Blair Must Ignore Bin Laden And Address Ordinary Muslims

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) July 22, 2005 -- It is now patently obvious that with the exception of Bush, Blair, their political allies, and a few obstinate souls unable to locate the end of their noses in a dark room, most people accept that there is a causal linkage between Iraq and the terrorist attack on London. We also know that the British Intelligence Services had forewarned of the increased risk of an attack due to the involvement in Iraq. Despite this, UK and US foreign policy is now even more united � in denial.

In support of this denial, Blair made an impassioned speech in which he lambasted the brutal and inhuman nature of the terrorist threat, and offered an explanation as to why western democracies could in no way accede to terrorist demands. We were reminded that these demands include the establishment of a unified Islamic Caliphate. Blair�s strategy is quite simple. Associate and integrate the abhorrence of terrorist methods with the apparent absurdity of their demands and voila � obliterate what most normal people would presume were obvious linkages.

It is a clever ruse, but it fails on two counts. The first is the most obvious � people are not buying it. Nevertheless, it does provide the body politic with a convenient verbal repartee as well as a semblance of intellectual superiority. However, a closer examination of both history and context shows that the strategy also fails this latter examination.

The idea of a single Arab State was still in existence in the early part of the 20th century. During World War I, Arab insurgents allied themselves with the British in order to gain their independence from Turkey. Tragically for the Arab cause, the colonial powers, namely Britain and France, decided to carve up the territory between them, thwarting Arab ambitions for a unitary state and self-determination. From the Arab perspective, things were made infinitely worse with the establishment of a Jewish states in Palestine in 1948 � once the British were forced to give up that colonial possession.

Much of what has happened in the Middle East since colonization and subsequent independence has not been positive.

The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the horrors of Nazism, all aggressively promoted and utilized terror, and as unrelated as they may seem, they all had very similar objectives � the complete overthrow and extinction of the established order. Bin Laden and his cronies are no different. They seek nothing less than the obliteration of what they see as a motley band of discredited regimes. Moreover, there is hardly an observer, casual or otherwise, who does not agree that the Arab world is in desperate need of change.

Distasteful and despicable though he may be, simply dismissing Bin Laden as a deranged lunatic who should not be listened to does not stand the test of history. If anyone should know that, it should be a British Prime Minister.

Many in the Middle East, not just Bin Laden, view their leaders as corrupt, inept, self-serving, or too servile to US interests. The latter point is especially important � it was pivotal in galvanizing support in the Iranian Revolution and the eventual overthrow of the Shah. Now as ever, it is pivotal in much of the sympathy, if not necessarily the support, expressed by many in the region for al-Qaeda�s creed and actions.

Overcoming the influence and power of the west, including Israel, a country they view as a part of and at one with the west, is seen by both moderates as well as extremists as being absolutely necessary for effecting the change they deem to be necessary.

Only within this context, an agreed desire for change and an overthrow of the Arab equivalent of the ancien regime, can one begin to understand the motives and demands of al-Qaeda. It also explains why Bin Laden was furious that there was a western imposed solution, and not an Arab one, to the 1991 Gulf War.

The Arab street certainly does not loathe democracy � they would love to embrace it or some suitably adapted version thereof, as well as the possibility for greater economic benefits that may arise from it. This is true of both Islamists and non-Islamists. Interestingly enough, many Islamic leaders such as those of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria were amongst the first to promote greater freedom and justice, if not necessarily western-style democracy in their countries.

In response to this agitation, the autocratic governments of the region imposed imprisonment, torture, and murder. It explains why Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were never in cahoots. The former victimized and murdered Islamic leaders, much to the chagrin of the latter.

One of the most extreme examples of this brutality were the events in the Syrian town of Hama in 1982 where over 20,000 citizens were massacred because they sided with the Muslim Brotherhood in opposing the dictatorship of Hafez Assad. If the Syrian regime that continues to oppress Islamists aligns itself with al-Qaeda, it would only be because of a last-ditch defiance in the face of extreme western hostility.

It is a wonder that most political commentators seem unable to grasp the simple fact that terrorism in the Middle East, quite apart from the ongoing Palestinian conflict, was initially directed at regional leaders and their regimes, not the west. That battle still continues.

The need for change is also recognized by those outside the region. Standing in the red-white-and-blue-corner are the neocons, whose bellicose maneuvers greatly facilitated the Iraq war. The neocons believe in force-feeding the region with conspicuous doses of their own version of democracy in the belief that it will change everything for the better � in their terms that is.

Arab moderates, Arab extremists, and US neocons, all agree that there is a fundamental need for change. What is more, each group has their own formula � respectively representing the good, the bad, and the ugly. Alternatively one could describe these solutions as; despite the west, in defiance of the west, and as defined by the west.

The implications are as follows; the more distant Arab leaders are from their populace, and the more servile they appear to become to western interests on issues such as Iraq, Palestine, and oil, the more likely they are to incite agitation for change � terrorist inspired or otherwise.

However, this distrust and lack of credibility of Arab leaders may unite moderates and extremists in terms of their objectives, but not necessarily in terms of their methods. Witness the fact that as the US calls for democratic change in Egypt, those political leaders that would most benefit from such moves, are doing their best to distance themselves from any form of US support. For precisely the same reason, almost any Iraqi government formed under American and British occupation is doomed to fail.

The only way to deal with terrorism is to honestly address the legitimate calls for justice by moderates and the wider population within the region. Repeated denial of the actual basis of the terrorist cause will only serve to further legitimize their actions in the mind of the millions of ordinary Muslims who recognize the need for change, the need for justice and the need for corrective action.

In the longer term, terrorism can only thrive if it achieves accommodation and recognition within the wider community it purports to represent. Properly addressing the needs of that wider community, while not totally eliminating the terrorist threat, will greatly reduce its support and source of converts.

That is the best anyone could hope to achieve.

It is within this context that the sight of legions of Muslim leaders kowtowing to the Blair government should concern us all. If Muslims leaders are either unwilling or unable to engage in honest debate and express the concerns of their constituents, then it is highly unlikely that they will be able to influence those of their co-religionists intent on wreaking mayhem and murder.

Blair has got it wrong. In actuality, it is not the demands of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda that he needs to address, but that of the ordinary Muslim on the street, be they in London, Karachi, Cairo or Baghdad.

Jonathan Ledwidge is the author of the book A Mannequin for President - www.amannequinforpresident.com

More information can be found online at http://www.amannequinforpresident.com

al-qaeda     arab     bin laden     blair     iraq     islam     israel     london     middle east     neocons     saddam     terrorist