Blair's blowback

[Eugene]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1525755,00.html

Blair's blowback

Of course those who backed the Iraq war refute any link with the
London bombs - they are in the deepest denial

Gary Younge
Monday July 11, 2005
The Guardian

<snip>

Similarly, invading Iraq clearly made us a target. Did Downing Street
really think it could declare a war on terror and that terror would
not fight back? That, in itself, is not a reason to withdraw troops
if having them there is the right thing to do. But since it isn't and
never was, it provides a compelling reason to change course before
more people are killed here or there. So the prime minister got it
partly right on Saturday when he said: "I think this type of
terrorism has very deep roots. As well as dealing with the
consequences of this - trying to protect ourselves as much as any
civil society can - you have to try to pull it up by its roots."

What he would not acknowledge is that his alliance with President
George Bush has been sowing the seeds and fertilising the soil in the
Gulf, for yet more to grow. The invasion and occupation of Iraq -
illegal, immoral and inept - provided the Arab world with one more
legitimate grievance. Bush laid down the gauntlet: you're either with
us or with the terrorists. A small minority of young Muslims looked
at the values displayed in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and Camp Bread
Basket - and made their choice. The war helped transform Iraq from a
vicious, secular dictatorship with no links to international terrorism
into a magnet and training ground for those determined to commit
terrorist atrocities. Meanwhile, it diverted our attention and
resources from the very people we should have been fighting -
al-Qaida.

more...

[BeyondGeography]

1. Younge will be excoriated as an appeaser

by Hitchens and Co., which makes this passage all the more delicious:

<It is no mystery why those who have backed the war in Iraq would refute this connection. With each and every setback, from the lack of UN endorsement right through to the continuing strength of the insurgency, they go ever deeper into denial. Their sophistry has now mutated into a form of political autism - their ability to engage with the world around them has been severely impaired by their adherence to a flawed and fatal project. To say that terrorists would have targeted us even if we hadn't gone into Iraq is a bit like a smoker justifying their habit by saying, "I could get run over crossing the street tomorrow." True, but the certain health risks of cigarettes are more akin to playing chicken on a four-lane highway. They have the effect of bringing that fatal, fateful day much closer than it might otherwise be.>

[candy331]

2. "Collateral damage always has a human face" (a mystery for some)

We do not have a monopoly on pain, suffering, rage or resilience. Our blood is no redder, our backbones are no stiffer, nor our tear ducts more productive than the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those whose imagination could not stretch to empathies with the misery we have caused in the Gulf now have something closer to home to identify with. "Collateral damage" always has a human face: its relatives grieve; its communities have memory and demand action.

[Briar]

3. A great read

Thank heavens for those still rational and humane enough to write with such clarity of thought and compassion of heart. Yonge quotes Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister:

"The net result of the war on terror is more war and more terror. Look at Iraq: the least plausible reason for going to war - terrorism - has been its most harrowing consequence."

How is it that members of warmongering governments can see this, yet the warmongering goes on?