Now we face a greater danger
Daily Express, 15th March 2004

Europe has just suffered its own September 11. The scenes of carnage at Madrid’s Atocha station will be etched on our minds forever, just like the Twin Towers. Where will the terrorists strike next? Will it be us?

Both politicians and the public are in a terrible quandry. To what extent do we try to lead normal lives? To what extent should individual liberties be curtailed in the desperate but ultimately vain search for absolute security?

We must act, but not overreact. We must ponder the events of the last two and a half years to see what, if any, lessons can be learnt. Our leaders, particularly Tony Blair and Gordon Brown tell us incessantly that the world is ever more dangerous. We have no reason to disbelieve them, but we also have to ask - have their actions made the world any safer?

This week marks the first anniversary of the war against Iraq but the war against terrorism, be it the Basque separatist group Eta, or al-Qaeda or the many shadowy groups that learn from their example, will by its nature never be won. It can be contained, and every security and intelligence measure must continue to be taken to keep our citizens as safe as possible while ensuring that life can go on as normally as possible. By definition governments cannot tell us what potential outrages they may have foiled and what leads they are pursuing. It comes down to trust. We have to trust them with our safety.

That is why Iraq mattered so much. Whatever views people had about the principle of the war – the country seemed divided down the middle – we needed to believe what our Prime Minister and the US President told us, and we needed to believe that they were, through their military action, making the world a safer place. On both counts they have, to put it politely, yet to prove their case.

Before going further, one point must be made firmly. Those like me criticise the conduct of the road to war and the reconstruction since should not use as one of our arguments the "easy option". It is utterly wrong to say that we should not back war because only countries that do are then targetted. Even if that were true (and who says, God forbid, the terrorists might not strike next in Paris or Berlin) we have to consider the interests of the wider world. We cannot live in a cocoon.

When looking back on Iraq we should confine ourselves to three questions. What happened to the idea of a better Iraq, post-Saddam? What happened to the idea that it would serve as a "beacon" for the rest of the Middle East? Has the war in Iraq helped in the broader war against terrorism?

Inside Iraq the situation remains extremely fragile. After their capture of Saddam in December, the Americans were confident the resistance would crumble. The opposite has been the case. The bombings in Kerbala and Baghdad on March 2 appear to signal a new and even more dangerous phase.

On the political front, the first signs of optimism are emerging. On March 9, Iraq’s governing council signed its interim constitution. It is ambitious in its designs to enshrine liberal democracy and multi-ethnic unity. However, the support of the one person who matters, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the leading Shia cleric, remains conditional. Still it was signed unanimously and that was a big achievement.

The Americans are desperate to meet the deadline of June 30 for the transfer of power to a provisional Iraqi government. Elections should then take place by January 2005. Given the many setbacks, both dates are anything but assured.

Last November while in London George W Bush declared the establishment of a free Iraq would be a "watershed event in the global democratic revolution." As ever, however, practice has intervened. The US continues to support unpleasant leaders in the Middle East and beyond, if they serve its interests. The two major causes of grievance in the region – the cosy relationships between kleptocratic regimes and the US-driven oil industry and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – have not been addressed.

All the while, attempts by American intelligence to prove a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda were scoffed at by their British counterparts. Blair has sometimes hinted at it, but not produced any evidence. The war against Iraq was fought for different reasons. Blair and Bush did not think through Iraq. They should have focused on the real war, against al-Qaeda and terrorism more generally. As they look back on the events of the past year, they know that they may have removed one evil dictator but the world is, if anything, more dangerous than before.


This article first appeared in the Daily Express and may not be reproduced without permission.