Suspiciously too timely perhaps? Let's look at the author of the report, Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, who opposed the war in Iraq.
Here is what he had to say back in 2002 about possible military intervention in Iraq.
PROF. WILKINSON: I think that whatever your views about the desirability or otherwise of military intervention in Iraq, we have to be realistic. The al-Qaida organization and its affiliates would take this as an opportunity for propaganda, for further recruitment, and undoubtedly would use it as an opening for additional attacks. They would say here is the United States and its Western alliance again attacking the Islamic world, and they would portray it as a part of a holy war which they have to win.
Therefore, I think we would have to expect rather more violence, more turbulence, and it would be rather unrealistic to think that that would be missing from the scene. I think it would be part of the background to any military conflict between Iraq and the United States and Britain.
And in June 2003, shortly after the start of the Iraq war, he had this to say in a report to Parliament
HMG has accomplished a great deal in contributing to this effort, and despite the damage done to the efforts by the War on Iraq, I believe much more can be done and that ultimately, we will succeed in unravelling the Al Qaeda network.
Hmmm. Seems the good professor is using the London attacks to say "I told you so".
So, how did the good professor feel about al Qaeda just after 9/11?
By its readiness to attack civilians on such a scale and without any compunction, and by its demonstrated ability to hit the solar plexus of the US financial sector, Al Qaeda demonstrated that it had become a strategic threat not only to US national security, but also to international security.
They [European governments] were also all too well aware that Al Qaeda could launch similarly devastating attacks on targets within their own borders: there was no magic immunity against such a ruthless and well prepared terrorist network with global reach.
Al Qaeda cells have planned to carry out a number of attacks involving chemical weapons and poisons on targets in Europe, which were fortunately thwarted as a result of police/intelligence cooperation, for example: a sarin nerve gas attack on the European parliament, Strasbourg; a cyanide attack on the water supply to the US embassy, Rome seeking to acquire and deploy CBRN weapons. Also, volumes 11 and 12 of the Encyclopaedia of the Jihad, used by the organisation, deals specifically with CBRN weapons.
Do you see where the professor is headed with all of this? According to him the war on terror can be reduced to a policing and intelligence matter - a defensive position. In other words, a pre 9/11 mindset. In fact, he tells us that point blank.
"Al Qaeda's elusive global network of cells is insensitive to traditional deterrence of a military nature. The intelligence war against Al Qaeda is the key to success..."
And
"So for them to unravel this network, we need maximum intelligence cooperation and criminal justice investigation cooperation."
Well, how is that idea working out professor?
Hence, while such deadly terrorist cells are still at large, the threat to the US, the UK, Israel and other designated "enemies" of the Bin Laden network remains an ever-present reality. Moreover, it is important to note that Al Qaeda has carried out, planned, or attempted terrorist attacks in a wide range of countries, including Singapore, Pakistan, India, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Italy, France, Kenya, Tanzania, Indonesia, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. It is also very clear that a terrorist group like Al Qaeda which sets out to kill as many civilians as possible, would have no compunction about using chemical, biological, and radiological or nuclear weapons if they manage to weaponise the appropriate materials. Hence, the threat of CBRN terrorism has been brought a step closer by the September 11 attacks.
Not too well it would seem. And er, professor, you're now saying that the threat of CBRN is more real because of the 9/11 attacks and not because of the war in Iraq.
The good professor goes to great lengths to try and maintain that there were no connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But as this ABC News video shows there were plenty of connections. The professor is trying to change the facts to support his position.
Any final thoughts on al Qaeda professor?
There can been no doubt where Al Qaeda fits in the above typology. It is the archetype of the New Terrorism, and its absolutist and grandiose ideology and record of mass murder of civilians, help to explain why it is now the most severe international terrorist threat posed to peace and security in the entire history of sub-state terrorism.
Wow! What can we do about it?
The latter's [al Qaeda] reputation for mass killing and its absolutist doctrines and political ambitions make it unthinkable for any democratic government to negotiate with it.
Let me see if I understand the professors position clearly.
Al Qaeda is "the most severe international terrorist threat posed to peace and security in the entire history of sub-state terrorism", they have already used chemical weapons and are seeking more including nuclear weapons, whose ultimate goal is for Islam to rule the world, it is "unthinkable for any democratic government to negotiate with it" and his soloution is "intelligence cooperation and criminal justice investigation cooperation".
While the US position is to spread democracy around the world, liberating countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, thereby allowing millions to throw off the yoke of Islamic oppression which will ultimately defeat al Qaeda.
And how is that working out?
Afghanistan and Iraq liberated, Syria leaves Lebanon and Libya gives up its WMDs without a shot being fired. Which has resulted in a drastic decline in support for bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda.
"Most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries, and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam," the poll concluded.
And
The new poll also found that growing majorities or pluralities of Muslims now say that democracy can work in their countries and is not just a Western ideology. Support for democracy was in the 80 percent range in Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco. It was selected by 43 percent in Pakistan and 48 percent in Turkey -- the largest blocks of respondents in both countries because significant numbers were unsure.
"They are not just paying lip service. They are saying they specifically want a fair judiciary, freedom of expression and more than one party in elections. It wasn't just a vague concept," Kohut said. "U.S. and Western ideas about democracy have been globalized and are in the Muslim world."
And for that we can thank George Bush.
There is no doubt that we need the best intelligence, tougher laws and maximum cooperation between nations. The evidence shows however, that it is equally clear that this alone is not enough. The elimination of dictators, by force if necessary, and the implementation of democracy is the final soloution to defeating al Qaeda.
al Qaeda is fighting for its life in Iraq because they cannot sustain another set back like Afghanistan. Their goal is to conquer the world, defeat democracy and rule it with Islam. And yet, country after country they are being defeated and their support is eroding world wide. To be sure, there will be more terrorist attacks, but the outcome is never in doubt, al Qaeda will be defeated.
There is another area that we can agree with the professor:
"We are in this for the long haul."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment