Thursday, July 7, 2005,
will go down as one of the darkest days in British history since
the Second World War. At least 55 people were killed in a series of
bomb blasts in the heart of London, and several hundred were
injured.
The July 7 attacks were
followed by a series of near simultaneous minor bomb blasts on
public transportation in the British capital, involving detonators,
on July 21. Although there were no fatalities, the attacks caused
widespread disruption to the London subway network.
The July 7 suicide
bombings were carried out by four British Muslim extremists.
[1] Three of the bombers-Hasib
Hussain, Mohammed Sidique Khan, and Shehzad Tanweer-received
terrorist training and religious instruction in Pakistan several
months before the bombing. [2] The fourth,
Jamaican-born Jermaine Lindsay, is believed to have
converted to Islam in Afghanistan. [3]
Although the
first attacks were definitely carried out by homegrown
terrorists, the bombers were clearly part of a larger international
network. The attacks were likely a sophisticated al-Qaeda
operation, masterminded by experienced international operatives
with local extremists acting as foot soldiers. A global manhunt is
underway for several possible al-Qaeda ringleaders.
The fact that British
citizens carried out the attacks is a wake-up call for Britain. The
bombings must result in a sea change in how America's closest ally
deals with Islamic extremists. Specifically:
-
The United Kingdom must no longer
act as a safe haven for Islamic militants and terrorist
organizations from across the Middle East and North Africa.
[4] Tougher anti-terrorist legislation
and stronger immigration and asylum laws are required to help
prevent further terrorist attacks on British soil.
-
The British government must not be
constrained by the European Convention on Human Rights[5] in drawing up its anti-terrorism
legislation. Britain should immediately withdraw from articles
of the Convention that restrict its power to act in areas of vital
national security, including deportation of foreign nationals
and extradition of terrorist suspects to countries that
implement the death penalty. The London bombings should also prompt
a major political debate in Parliament over whether the U.K.
should withdraw altogether from the European Convention on Human
Rights.
-
The British government must pursue
a policy of zero tolerance toward Islamic extremism, which is a
deadly threat to the fabric of British society. Foreign Islamic
clerics who preach violence and hatred should be deported from
Britain, and terrorist suspects must be extradited to friendly
countries that request it, especially the United States. British
politicians must also be careful not to appease or promote
extremists who support the use of terrorism. It is vitally
important that British leaders immediately condemn
inflammatory statements and apply tremendous pressure on
community leaders to denounce extremists in their
midst.
The U.K. has distinguished
intelligence services in the shape of MI5 and MI6, which have
thwarted several earlier attempted terrorist attacks on London
and have earned the reputation of being among the very best in the
world. Their efforts must not be undermined by a lack of political
determination on the part of some British politicians and by
European conventions that all too often are more concerned with the
rights of suspected terrorists than with national security.
Britain cannot fight its domestic war on terrorism with both hands
tied behind its back amidst a powerful culture of political
correctness, much of it imported from continental
Europe.
At the same time, the war
must be taken to the terrorists on the world stage. If it is
established that a state sponsor of terrorism was involved, the
United States and the United Kingdom must retaliate with
force. An attack on London is no different from an attack on
Washington or New York, and it demands a vigorous joint response.
In this scenario, all options must be on the table, including
air strikes and special-forces operations. Additionally, the
continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must be prosecuted
aggressively, and the terrorists must be rooted out and destroyed.
This may necessitate deploying more British troops to both
theaters of operation. This is a global conflict that is as
much Britain's war as it is America's.
Motives
of the Terrorists
The barbaric terrorist
attacks on London were a direct assault on the Anglo-U.S. alliance,
the engine of the global war on terrorism. By striking London,
the world's biggest financial center, al-Qaeda hoped to achieve a
three-pronged propaganda success.
First, it planned to disrupt the
Group of 8 (G-8) meeting, a symbol of the most powerful Western
leaders in the world. As is already clear, that aim
failed.
Second, it hoped for the "Spanish
effect": to alienate the British public from its government as
it successfully did in Madrid. Here, too, the terrorists are
bound to fail, for they have underestimated the strength and
resolve of the British people. Instead, the bombings have
considerably strengthened the position of British Prime Minister
Tony Blair.
Third, it hoped to fracture the
Anglo-American partnership in Iraq. The bombings closely
resembled the Madrid attacks of March 2004 and were
specifically aimed at forcing Britain to withdraw its 8,500 troops
from Iraq. Again, this strategy is doomed to failure. There is no
sign that Britain's commitment to Iraq is breaking. Indeed, the
U.S. and the U.K. will not leave Iraq until the scourge of
terrorism in the country is vanquished. Members of the same
global network that was behind the London attacks are daily killing
civilians on the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Iraq
today is the central battleground in the war on terrorism, and
it is there that al-Qaeda can and must be fought on the
battlefield.
Above all, the terrorists
are driven by an evil doctrine of hatred and loathing, based
on an extreme misinterpretation of Islam, that has as its ultimate
goal the destruction of liberal democracy across the world, whether
it be in the West or the Middle East, and the establishment of a
Muslim Caliphate.[6] It is an ideology that cannot be
appeased or negotiated with, but which must be defeated. The
terrorist bombings in London, and the attacks of 9/11 in Washington
and New York, were not the consequences of U.S. or British
foreign policy, but part of an epic confrontation between the
forces of barbarism and the forces of civilization.
Similarities
to the Madrid Bombings
Although regarded as
"Britain's 9/11," the London bombings are more similar to
"3/11," the March 11, 2004, bombings in Madrid, in terms of
targeting and scale. Like the Madrid attacks, the London attacks
were aimed at mass transit systems in the capital city at the
height of rush hour, soft targets that would yield a large number
of casualties. In Spain, 10 bombs hidden in sports bags blew
up on four crowded trains, killing 191 and wounding more than
1,500.
The Madrid terrorists
belonged to a loosely organized ring of North African
immigrants, most of them from Morocco. Some were linked to the
Moroccan Islamic Combat Group, a radical Islamic terrorist group
allied with al-Qaeda, which was responsible for the May 16, 2003,
suicide bombings in Casablanca, Morocco, that killed 45
people.[7] Three weeks after the bombings,
seven prime suspects blew themselves up after Spanish police
surrounded them in a Madrid suburb. This made it difficult to
establish whether a local cell carried out the bombings acting by
itself or with guidance or support from al-Qaeda's high
command.
The Madrid bombers
apparently also had plans to attack New York City. Spanish
investigators warned the U.S. government in December 2004 that the
Madrid train bombers had detailed plans of New York's Grand Central
Station, indicating that they also may have considered an attack
there. Handmade drawings and other "highly specialized technical
information" about the station were found on a computer disk seized
from the home of one of the suspects.[8]
The Madrid and London
bombings have demonstrated that radical Islamic terrorists
have developed extensive support networks inside major
European cities. Al-Qaeda-style attacks are increasingly likely in
Europe, which has become a critical front in the global war on
terrorism.
The
al-Qaeda Threat
After being dislodged from
its bases in Afghanistan in late 2001 and intensively hunted
in many countries, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization has
dispersed, with many of its top leaders believed to be hiding along
the Afghanistan-Pakistani border or in Pakistani cities. As
fugitives deprived of the state support from Afghanistan's Taliban
regime, which has also been forced into exile, bin Laden and his
top lieutenants have undoubtedly found it more difficult to
communicate, recruit new cadres, raise funds, train
terrorists, and organize attacks. As a result, al-Qaeda has
increasingly devolved from a distinct terrorist organization
into a loose coalition of like-minded Islamic extremist
groups.
Bin Laden has always
functioned more as al-Qaeda's chief financier, propagandist, and
ideological theorist than as its operational commander.[9] He acted more as a "chairman of
the board" than as a "chief executive officer." However,
maintaining his own personal security has required him to isolate
himself from his followers as much as possible and is believed to
have diluted his ability to lead the organization on a daily basis.
In one of his most recent videotapes, he sought to appear as an
elder statesman sitting behind a desk rather than as a guerrilla
commander in combat fatigues, clutching a weapon.
The worldwide manhunt for
terrorists has fragmented the al-Qaeda core group and led to
the development of local franchises that often act autonomously.
Groups loosely affiliated with al-Qaeda have taken the initiative
to launch attacks, sometimes acting in its name.
Bin Laden also has
absorbed other groups into al-Qaeda. For example, Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist who led a terrorist network
that sometimes competed with al-Qaeda in fundraising, has been
brought under the al-Qaeda umbrella to lead al-Qaeda operations in
Iraq. Despite continuing ideological differences, particularly
over Zarqawi's fanatical hatred of Shiites, bin Laden may have
decided to merge with Zarqawi's group to strengthen the al-Qaeda
"brand name" in Iraq, which has emerged as the bloodiest theater in
the global war against terrorism.
Given the use of
sophisticated explosives and reports of contacts with Pakistani
Islamic radicals affiliated with al-Qaeda, it is likely that the
London terrorists were given logistical support by the al-Qaeda
core group. In this respect, the London bombings may bear a
resemblance to the first World Trade Center bombing in New York in
February 1993. In that attack, the local ring of amateur
terrorists that did most of the dirty work was guided by Ramzi
Yousef, a dedicated professional terrorist who was dispatched from
al-Qaeda to oversee the operation.
Future al-Qaeda attacks in
Europe will likely resemble the conventional bombings of Madrid and
London more than a complex 9/11-type terrorist spectacular.
Al-Qaeda's local cells probably do not have the resources to mount
such a massive attack without being detected. What remains of the
al-Qaeda core group is probably saving its best punch for the
United States, its self-declared chief enemy.
Islamic
Extremism in Britain
The scale and complexity
of the problem involving young Islamic extremists in Britain
was highlighted in a recently leaked British Foreign Office/
Home Office study.[10] Terrorist organizations such
as al-Qaeda have found a fertile recruiting ground in the U.K.,
where half of Muslims are under the age of 25 and where there is
widespread Muslim opposition to the U.S.-British-led war on
terrorism.
The report revealed that
extremist groups are secretly recruiting well-educated affluent
Muslims from British universities, in addition to
impoverished, underachieving Muslims through mosques and
prisons. The recruits are driven by "anger" over British foreign
policy in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine as well
as "alienation" from British society and "disillusionment with
'sell out' mainstream Muslim organizations." According to the
report:
[Terrorist
recruits in the U.K.] range from foreign nationals now naturalized
and resident in the U.K. arriving mainly from North Africa and the
Middle East, to second and third generation British citizens whose
forebears mainly originate from Pakistan and Kashmir. In addition,
whilst many have grown up in Muslim households, a significant
number come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds, or only
converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white
British nationals and those of West Indian extraction. By and large
most young extremists fall into one of two groups: well educated
undergraduates or with degrees and technical qualifications in
engineering or IT; or under-achievers with few or no
qualifications, and often a criminal background.[11]
The British government
study concludes that "intelligence indicates that the number of
British Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activity, whether at
home or abroad, or supporting such activity is extremely small and
estimated at less than 1%." This translates into potentially 16,000
British Muslims out of a total population of 1.6 million. An
estimated 10,000 U.K. Muslims attended an extremist conference in
2003.
The study cites a series
of polls of British Muslim opinion on foreign policy issues that
raise considerable cause for concern regarding the loyalties
of some U.K. Muslims in the global war on terrorism. While the vast
majority of British Muslims condemned the 9/11 attacks, 15
percent supported them in a November 2001 BBC poll. In the same
poll, 80 percent believed that military action against Afghanistan
was unjustified, and 24 percent approved of "British Muslims going
to fight America and its allies in Afghanistan."[12]
Another BBC poll, in
December 2002, showed that 44 percent of Muslims thought that
further attacks by al-Qaeda were "justified on grounds that Muslims
are being killed by America and its allies using American weapons,"
and 56 percent of respondents stated that the U.S. and its allies
were "unjustified in blaming Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda groups for
the attacks in America on September 11." Seventy percent of
respondents disagreed with the view that "the war on terror is
not a war against Islam," and 26 percent of those polled did not
"feel very or fairly loyal/patriotic towards Britain."[13]
Strengthening
British
Anti-Terrorism Measures
According to Sir John
Stevens, former chief of the Metropolitan Police, "up to 3,000
British-born or British-based people have passed through Osama bin
Laden's training camps."[14] This astonishing
statistic demonstrates the gravity of the problem facing Britain's
security services in combating homegrown terrorism.
Britain's existing
anti-terrorism laws are among the strongest in Europe, but they
clearly need to be strengthened following the London terrorist
attacks. There are two main pieces of anti-terrorism legislation on
the British statute books: the Terrorism Act of 2000[15] and the Anti-Terrorism Crime
and Security Act 2001, which was amended in 2005.[16] Over
700 suspected terrorists have been arrested in the U.K. since
September 11, 2001, of which just 119 were charged. Just 17
terrorist suspects were convicted under the Terrorism Act
between 2001 and 2005, of which only three were Islamic
militants.[17]
The British government
should withdraw from any provision of the European Convention on
Human Rights that acts as a barrier to British national security
and should strongly consider pulling out of the Convention
altogether. The Convention was introduced into British law by the
Blair government through the Human Rights Act of 1998. As former
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wrote in the aftermath of
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United
States:
The basic
principle has to be re-established that where national security is
deemed to be at stake the government of the day should have the
power to act swiftly to protect it. At the very minimum, the
provisions of the Human Rights Act should be formally excluded from
applying to detention, deportation and asylum cases where the
national interest is involved.[18]
The London bombings
highlight the need for greater powers of detention regarding
terrorist suspects. The U.K. should enact legislation that
permits the indefinite preventive detention of suspected
terrorists in secure prison facilities. House arrest
provisions and "control orders" such as curfews and tagging
are simply not powerful enough to deter terrorists from
operating. In order to ensure a fair system of checks and
balances, the cases of individual terrorist suspects should be
subject to periodic review by British (not European) courts.[19]
Several measures pioneered
in the highly successful USA PATRIOT Act[20] should
be implemented by the British government, including an
increase of surveillance powers for British police and a crackdown
on charities with links to terrorist organizations. There should be
a far greater degree of coordination between U.S. and British
authorities in counterterrorist measures, and the Blair
government should show a greater willingness to extradite
terrorism suspects wanted for trial in the United States and other
allied countries.
Britain must also tighten
its liberal asylum policy, which has allowed large numbers of
Islamic militants to find safe haven in Britain. Foreign
Islamic clerics who preach sedition against the British state and
back terrorism should be prosecuted and deported, and their support
networks should be completely dismantled. Britain's mosques must be
reclaimed by moderate Muslims and not be allowed to operate as
centers of hatred.
The British government
should apply a policy of zero tolerance toward Islamic extremists
and immediately condemn extreme statements from religious leaders
in the U.K. It should also bar entry to Britain by anyone who has
ties to any terrorist organization, has supported or funded any
terrorist group, or has made public statements supporting
terrorism. British politicians should be careful not to confer
respectability on Islamic academics and theologians who have backed
suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism.
A
Greater Commitment from Europe to the War on Terrorism
The U.S. and the U.K.
should jointly pressure European Union (EU) member states to adopt
effective anti-terrorism measures. The attacks in Madrid, Istanbul,
and now London demonstrate that no European country is immune to
the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Britain's Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has already called on EU finance
ministers to act immediately to freeze terrorist assets in their
home countries, to tighten rules on money laundering and wire
transfers of money, and to prevent abuse of charities by
terrorists.[21] The British government
should also strongly back calls for European countries to
share information on air passengers with the United States in an
effort to prevent infiltration of U.S. borders by European-based
terrorists.
The U.S. and U.K. should
call on Europe to play a more proactive role internationally in the
global war on terrorism. Powerful domestic anti-terrorism measures
must be combined with a commitment to fighting al-Qaeda in all its
theaters of operation, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The European
Union, instead of appeasing international terrorist groups, must
isolate organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
European governments
should place a higher priority on disrupting and dismantling local
networks that support terrorists. Western governments
must take a more proactive approach to monitor, infiltrate, and
dismantle not only the terrorist groups, but also the
logistical, financial, and ideological networks that support them.
Britain has allowed a motley collection of foreign Islamic radicals
to gain sanctuary in Britain. Some may have naively hoped that this
would afford them immunity from attack, but the foreign exiles have
played a dangerous role in radicalizing Britain's Muslim
citizens.
The United States made a
similar mistake when it gave sanctuary to Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman,
the blind cleric who was the "spiritual guide" of the 1993 World
Trade Center bombers, even though he was wanted by the Egyptian
government for advocating terrorism. After 9/11, the Bush
Administration became more energetic in investigating and
cracking down on Islamist groups such as Hamas and the Palestinian
Islamic Jihad, which had established fundraising operations
inside the United States. This averted the danger that fundraising
cells might evolve into full-fledged terrorist cells. It also may
have hindered al-Qaeda's operations by depriving it of possible
allies. Individual Islamic radicals often have links to more than
one group.
The U.S. and its European
allies should also focus on rooting out criminal networks that
often overlap with Islamic extremist networks. For example, Islamic
terrorist groups often have links with groups that smuggle drugs,
arms, or illegal immigrants. The Madrid bombers had ties to a ring
of petty criminals that smuggled drugs. The Hezbollah terrorist
group finances itself in part by smuggling drugs out of
Lebanon. It also has profited from smuggling cigarettes in
America. In July 2000, FBI agents broke up a cigarette
smuggling ring that trucked contraband from North Carolina to
Detroit, with at least some of the profits funneled to Hezbollah.
Other cigarette smugglers in the United States have been
linked to Hamas and al-Qaeda.
International cooperation
in intelligence and police matters is paramount because of the
transnational nature of modern terrorist networks.
However, European governments cannot afford to treat the
London attacks and other attacks on European soil as merely a law
enforcement issue. Transnational terrorism is a strategic
security threat. Law enforcement authorities can act only after a
crime has been committed or after they receive detailed knowledge
that a group is conspiring to commit a crime. A law enforcement
approach that focuses on individual criminals leaves the terrorist
networks in place, capable of inflicting further massacres. A more
assertive approach is needed to identify and root out networks
before they become a lethal threat. The Italian government appears
to be taking this approach. After the London bombings, it cracked
down on Islamic extremists, arresting 142 and expelling 52 illegal
immigrants.
The
British and U.S. Commitment to Iraq
Iraqi Foreign Minister
Hoshyar Zebari recently warned against an early withdrawal of U.S.
and British forces from Iraq, declaring that the country would
descend into "hell" if this were implemented.[22] Zebari
is absolutely right: The implications for the future of Iraq
would be disastrous, and a withdrawal would also be viewed across
the Arab world as a cataclysmic defeat for the West and an immense
victory for Zarqawi and his murderous cohorts.
Zarqawi seeks to establish
Iraq as a base for exporting terrorism to Western nations and the
Middle East.[23] If the insurgents triumph in
Iraq, al-Qaeda will attract more recruits and funds, and a victory
will embolden it for future attacks, just as the Taliban victory in
Afghanistan greatly strengthened radical Islamists allied to
the Taliban.
Fortunately, Tony Blair is
no Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and is unlikely to yield to calls
to withdraw British troops. The Zapatero regime's decision to
withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq after the Madrid bombings was an
appalling capitulation to terrorism and sent the wrong message to
al-Qaeda-that the West is weak and will capitulate under pressure.
Spain's appeasement of the terrorists emboldened those who are
intent on destroying the transatlantic alliance and helped to sow
the seeds of the bombings in London.
Britain's
Defense Cuts and the Undermining of British Power
In an increasingly
dangerous world, Britain must bear a greater load of the burden
borne by the United States in the war on terrorism. As recent
events have shown, this is as much Britain's war as it is
America's. The planned U.K. defense cuts should be reversed because
they will seriously hamper Britain's ability to deploy large
numbers of troops at short notice to battlefields across the globe.
Britain has the world's second most powerful military in terms of
global force projection, but the planned defense cuts will greatly
undermine its ability to fight effectively alongside the United
States.
The Blair government's
decision to axe 15,000 military personnel is a huge strategic error
of judgment that will weaken the British war machine. The
Royal Air Force will lose a fifth of its 53,000 personnel, as
well as five bases and four frontline squadrons. The Royal Navy
will be reduced by six surface ships, making it smaller than the
French navy for the first time in 200 years. The British Army will
lose four of its most famous regiments, including the illustrious
Black Watch, which has played a major role in British operations in
Iraq.[24]
With defense spending
falling to a historical low of just 2.6 percent of gross domestic
product, Britain is already extremely overstretched
militarily, with its forces spread thinly across the Middle East,
Africa, and Europe. With these cuts, it would be a struggle for
Britain to embark upon another operation like the Iraq War,
which involved 45,000 British troops, or another Falklands
War.
Implications
of the London Bombings for U.S. Homeland Security
The U.S. government should
allocate homeland security funds to defend against the most likely
terrorist threats and the most lethal. Although urban mass
transit systems may need more investment in security systems, the
United States and its allies cannot afford to be stampeded into a
heavy investment in transportation security measures that
terrorists can defeat relatively easily. Protecting all
passengers on public transit systems everywhere is simply
impossible. Funds should be allocated to protecting the most likely
targets in major cities such as Washington and New York, not
disbursed across America according to politically motivated
pork-barrel considerations.
The federal government's
first priority should be to stop terrorists before they can attack,
through proactive counterterrorism measures based on vigilant
intelligence and early warning. Another top priority should be to
prepare for catastrophic terrorism. State and local
governments should take the lead in protecting critical
infrastructure and responding to local attacks.[25]
Anti-terrorism security
measures should also be assigned priorities according to the
likelihood of the terrorist threat, the potential costs of a
possible terrorist attack on a given target, and the
opportunity costs of protecting a given target at the expense
of protecting other possible targets. The U.S. government must
be proactive and consider al-Qaeda's most likely future threats and
not merely react to its past attacks. Al-Qaeda is imaginative and
adaptive. When its first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center
failed and security against truck bombs was increased, it used
airplanes as guided missiles to defeat ground-based
security.
Al-Qaeda and many of its
affiliates choose targets that are laden with symbolism, exact
considerable economic damage, and inflict maximum casualties.
Because many of its attacks are aimed to inspire the radical Muslim
audience as much as to terrify the targeted civilian audience, it
favors targets that provide dramatic television or video
footage that it can then use to recruit additional
followers.
Although protecting mass
transit facilities is important, protecting a wide range of other
possible targets is even more important. The highest
priority should be to protect America's elected leaders in the
White House and the Capitol. Al-Qaeda has already targeted them and
is sure to try again. Al-Qaeda has also put a high priority on
political assassinations, including unsuccessful attempts to kill
U.S. President Bill Clinton and Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf. Military leaders are also likely targets, as is the
Pentagon, which could be attacked again.
Bin Laden has a long
record of trying to obtain chemical, biological, nuclear, and
radiological weapons of mass destruction. The Department of
Homeland Security must therefore assign a high priority to
detecting, defending against, and dealing with the
aftereffects of such weapons, particularly a "dirty" bomb,
which uses a conventional blast to disperse radioactive materials.
Such a weapon could inflict immense economic damage if detonated in
a major city.
Al-Qaeda could also turn
chemical facilities or trains carrying lethal chemicals into
weapons of mass destruction that would threaten a large number
of people downwind from any explosion. Nuclear power plants,
reprocessing facilities, and the electrical power grid also are
tempting targets. The bombing or incineration of oil, gas, and
liquefied natural gas facilities would impose a cascade of
economic costs on the petroleum-dependent U.S. economy and provide
televised infernos that would terrorize Americans and inspire young
impressionable Muslim radicals, who will make up al-Qaeda's
next generation of terrorists.
While the London and
Madrid bombings have raised Americans' awareness of the potential
vulnerabilities of transportation facilities inside the United
States, the threats mentioned above are even more acute and deserve
greater attention.
What
the U.K. and the U.S. Should Do
In response to the London
bombings, the British government should:
-
Strengthen British
anti-terrorism laws. British anti-terrorism legislation
must be strengthened to prevent further attacks on the scale
of the London bombings. Greater powers should be given to British
authorities to detain suspected terrorists, and the U.K.
should immediately withdraw from provisions in the European
Convention on Human Rights that might act as a barrier to effective
anti-terrorism measures. The British government should strongly
consider implementing counterterrorist laws pioneered by the
United States in the PATRIOT Act.
-
Follow a policy of zero
tolerance for Islamic extremism. Britain is and always will be one of the
world's most open and tolerant societies. However, it must no
longer tolerate the Islamic militancy in its midst, which seeks to
destroy British society and impose a Muslim state. Foreign
Islamic radicals who preach hatred and violence in the U.K. should
be arrested and deported. Every effort must be made to
energize Muslim community leaders in Britain to work actively
against the extremists in their midst. British politicians must
also immediately denounce and act against inflammatory
statements by Muslim extremists.
-
Reverse Britain's defense
cuts. Britain remains
the world's second most powerful military power in terms of global
force projection, but the planned defense cuts will greatly
undermine its ability to fight effectively alongside the United
States. The London bombings and the continuing wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan underline the need for the U.K. to increase the size of
its military rather than reduce it. Expenditures on Britain's armed
forces must rise in correlation with the rising threats to
national and international security.
The governments of the
United States and the United Kingdom should jointly:
-
Coordinate London and
Washington's Anti-Terrorist Lists. There is a striking discrepancy between
the U.S. and U.K. lists of international terrorist
organizations. (See Appendix 1.) The U.K. list omits over 15
organizations classified as terrorist groups by the U.S. Department
of State. Washington and London should carefully coordinate their
lists of proscribed groups and present a united position in
the global war on terrorism.
-
Stay the course in
Iraq. The terrorist
attacks in London must increase the resolve of both the U.S. and
the U.K. to win the war against the al-Qaeda-backed insurgency in
Iraq. Iraq has become a central front in the war on terrorism. Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi and his terrorists must be eliminated. A clear
message must be sent to al-Qaeda operatives that they will be
fought and destroyed in Iraq. The defeat of al-Zarqawi and his army
of suicide bombers and jihadists must become a top priority for
Downing Street.
-
Press Pakistan to root out
Islamic extremist groups. The trail of the London bombing
conspiracy leads to Pakistan. Pakistani security officials
told The Times that three of the London bombers met
known al-Qaeda suspects during their trip to Pakistan.[26] They apparently spent
most of their time in the company of figures from outlawed
Pakistani militant groups. Shehzad Tanweer reportedly spent several
months at a madrass (Islamic religious school) in Pakistan
run by Lashkar-i-Taiba, an Islamic extremist group affiliated with
al-Qaeda that ostensibly was outlawed in 2002. Although Pakistani
President Pervez Musharraf's government has adopted a tough
rhetorical stance against such Islamic militant groups, it has
in practice turned a blind eye to many of their activities because
it seeks to preserve them as useful allies against India. In
the aftermath of the London bombings, Musharraf has ordered a
crackdown on Islamic extremists, but the Pakistani government
has eased up on such groups after past crackdowns.
Washington and London
should escalate pressure on the Pakistani government to follow
through on its promises to combat and permanently dismantle
Islamic extremist groups, especially those linked to al-Qaeda.
If Pakistan continues to undermine Western security by permitting
its Islamic radicals to recruit and train Western Muslims as
terrorists, London and Washington should halt foreign aid to
Pakistan[27] and seek to block any future
loans from international economic institutions to
Pakistan.
-
Take the war to the
terrorists. The war
against al-Qaeda must be waged militarily as well as through
intelligence and police operations. Whoever has harbored,
funded, aided, or abetted the London bombers must be held to
account. If any state played a role in these attacks, there must be
consequences. Special-forces operations, strategic air strikes, and
the targeted elimination of terrorist leaders must all be on the
table, in addition to a meticulous hunt for al-Qaeda sleeper cells
operating in London and other major cities across Europe. No
quarter should be given to those who have murdered innocent
civilians.
Conclusion
The terrorists responsible
for the London bomb attacks will not succeed in changing British
policy in the war on terrorism. If anything, the attacks will
increase the determination of the British government to stay
the course in Iraq and may result in an expansion of British
military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Britain's hour of need,
the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with her British
allies, who are bloodied but unbowed. This latest terrorist attack
will succeed only in bringing the British and American people
closer together. The terrorist attacks will strengthen
Anglo-American resolve. Great Britain, like America, is a great
warrior nation that will always respond aggressively to national
security threats and the murder of its citizens. This is an epic
confrontation between civilization and the barbaric forces that
wish to destroy it.
The U.S.-British alliance
is a strikingly successful partnership of two great powers
built on the solid foundations of a common heritage, culture, and
vision. The two nations have fought alongside each other in seven
major wars in the past 90 years, from World War I to the Iraq war.
The war on terrorism is a global conflict that may last for
decades, but it will be won by the two nations that stand at the
forefront of defending freedom and liberty on the world
stage.
Nile Gardiner,
Ph.D., is Fellow in Anglo-American Security
Policy and James Phillips is
Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Studies in the Douglas and
Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of
the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. The authors are grateful to
John Hulsman, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow in European Affairs,
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for National Security and
Homeland Security, and Paul Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Research
Fellow, for their advice and suggestions. Heritage Foundation
interns Sara Liston, Chelsea Kinsman, and Rob Diamond contributed
to the research for this paper.
[1]For
a profile of the bombers, see Sam Knight, "The Leeds Bombers,"
The Times (London), July 13, 2005, at
www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-20749-1692402,00.html
(July 15, 2005). For a profile of the fourth bomber, see Adam
Fresco, Sean O'Neill, and Stewart Tendler, "Jamaican-Born Bomber
from the Suburbs of Middle England," The Times, July 15,
2005, at
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1694965,00.html (July
15, 2005).
[2]"Forgotten
Men Who Became Foot Soldiers of Al-Qaeda," The Times, July
18, 2005.
[4]For
analysis of London's role as a sanctuary for Islamic terrorists,
see Steve Coll and Susan B. Glasser, "In London, Islamic Radicals
Found a Haven," The Washington Post, July 10, 2005, p. A1,
at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/
07/09/AR2005070901390.html (July 15, 2005), and Elaine Sciolino
and Don Van Natta, Jr., "For a Decade, London Thrived as a Busy
Crossroads of Terror," The New York Times, July 10, 2005, at
www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/international/europe/
10qaeda.html?incamp=article_popular_5 (July 15,
2005).
[5]Council
of Europe, "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms," at www.echr.coe.int/NR/
rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf
(July 19, 2005).
[6]This
is a point made powerfully by the British Prime Minister in a July
16, 2005, speech; see "Full Text: Blair Speech on Terror," BBC
News, at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4689363.stm.
[7]Renwick
McLean, "Spain Arrested More Than 130 Suspects in Islamic Terrorism
in '04," The New York Times, January 6, 2005, p.
A6.
[8]Reuters,
"Madrid Train Bombers Also Targeted New York," March 2,
2005.
[9]See
James A. Phillips, "Defusing Terrorism at Ground Zero: Why a New
U.S. Policy Is Needed for Afghanistan," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No.1383, July 12, 2000, at
www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1383.cfm.
[10]Sir
Andrew Turnbull, Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home
Civil Service, "Relations with the Muslim Community," memo to John
Gieve, Home Office, April 6, 2004, at www.times- archive.co.uk/
onlinespecials/cabinet1.pdf,
www.times-archive.co.uk/onlinespecials/cabinet2.pdf,
www.times- archive.co.uk/ /onlinespecials/cabinet3.pdf, and
www.times-archive.co.uk/ onlinespecials/cabinet4.pdf (July
15, 2005). See also Robert Winnett and David Leppard, "Leaked No.
10 Dossier Reveals al-Qaeda's British Recruits," The Sunday
Times, July 10, 2005, at
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1688261,00.html (July
15, 2005).
[11]Turnbull,
"Relations with the Muslim Community," p. 11.
[12]ICM
Research and BBC Radio 4, Muslims Poll, November 2001, at
www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2001/today-muslims-poll-nov-2001.htm
(July 15, 2005).
[13]ICM
Research and BBC Radio 4, Muslims Poll, December 2002,
atwww.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2002/bbc-today-muslims-dec-02.htm
(July 15, 2005).
[14]Sir
John Stevens, quoted in "Home-Grown Bombers 'Behind London
Attacks,'" Press Association, July 10, 2005.
[15]United
Kingdom Home Office, "Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT)," at
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/govprotect/legislation/
tact.html (July 15, 2005).
[16]United
Kingdom Home Office, "Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
(ATCSA)-Part 4 Powers," at
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/govprotect/legislation/atcsa.html
(July 15, 2005).
[17]"Hundreds
Arrested, Few Convicted," BBC News, March 11, 2005, at
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3290383.stm (July 15,
2005).
[18]Margaret
Thatcher, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World
(London: HarperCollins, 2002), pp. 277-278.
[19]For
analysis of the issue of detaining terrorist suspects, see Paul
Rosenzweig and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., "Preventive Detention and
Actionable Intelligence," Heritage Foundation Legal
Memorandum No. 13, September 16, 2004, at
www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/lm13.cfm.
[20]For
an in-depth summary of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, see Paul
Rosenzweig, Alane Kochems, and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., eds.,
The Patriot Act Reader, Heritage Foundation Special
Report No. 1, September 20, 2004, at
www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/The-Patriot-Act-Reader.cfm.
[21]"UK
Urges Terrorist Asset Seizure," BBC News Online, July 12, 2005, at
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4673975.stm (July 15, 2005).
See also "EU Fight Against Terrorism Set to Focus on Intelligence
Sharing," Financial Times, July 13, 2005.
[22]See
Patrick Coburn, "Iraqi Minister Says Troop Pull-Out Would 'Take
Country into Hell,'" The Independent, July 12, 2005, at
news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article298523.ece
(July 15, 2005).
[23]Porter
Goss, "Global Challenges 2005: Meeting Long-Term Challenges with a
Long-Term Strategy," testimony before the Select Committee on
Intelligence, U.S. Senate, February 16, 2005.
[24]For
background on the British defense cuts, see "Brown Demands 2.6
billion MoD Savings a Year in Exchange for His Cash Pledge," The
Daily Telegraph, July 19, 2005; "Britain's Defence Sums Don't
Add Up," The Economist, July 24, 2004; and "Britain
Spends Too Little on Its Forces," The Daily Telegraph,
August 23, 2004.
[25]See
Alane Kochems, "Who's on First? A Strategy for Protecting Critical
Infrastructure," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1851,
May 9, 2005, at
www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg1851.cfm.
[26]Simon
Freeman, "Bombers Traveled Around Pakistan for Three Months,"
Times Online, July 18, 2005.
[27]The
United States gave $400 million in grant assistance to Pakistan in
2004. The Bush Administration is committed to giving a further $3
billion in aid to Pakistan over the next five years ($600 million a
year). "U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Pakistan," speech by Nancy J.
Powell, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Lahore, August 20, 2004, at
www.state.gov/p/sa/rls/rm/35681.htm. The United Kingdom's
Department for International Development (DFID) expects to spend
over $400 million in development assistance in Pakistan over
the next three years. See U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
"Country Profile, Pakistan: UK Development Assistance," at
www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/
ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=
1019041564003.