London under Attack - Why?

When the Coalition of the Willing attacked and invaded Iraq, a war that was not supported by the majority of the world, even by traditional US allies like Germany and Belgium, the general consoling hope was the sooner it was over, the better it would be for the Iraqis. That hope was all the more acute as most knew how the American military operated. When one recalled American military operations in Vietnam, Panama and Afghanistan, one would also remember the words of the Roman historian Tacitus:

"They create a desolation and call it a peace."

True to expectations, the US military conducted their operations badly, in an inconsiderate manner for local culture and sensitivities and in several cases, callously without regard for Iraqi civilian safety. Their general actions and behaviour antagonised many who had originally been happy to see them rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The American problems had been highlighted in a number of my previous posts.

The unfortunate consequences of the American callous disregard for Iraqi lives during the conduct of their operations drew an extraordinary depth of hatred from Arabs and Muslims from around the world. Some of those emotionally affected became willing recruits to the cause of terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Their objective of hurting the USA also expanded to embrace the other members of the Coalition of the Willing, and even the NATO countries who are in Afghanistan.

Two members of the Coalition of the Willing, Spain and Britain have already been hit. The 3 other major members that are still to be attacked a la the Madrid train bomb and the current London subway explosions, mainly targets with large numbers of commuters, are of course the USA, Italy and Australia. I have included the USA as a country yet to suffer the fate of Madrid and London purely because 9/11 was before the Iraqi invasion - this is not to diminish the terrible tragedy of 9/11. There are of course secondary participants like Poland, Ukraine, Japan, etc (mainly former East Soviet bloc members who joined in the hope to win some handouts from Uncle Sam), but I believe the Islamists targets will be generally against, firstly, the USA and Western Europe, and secondly, against Russia (because of Chechnya) and then probably China (because of its NW region).

As one Londoner said, it was a matter of when, not if, London would be hit in retaliation. The sad irony has been the fact that prior to the war, about 85% of British had been against the Iraqi invasion. The British, particular Whitehall, its foreign affairs ministry, have always been pro-Arabs unlike their transatlantic cousins.

Many British friends bemoaned the divergence from its traditional Middle-East foreign policy by the Blair government, in order to curry favour with Bush. Obviously Blair sees either benefit from a tighter relationship or a messianic opportunity to influence Bush. By doing so, Britain under Blair has in recent times taken a very pro-American and thus by default an anti-Arab foreign policy.

I see British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw statement that the attacks would not affect the G8 Summit from reaching the aspired agreement as nothing more than a diversionary attempt to insinuate the attacks had been against the G8 leaders rather than Britain’s participation in the Iraq invasion and occupation. It has the same public relations' hue as the former Spanish PM attempt to link the Madrid bomb attack to Basque separatists. Basically, the Blair government wants to disconnect any links between Britain’s military presence in Iraq and the Islamist attacks on London.

My British friends also pointed out that Britain did not support the USA in its disastrous Vietnam folly, yet still retain a close and indeed excellent relationship – they reckoned Blair’s rush to collaborate with the USA in manipulating and fabricating information for a war against Iraq was completely unnecessary and in fact counter-productive to British interest.

There can be no denying Britain’s role in Iraq has antagonised the Arab world. Should the British people blame Blair for inviting the Islamist attacks on a previously pro-Arab Britain?