Tariq Ali Clears Things Up
I was planning, in the spirit of ‘sod you,’ to return to regular programming. I was planning to say more on that Noam Chomsky article, as I had intended to do yesterday until I turned the radio on; then once I started reading, I was planning to say something about that interview with Judith Butler. But now instead I’m going to say something about Tariq Ali, because there he is again, and I find I can’t just ignore him. It’s not my nature. (I wonder if, if I started taking Prozac, or some other brain-chemistry-tweaking drug, I would find myself able to ignore things like articles by Tari Ali. No doubt I would. What a horrible prospect.)
First let’s look at some idiosyncratic logic.
The bombers who targeted London yesterday are anonymous. It is assumed that those who carried out these attacks are linked to al-Qaida. We simply do not know. Al-Qaida is not the only terrorist group in existence. It has rivals within the Muslim diaspora. But it is safe to assume that the cause of these bombs is the unstinting support given by New Labour and its prime minister to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So we simply do not know (whether those who carried out these attacks are linked to al-Qaida). I take that to mean (though it’s not explicitly said) that it is therefore wrong to assume that they are. However, it is ‘safe to assume that the cause of these bombs is the unstinting support given by New Labour and its prime minister to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.’ Why? Why is that safe to assume while the other (apparently, though it’s not explicit) is not?
But on to a more basic point.
Most Londoners (as the rest of the country) were opposed to the Iraq war. Tragically, they have suffered the blow and paid the price for the re-election of Blair and a continuation of the war.
So it’s ‘safe to assume’ that the bombing wouldn’t have happened if the Tories had won the election? Is it safe to assume that? Is it safe to assume that that’s the only ‘reason’ the bombers put their backpacks where they did? It seems more tottery than safe, to me.
Ever since 9/11, I have been arguing that the “war against terror” is immoral and counterproductive. It sanctions the use of state terror – bombing raids, torture, countless civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq – against Islamo-anarchists whose numbers are small, but whose reach is deadly. The solution then, as now, is political, not military. The British ruling elite understood this perfectly well in the case of Ireland.
The solution is political. Is it. Meaning what? Meet and negotiate with whatever group or party or government-in-exile planted the bombs? Well, first, to do that one has to know who that is, which means whoever it is has to say: ‘We are the group who did this.’ One group has done that so far; opinions differ on how credible the claim is, but perhaps they could be invited to a diplomatic meeting anyway. Would that work? Does Tariq Ali think it would work? Would the group accept the invitation, would it offer proposals that anyone could agree to? Would, say, Blair and various other heads of states agree to impose Sharia on all the relevant countries? Would they agree to impose Talibanization on all the relevant countries? Would the group in question accept anything less?
But T.A. apparently doesn’t mean exactly that. Negotiations and meetings aren’t part of the package, it seems.
The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine…The principal cause of this violence is the violence being inflicted on the people of the Muslim world. And unless this is recognised, the horrors will continue.
The ‘Muslim world’? What’s that? But more to the point, which violence? In many places in the ‘Muslim world’ most or all of the violence being inflicted is by Muslims on other Muslims – men on women, Islamists on non-Islamists, ‘guardians’ on people who wish they would piss off and leave them alone. But that’s not the violence he has in mind, if I understand him correctly. Well – why does he ‘assume’ that only one kind of violence breeds resentment?
“The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine…”
Makes perfect sense. After all, Islamic terrorism was unknown before the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and you could have heard a pin drop all through the Middle East before 1948. Or could I have forgotten something?
Yes, I did forget something. Having lived in London and having enjoyed it greatly, what I forgot to say was : the bastards!
Tariq Ali, like Tony Benn or George Galloway, is an idiot. He’s been wrong about every political issue he’s ever opined about at mind numbing length in some dreary lefty journal. He’s going to be as wrong about Islamic Terrorism as he was about the wonders of the USSR or the inevitable collapse of capitalism. When you read something by Tariq Ali that you find yourself agreeing with – that’s the time to start worrying.
Ophelia: how right you are about all of this, thankyou for such a good post.
Stewart: ‘and you could have heard a pin drop all through the Middle East before 1948.’
What a beautiful and economical way of putting this point!
Did Ali ever bang on about the wonders of the Soviet Union? I thought he was a Trot.
Still an idiot, though.
Thanks, Eve. Perhaps I should have qualified a little by mentioning that the pins back then were slightly larger than the ones we know today and that the constant dropping caused Great Britain to send over commissions to investigate the increased regional decibel level. These commissions were such an effective deterrent that eventually the locals ceased dropping pins entirely, opting instead for the more decorous solution of removing them, silently, from hand grenades.
Thanks, Eve.
Of course I wanted to be much ruder and more foul-mouthed…but I went for the grown-up approach. Well, sort of.
Just noticed another jugular you didn’t go for, but could have: “Tragically, they have suffered the blow and paid the price for the re-election of Blair and a continuation of the war.”
He doesn’t go on to make any comment about the nature of the people who didn’t care that most of their victims were, in his own opinion, opposed to the war. In fact, “anonymous” is the only description of them he provides.
Amazing how one can have a tragedy planned by human beings that does have innocent victims and yet seems to lack callous perpetrators…
It should be very clear by now that the current hostilities in Iraq are not the same thing as those to do with the invasion. The latter was a conventional war between two armies. What we have now is a guerilla war waged by various lunatics who see ordinary Iraqis as their enemies if they do not share their Islamicist fantasies. These nutcases are not fighting to restore Iraqi independence since they what they want is a a multi-national Islamic entity
T.A’s Ireland comment seems to ignore a whole lot of things. First of them being basically what you mentioned: the IRA being a well-known group with particular objectives which were somewhat restricted in scope (restricted to Ireland, rather than the whole world). Second being that it was not just the British government, but also the IRA/Sinn Fein starting to seek a political solution. Simply asserting, without conditions like these in existence, that we need a political solution instead of a military one is rhetoric of the most empty-headed kind (which does not necessarily mean I’m in favour of a military solution – depends on what kind).
Not that I necessarily disagree that these Islamic fundamentalists are irrational nutters – but do we really believe that without troops in Saudi, Afghanistan and Iraq the attacks in the US, Spain and the UK would have happened?
I heard David Aaranovitch on the radio arguing (for not very long) with Tariq Ali – but he disagreed with Ali’s claim that September the 11th was to do with the wahabi sect and US troops in Saudi – which seemed to be going over the top. It might be irrational to attack the US and UK because of the war in Iraq, since, really, getting rid of Hussein was a bonus all round, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t doing it because of Iraq, or that they would have done it anyway, even without Iraq.
PM, but nobody said ‘without troops in Saudi’ – it’s the Iraq bit that’s being disagreed with. Yes, as far as I know, the presence of US troops on the holy soil of Arabia was a genuine reason for Sept. 11 (a genunine reason, not the only one) (and by ‘genuine’ I certainly don’t mean reasonable or in proportion or anything at all other than ‘actually held’), but that doesn’t mean Iraq is now.
Sure, about the measure of culpability. The overthrow of Mossadegh is certainly high on the list in that category. But – well, as you suggest, that doesn’t make theocracy a good alternative.
“PM, but nobody said ‘without troops in Saudi’ – it’s the Iraq bit that’s being disagreed with.”
But that is my point – do you -really- think that Iraq has not made us more of a target? And Afghanistan? If we hadn’t been in Iraq and Afghanistan I think it is much much less likely that this would have occured. So therefore, I believe that Ali and Galloway are right to draw a causal connection with the war in Iraq. It is what we’re all thinking.
But what I think is the flaw in their argument is that the UK government (unlike the mendacious US government) never claimed that going to war in Iraq had anything to do with the so called ‘War on Terror’. So, although the war in Iraq may have increased the risk of attack on the UK by fundamentalist terrorists, as far as Blair is concerned, that is an unfortunate consequence of his war that was waged because of WMDs, humanitarian reasons, and because the US was gonna do it anyway.
The next question is whether “The solution…is political”, which, at least as far as the short term is concerned, I am much less convinced by for all the reasons you’ve mentioned.
But I mentioned Aaranovitch because I was struck that he wanted to argue that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are engaged in a war against the depraved west (which is true), but that this therefore meant that they would have done it anyway, that there were not fairly large and obvious causal antecedents. And I get the impression, which may be wrong, that you are skirting close to this position by stressing the whole clash of cultures aspect.
Well, I’ll put it this way. I don’t think it’s at all self-evident that Iraq has made the UK more of a target. I’ll agree that it’s possible that Iraq made it more of one, but Ali treated it as self-evident, and also as the chief reason.
But I also do think ‘they would have done it anyway,’ for the same kind of reason they did it to New York. I don’t claim to be certain of that, but I do think it’s highly likely. As for large and obvious causal antecedents – well that’s not being argued: al-Q thinks it has large and obvious causes.
As for the clash of cultures aspect – uh, yeah. What the hell else do you think Islamism is about? Peaceful co-existence?
“But I also do think ‘they would have done it anyway,’ for the same kind of reason they did it to New York. I don’t claim to be certain of that, but I do think it’s highly likely. As for large and obvious causal antecedents – well that’s not being argued: al-Q thinks it has large and obvious causes.”
But you concede the highly relevant causal role of US troops in Saudi for Sept 11th earlier. The UK doesn’t have troops in Saudi. As such, it became a prime target for AQ and their ilk after joining the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obviously countries like Britain and France are always going to be major targets of Islamic terrorism (particulalrly France, previously the target of choice), but Afghanistan and Iraq made Britain a much more likely target than France (look at the countries attacked after Sept 11th – Spain, Britain and Australian tourists in Bali).
I don’t think I concede the role of US troops, I never denied it.
But the UK was a target anyway, Iraq or no Iraq. People were saying that soon after Sept 11. London was a target no matter what: like New York it is a huge, cosmopolitan, modern, secular, polyglot, impure city. Of course it was a target.
“London was a target no matter what: like New York it is a huge, cosmopolitan, modern, secular, polyglot, impure city. Of course it was a target.”
Yes, but my whole point is that New York (and the Pentagon and Pittsburgh[?]) are in the United States, and were targeted as symbols of the United States (as with the attacks on embassies and the USS Cole[?]). That the presence of US troops in Saudi had a major role to play in Sept 11th is clear. That the US (the ‘Great Satan’) represented a sort of personification or actualisation of evil to these terrorists is also clear. London is in Britain, it is not a symbol of the US. Britain was, in fact, also seen as somewhat pro-Arab in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
So although London was obviously a target, to some extent, it is now very much more of a target because of Afghanistan and Iraq (do you think Rio is as worried?).
I just can’t see why you don’t want to accept that, you do not necessarily need to use causality to apportion blame for the attacks. It is conceivable that a war in Iraq could have been conducted for purely humanitarian reasons and much more sensitively/carefully with regard to civilian casualties. Or, we could have intervened in somewhere like Darfur for purely altruistic reasons, and still this would have quite probably made us even more likely to be attacked by Islamist terrorists. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have done them though.
It’s not that I don’t want to accept it, it’s that I don’t think it’s true. I find it unconvincing, that’s all. Although we may simply be arguing over fuzzy terms, which is a tad pointless. I agree that Iraq made London more of a target, I just don’t think it was decisive or necessary.
“I agree that Iraq made London more of a target, I just don’t think it was decisive or necessary.”
Well given Afghanistan I agree, but I don’t think you quite meant that.
Of course we could revisit this if (hopefully when) they catch the bombers, or what’s left of them.
On a tangential note, looks like if the bombers had set the timers for 9 instead of 8.50 I could well have lost my partner. Not a nice thought.
Oh, Christ – not a nice thought at all. Glad you didn’t; sorry anyone did. (Cf. Orwell on the experience of hearing buzz bombs fly overhead – and falling on Other People so not on Oneself.)
A very patient and measured response to Ali Tariq, too patient. To my mind the solution is not political at all. This is a criminal matter, and, in as much as it crosses international boundaries and threatens whole populations, a military matter. I don’t care what motivates bombers any more than I care what motivates axe-murderers or child-rapists. Christopher Hitchens observes there is a civil war brewing within the Islamic faith – perhaps he’s right; he usually is.
Bill Bradbrooke
“Most Londoners (as the rest of the country) were opposed to the Iraq war. Tragically, they have suffered the blow and paid the price for the re-election of Blair and a continuation of the war.”
So, by extraction, an evil war-mongering minority of Londoners returned Blair to a record 3rd vicory, selfishly wreaking havoc on their own doorstep, careless of the feelings of the majority. Probably CIA moles then.
A fine example of Mr Logic popping out for a pint while Mr Ali earnestly writes away on behalf of the ‘silent majority’. The arrogance these people try to hide hide in their bid to save us all…
“So, by extraction, an evil war-mongering minority of Londoners returned Blair to a record 3rd vicory, selfishly wreaking havoc on their own doorstep, careless of the feelings of the majority. Probably CIA moles then.”
What are you trying to claim here? That because Blair won the election (with the votes of a minority of the electorate, and even a minority of those who voted) therefore the whole country supported the war?
PM Ha ! No, but Ali is exaggerating the overall UK opposition to the war somewhat, and then taking his exaggerated estimate as a given. Not the honest picture of ‘don’t knows’ and ‘conditionals’ that truly made up ‘most’ Londoners, when they voted (and this fuzziness is admittedly added to by the fact that greater importance was placed on other issues by many of the electorate)… furthermore, the assertion that the attacks last Thursday were carried out ipso facto because of UK’s involvement in Iraq is not provable, at least not yet. These bastards have been around hating us for a lot longer than that. Iraq hasn’t helped, but don’t forget the chronology of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus he’s using some fuzzy arguments that sound compelling, but only really work if you buy the anti US dogma; life ain’t’ that really simple, and as a 1st class academic and intellectual he should know better.