no link to Al-Qaeda. There was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to our attempts to liberate Iraqis. I’d be more inclined to take his paranoid ramblings about the Al-Qaeda boogey-man apparently now stronger than ever hiding in every dark corner of the world if he could tell his Islamist from his arse.
