Inevitable and inadmissible

[imomus]

In today's Observer Yahia Said publishes a piece of commentary headlined Asking Why Will Dignify Criminals and straplined "The bombers are psychopaths without political worth".

"Many in London and round the world are looking for meaning behind the atrocities of 7 July," Said, a research fellow at the London School of Economics specialising in Iraq, writes. "Why did they do this? What is their goal? What did we do to provoke them? Is there anything we could do to dissuade them from doing it again? There is no political answer to these questions... To try to divine a political goal, let alone a rational agenda, behind such attacks would only dignify these criminals and feed into their illusions... The best political reaction to the atrocities is to ignore them."

While I agree that to ignore the bombings might be a good reaction (in the Christian or Gandhian sense of failing to respond in kind, escaping the cycle of violence, turning the other cheek), I find it unsettling that an academic is so resistant to asking "why". Surely we try to understand "even" psychopaths and criminals, and perhaps particularly those people? Isn't it precisely when we don't understand something that we need to ask why most urgently? Our rationality is not just there to help us understand the kind of thoughts we would have. And even if we only understood our own cultural logic, we would alas have to recognize indiscriminate bombing as something we do too, for reasons rational and irrational.

We wouldn't ask security services or policemen to "ignore the atrocities" or stop asking the question "why?", so I wonder why we accept this logic from commentators, and listen when they suggest that politicians do likewise? The fact is that politicians, policemen and security planners have prepared for a 7/7-style event in London ever since 9/11, and with increased intensity since the invasion of Iraq. On January 21st 2003, two months before the invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair said he expected terror groups like Al Qaeda to attack Britain. CNN reported:

"I believe it is inevitable that they will try in some form or other," Blair told a committee of MPs on Tuesday... Blair predicted the public would eventually back a war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq if other means of disarming him failed. He said he understood people's concerns but said if he did have to order military action, the public would find it "acceptable and satisfactory because there is no other route available to us."

After the Madrid bombings, in which 200 Spaniards were killed by Al Qaeda bombs, the "inevitable attack on London" theme re-surfaced. "A terror attack on London is inevitable," said Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens. "It would be miraculous if London escaped attack," echoed Mayor Ken Livingstone. Cabinet minister Peter Hain said the UK was a "frontline target" for attack by international terrorists. UK security services, he said, were working "three times harder than ever" in a bid to foil possible attack. Hain, leader of the Commons, said "anyone resisting international terrorism becomes a target." Home Secretary David Blunkett urged people to be "alert but not alarmed" and said it was "quite likely a terror attack was being planned against the UK".

However, now that the "inevitable" attack has happened, those, like George Galloway, who've made any link between 7/7 and the Iraq war have been vilified.

"London has reaped Mr Blair's involvement in Iraq," Galloway said, contradicting Home Secretary Charles Clark's statement that 7/7 had nothing to do with Iraq or any other particular foreign policy, but was "a fundamentalist attack on the way we live our lives."

Galloway continued: "The terrorists themselves have said... that that's exactly why they carried out the act. So only a fool believes that this came out of nowhere. It came out of a deep swamp of hatred and bitterness that we have soaked in blood these last few years. This is obvious to any sentient being. And the only way that we can truly resolve this matter -- and of course, in the interim, in the short term, I'm thoroughly in favor of the most rigorous policing and intelligence response to try and stop these dastardly acts from happening, but the only way we can really be clear of them, the only way we can be safe from them, is if we reduce the number of people out there who are ready to support those who are ready to hurt us. The fish has to swim in water, and bin Laden is swimming in this water, in this swamp that we have created... We have to be tough on terrorism, and tough on the causes of terrorism."

Someone called Lee on I Love Everything echoed many of the tabloids in his outrage at Galloway's comments. "What the hell is this idiot Galloway doing ventriloquising the bombers? Blood still fresh on the streets, and he's spewing his mouth. And he calls his party "Respect". Ironic? Nauseating?" My friend Ed, who marched against the Iraq war, agreed: "The next bishop or George Galloway I meet is likely to get a kicking!" Someone called Porkpie added to the virtual lynching: "I would also like 5 minutes in a room with Mr Galloway."

Personally, I don't really see why people want "five minutes in a room" with Galloway or accuse him of lack of respect, especially if they marched against the Iraq war. Wasn't one of the reasons we marched that we didn't want to be used as human collateral in a war? That we knew that violence would just breed more violence? Isn't that what Galloway is saying too? The Iraq War was a terrible mistake, based on a false premise about weapons of mass destruction which we now know didn't exist. Tony Blair has paid, on our behalf, a threefold price for it. He lost seats, he lost soldiers, and now he's losing civilians. Five minutes in a room with Tony Blair is what we should really be thirsting for, those of us who still have any bloodlust whatsoever.

While I understand distaste at the "demagogues and polemicists and religionists who would claim this tragedy as their own", the problem is that to claim 7/7 as a neutral tragedy, a random event, a force of nature or something bizarre and insane, is equally irresponsible. 7/7 has a political dimension and must be discussed politically at some point. Tact and timing should play a part, of course. But the political conclusions should not be postponed indefinitely, nor should tact forbid us to make the obvious connections with policy.

I'm really sick of this line that "there's no logic whatsoever, it's all random, they hate life for no reason, they work without political motivation"... An Islamist terrorist attack on London may have been possible before 9/11 and likely after it, but it became significantly more likely after British involvement in the pre-emptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know that security has been ramped up since the Iraq war. From a purely practical point of view, the authorities have certainly considered that the Iraq war made this kind of event significantly more likely, and we expect exactly that sort of realism from them. I'm curious to see commentators failing to admit what we'd condemn security planners for failing to admit. We wouldn't want a police investigation to assume that the bombers were madmen without any motive or any political affiliations, would we? That investigation would surely fail, because it would be quite incapable of relating any fact to any other, of establishing links, motives or money trails. So why do we allow commentators to utter such inanities?

Comments

[ohnefuehlen.livejournal.com]

It's not even factually accurate. Bin Laden has a clear political goal, about which he has been very explicit: the restoration of the Dar al-Islam, an Islamic empire stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. He's not just blowing people up because it's fun.

I marched against the Iraq war. I thought it was a stupid, badly thought-out solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein. But now that we've done it, I don't think it would be right for us just to pull out immediately - that would do a further disservice to the Iraqi people, whom we've greatly if inadvertently wrong. Of course I want us out as soon as is feasible, but right now we're needed, our troops especially given their expertise in peacekeeping.

[fufurasu.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you. And in a similar vein: "Removing the Causes (http://fufurasu.org/archives/000266.html)."

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

Galloway-bashing seems to be very popular among apolitical middle class frustrated that the war has isolated them from the Blair government, who they'd previously actually quite liked.

Tony Benn said pretty much exactly what Galloway said, shortly afterwards, and I don't see anyone proudly boasting about their desire to give him a doing.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

To end terror, we must end occupation in the Islamic world (http://www.sundayherald.com/50710) by Tariq Ali.

[qscrisp.livejournal.com]

I'd just like to state that, as someone living in London and using the public transport regularly, I'm quite aware that I could have been one of those killed or injured in the attack, but I still don't understand why people think linking the attack to the Iraq war is disrespectful.

If anything, I would hope it makes us feel closer to those being needlesly slaughtered in Iraq at the moment.

So, thank you for this post. Well said.

thoroughly unhelpful

[alionunderaw.livejournal.com]

I think this is in large measure because people don't want to admit that they have some kind of role in such an event. I used to know someone who hectored me by saying, "every war takes away our humanity less and less," and that misses the point: it's completely human to wage war on each other. But to consider that these bombing might be a reaction to something (in such a time) will make people appear on a psychological level with the attacker. If one's country did something that was perceived as a threat, and the threatened party struck back, doesn't that force one to share an essential similarity? People either won't want to hear that, or they'll consider it "inappropriate at a time of mourning," even though it's a course that pretty much has to be followed if anybody expects anything to get solved.

the 9/11 narrative in the US was sort of...postlapsarian(!) It had something to do with our national innocence getting taken away; "the bad people came into our house." the innocence part is correct, but only inasfar as kids, say, don't realize that their actions have a bearing in the world, and it was apparently necessary for something so drastic to point it out.

[(Anonymous)]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1525357,00.html

[becki1111.livejournal.com]

In regard to your criticism of Yahia Said's commentary, I don't think he was saying we shouldn't be asking questions. I think he was saying it is essential to make a choice as to the target of our questions. Obviously, the West needs to question itself about its foreign policy in the Middle East, it needs to ask civilians in the Middle East what can be done. I think the distinction Said makes is dead-on. Our dialogue must be with ourselves and with the innocent. Creating a dialogue with terrorists does give them power and adds legitimacy to their actions. But, ultimately, murder is murder, and while I certainly think there were reasons and goals behind all the terrorist attacks we've seen, I think an analysis of the historical events leading up to present times will provide the answers in the way of motives without directly responding to the terrorists. Communication with the Muslim community at large, and encouraging their presence rather than treating them as the other in this war would be a significant first step. Rewriting the text books another. Pulling troops out but providing funding and security through an organization like the UN another.

I always seem to come back to this thought: the borders of the middle east were deliberately drawn by westerns to dilute the power of any specific tribe. They are artificial and do not reflect the more natural borders that would be suggested by demographics or cultural differences. The construction of these borders was either exceptionally naive or exceptionally cruel. In the former, it is ridiculous to think that stamping a Western-made border on a land with a longer history than the US and UK combined could be anything but ineffectual, arrogant, and a point of tension. The latter suggests that perhaps we wanted this constant state of border wars and regional instability, we designed it to always have our hand (read: military) available to step in and "fix things". This is a sinister view that proposes and absolute disregard for the value of human life on the part of the West, yet one gets suspicious when they see the US signing another contract with Haliburton for $5 billion for continued service in Iraq.

Your last paragraph brings to the forefront double-standard that makes me so suspicious of US motives.

There must be some way to hold our journalists and commentators responsible, but letters, phone calls, petitions and emails seem to have had no effect on the quality (or rather, lack thereof) of reporting.

Thoroughly dejected, I sign off now.

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

Ooops, forgot to logg in before I posted the link above.

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

It was even the wrong link, here's the right one:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/10329634?version=1

Re: thoroughly unhelpful

[gillen.livejournal.com]

More in the sense of children who don't want to admit to themselves that their parents are criminals. The reaction of Americans to their government is much like a battered child or spouse still living in denial.

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

George Galloway is an asshat. He is one of those neo-Stalinist Marxists (and he has professed his admiration for Stalin) who so despises liberalism and reformism that he considers anything, even Wahhabi Islamism, to be morally superior. (His Respect Party actually angled for the Islamist vote, and has a lot of candidates who are not progressives but rather religious fundamentalists.)

Yes, gays would be stoned to death and women reduced to chattels, but at least we wouldn't be under the heel of Zionist-Crusader-Capitalist Imperialism.

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

What's your point?

[spoombung.livejournal.com]

As someone who marched against the war with 2 million other people in London ( and who voted LibDem instead of the Labour because of the war) my natural inclination is to agree with the thrust of your argument - that there is a political dimension to these attacks that is being conveniently ignored.

However, based on what we know about the 9/11 bombers and the Bali bombers there is a very strong element of weird sexual repression and social alienation that suggests there is a psychopathic motivation involved- irrespective of a political motivation.

Think for a minute if the America had not gone to war in Afganhistan and Iraq and instead had examined the bombers pychological profiles under a public spotlight when it had the sympathy of most of the world (directly after the attacks).It could have taken great care to explain to all and sundry that they were not true Muslims but social misfits first and foremost and their non-sensecal religious and politcal rantings where ultimately a smokescreen for their own pyschopathology. The old political rangles involving land and Palestine could have been tackled separately.

That might have had more effect than any army. Just a suggestion.

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

I don't know about you, but I don't consider a Talibanic theocracy to be a good model for a utopia.

It seems to me that the Respect vision of Islamism-as-the-new-liberation-ideology keeps all the bad things about Marxism in practice (the totalitarianism, the apparatus of repression) whilst jettisoning the good things from Marxism in theory (the progressive outlook).

[arpad.livejournal.com]

Personally I am tired of endless discussions of "what the West could do better". "West" is not equal to "God". Let West be selfish. Let West be stupid. And let those who lag behind take a little responsibility.

If we look at Japan or China or India we will see the same history of Western influence with lots of enforcing, atrocities and honest mistakes with awful consequences. But no one will tell you "China was abused at Opium wars and now we should understand...". No - they will tell you about "Human rights abuse in China". Because we treat China as an equal.

IMHO Western "understanding" is far worse than Western atrocities. Because this "understanding" really means "You can NEVER be an equal".

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

Don't take me for an idiot but I thought you suggested that Utopia in the last sentence of your first post. That's what I wonder. Didn't get the sarcasm.

[badspelling.livejournal.com]

I simply cannot understand why anyone would call George Galloway an asshat. He may be a political animal (with all the bad that comes with it) but he's one of the few people talking sense right now. Let's stop fucking around and let's address the real causes.

We are reaping what we sow here. the terrorists do not exist in a vaccuum free from political motivation. It's blindly obvious what they want.

Capitulation is not what anyone of these so-called left wing commentators are advocating, Galloway included. And no one is sympathesing or alligning themsleves with the terrorists. But we simply cannot go forward and be safe unless we treat muslim countries and their with the respect that we ourselves expect to to be treated.

The frustrating thing about this whole mess is that the solution is so bloody clear. It might be a hard decision to make, especially for the rich and powerful, but that's exactly the point. It's only the rich and powerful who benefit from this battle to control the middle east. it's true our standing in the world may diminish, economic prices may have to be paid, our standard of living may fall as a result. we might not be able to keep living in such a wasteful and greedy way. but I for one am ready to pay this price, because i don't think it'll be that different from how it is for the majority of average earning people right now.

Also, why have we so quickly forgotten the example of the Irish Conflict? It's the recent past, a similar situation surely, yet very little is talked about it. Didn't we make great gains in resolving this conflict not ten years ago? And how did we do it?

Did we use violence? Or did we take a deep gulp and start talking? While I know the situation is different, and I'm not saying we should open talks with these terrorists. We should at least remember the example of a peaceful and concessionary resolution. It bloody worked didn't it? Why the fuck have we forgotten.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Yes, I can see the logic in that point. It's an attack on the "pompous universalism" of Western liberalism, the idea that we should "understand" or "judge" or "balance" or even "empower" others, rather than simply speaking for ourselves in a pluralistic spectrum. The danger is that this idea of the West becoming "situated" (http://www.livejournal.com/users/imomus/61236.html) is that it can seem to come full circle to an acceptance of naked power. "If the West is rich and has big armies, let it use them to further its own naked and situated interests!" It's an argument for freeing the rich and powerful from guilt, and I believe that guilt is an important restraint. "Pompously universal" institutions like the UN have a precarious power based, I think, on guilt, the guilt of the West. The debt relief movement is also based on Western guilt. Remove guilt and the world becomes very frightening indeed. The rich and powerful don't become any less rich and powerful, they just use their money for ever more selfish and anti-social ends. They become Machiavellis, Nietzsches, even Hitlers.

[badspelling.livejournal.com]

sorry for all the typos. I got heated.

[boof-boy.livejournal.com]

But don't you think there's an "element of weird sexual repression and social alienation" in George Bush too?

[ohnefuehlen.livejournal.com]

I'd call him an asshat, speaking personally, because he's a Stalinist who's aligned himself with the worst kind of repressive fundamentalist, and who has a history of praising and declaring support for dictators.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

It may be that I hold our society to much too high a standard. But as a general rule I'd say that:

• Our society is only as civilised as its treatment of those it considers "barbaric".
• Our society is only as advanced as its record towards the "backward".
• Our society is only as tolerant as its tolerance of what it considers "intolerable".
• Our society is only as understanding as its understanding of what's "beyond the pale".
• Our society is only as permissive as its ability to permit the "impermissible".
• Our society should only be considered as "rich" as its poorest member.

[subtechnique.livejournal.com]

I've heard this about Galloway -- the Stalinist and apologist for dictators bit -- but the evidence presented, to date, has been sketchy. I'd like fewer righteously indignant declarations of his 'asshatedness' and more supporting (and, in this context, damning) quotes from the man himself.


Beyond Galloway...


By this definition, practically every US President in the post-war period has been an "asshat".

Washington's shown no shyness in supporting repressive governments...the list is quite long and includes, quite ironically in light of the nationality of the 9-11 team, Saudi Arabia.

Of course, when governments do this we're told it's realpolitik or necessary for one reason or another and the Western leaders who engineer alliances, arms supply pipelines and wink/nod relationships with dictators are only doing what must be done (and since we're democracies, everything they do -- by implied and commonly accepted definition -- is in defense of 'our freedom').


This is the standard reply.


One final thing...'Stalinist', like fascist, means something quite specific or nothing at all. Are you saying Galloway is a supporter of the 'break eggs -- make omelette' theory of authoritarian action architected by Josef Vissarionovich Stalin or are you using the word as a sort of catch-all for 'bad man'?

[spoombung.livejournal.com]

I certainly do.

It's time for an army of atheists to go to war lead by Professor Dawkins.