7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7

[Lock&Light]

Do you? Why?

I'm not saying that the Iraqi involvement has had NO effect on the thinking of terrorists. What I am saying is that Britain has been at risk from terrorism since way before the Iraqi War.

 

[Badger Kitten]

But the report is into 7th July. Not the overall risk of terrorism.


It says Iraq was the motivating factor behind 7th July.

 

[Lock&Light]

It says Iraq was the motivating factor behind 7th July.

The sole motivating factor? I don't think so.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Have you read it?

I will paste it for you

The first official recognition that the Iraq war motivated the four London suicide bombers has been made by the government in a major report into the 7 July attacks.
Despite attempts by Downing Street to play down suggestions that the conflict has made Britain a target for terrorists, the Home Office inquiry into the deadliest terror attack on British soil has conceded that the bombers were inspired by UK foreign policy, principally the decision to invade Iraq.

The government's 'narrative', compiled by a senior civil servant using intelligence from the police and security services, was announced by the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, last December following calls for a public inquiry into the attacks.

The narrative will be published in the next few weeks, possibly alongside the findings of a critical report into the London bombings by the Commons intelligence and security committee.

Initial drafts of the government's account into the bombings, which have been revealed to The Observer, state that Iraq was a key 'contributory factor'. The references to Britain's involvement in Iraq are contained in a section examining what inspired the 'radicalisation' of the four British suicide bombers, Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay.

The findings will prove highly embarrassing to Tony Blair, who has maintained that the decision to go to war against Iraq would make Britain safer. On the third anniversary of the conflict last month, the Prime Minister defended Britain's involvement in Iraq, arguing that only an interventionist stance could confront terrorism.

The narrative largely details the movements of the four bombers from the point when they picked up explosives in a rucksack from a 'bomb factory' in Leeds to the time when the devices were detonated on the morning of 7 July.

Alongside Iraq, other 'motivating factors' for the bombers, three of whom came from west Yorkshire and one from Buckinghamshire, are identified. These include economic deprivation, social exclusion and a disaffection with society in general, as well as community elders. A videotape of Mohammed Sidique Khan was released after the attacks, in which he makes an apparent reference to Iraq, accusing 'Western citizens' of electing governments that committed crimes against humanity. Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also appeared on the tape, repeating his claim that Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was responsible for the outrage.

It is the main motivating factor that radicalised these young men. It is very clear.

 

[Badger Kitten]

The Observer, by the way, supported the war.

 

[Badger Kitten]

And here is the Sunday Times with a different source

A leaked top-secret memo from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) says the war in Iraq has “exacerbated” the threat by radicalising British Muslims and attracting new recruits to anti-western terror attacks.



The four-page memo, entitled International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq, contradicts Blair’s public assurances by concluding that the invasion of Iraq has fomented a jihad or holy war against Britain.

It states: “It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.”

It adds: “Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate.”

The memo was approved by Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, John Scarlett, the chief of MI6, and Sir David Pepper, head of GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre.

The leak of the JIC’s official assessment — marked “top secret” — will alarm Blair as it appears to be directed at undermining the public statements in which he has denied that the war in Iraq has increased the terror threat from Al-Qaeda.

 

[Lock&Light]

It is the main motivating factor that radicalised these young men. It is very clear.

The fact is that the terrorist attacks last July COULD have happened, and were often threatened, even if Britain had not participated directly in the Iraqi War.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Let us back track. Here is Blair being warned that the Iraq war was fuellign Muslim extremism in 2004....

Observer

Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday August 28, 2005
The Observer

The Foreign Office's top official warned Downing Street that the Iraq war was fuelling Muslim extremism in Britain a year before the 7 July bombings, The Observer can reveal.
Despite repeated denials by Number 10 that the war made Britain a target for terrorists, a letter from Michael Jay, the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, to the cabinet secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull - obtained by this newspaper - makes the connection clear.

The letter, dated 18 May 2004, says British foreign policy was a 'recurring theme' in the Muslim community, 'especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq'.

'Colleagues have flagged up some of the potential underlying causes of extremism that can affect the Muslim community, such as discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion,' the letter says. 'But another recurring theme is the issue of British foreign policy, especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq.

Sir Andrew Turnbull's letter

 

[Badger Kitten]

The fact is that the terrorist attacks last July COULD have happened, and were often threatened, even if Britain had not participated directly in the Iraqi War.

They could have happened, yes, but the Iraq was SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THE RISK by actively radicalising British Muslims. Just as I could be glassed in the face by a random stranger, but my chances of injury are significantly increased if I go into his house, punch his son and pee on his carpet.

Look, more sources... upthread, and yet more coming soon...

 

[Badger Kitten]

For example, the Government commissioned and then sat on a report called Young Muslims and Extremism which also spelled it out...

Sunday Times

The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

In an interview yesterday, Blair denied that the London terrorist attacks were a direct result of British involvement in the Iraq war. He said Russia had suffered terrorism with the Beslan school massacre despite its opposition to the war, and terrorists were planning further attacks on Spain even after the pro-war government was voted out.

“September 11 happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan, before any of these issues and that was the worst terrorist atrocity of all,” he said.

However, the analysis prepared for Blair identified Iraq as a “recruiting sergeant” for extremism.

 

[Badger Kitten]

So, they were warned , they knew it was likeluy to happen, they denied the link for eight insulting months and now they have finally admitted it: Iraq was the key driver behind July 7. Which most people have said all along.

What amazes me is not that they have admitted it, .but that they have leaked it in advance. What are they trying to do? Buy time? Draw fire? Get it out with a load of other bad news?

Any ideas?

 

[detective-boy]

Such as...

General lack of preparedness on the day
De Menezes
Intelligence monitoring Khan
Number of prospective bomb plots & plotters in UK
How on top of the situation M15 and M16 are
How dependent on US intelligence we are
Pakistan connection
Ambulance response on the day
Aftercare of victims and families
Anomalies in the version of the day ( still no official version)
Why the terror threat was downgraded...

...and that is just off the top of my head.

Wow, that's some list you've got there. Let's try and split it into some different categories:

Crisis management pre-planning:

General lack of preparedness on the day
Ambulance response on the day
Why the terror threat was downgraded

I think you could add stuff that has already come out in this category - communications equipment and protocols (esp. underground); availability of rapidly deployable triage facilities (to avoid having to raid M&S).

Competent crisis management planning needs there to be a de-brief after an event to work out what went well and what didn't, with a view to revising the response for next time. I think most, if not all, the emergency services have done this and I suspect many of them worked together in doing so (it is a standard post-event practice and has been for years). It MAY be that it would be useful for a single agency to pull together the different reports and ensure that there are no gaps between them. If they haven't already done so, I would suggest that the London Emergency Services Liaison Panel (LESLEP) would be the logical choice to do this. http://www.leslp.gov.uk/about.htm. It obviously WOULD be useful to publish a (desensitised) summary of the findings for the public to reassure about the future. That said people MUST realise that no matter how good the learning, the plan WILL still be found lacking some way next time, life (and crises) are just like that.

In relation to threat levels, think there has already been widespread acknowledgement that the current system is pretty useless and needs to be reviewed in it's entirety (not least in educating the public as to what the different levels mean in terms of their everyday actions / awareness)

Intelligence and proactive identification and research of suspects

Intelligence monitoring on Khan
Number of prospective bomb plots & plotters in UK
How on top of the situation M15 and M16 are
How dependent on US intelligence we are
Pakistan connection
Why the terror threat was downgraded.

There is acknowledgement that Khan was known, but had not been identified as a key player. I suspect that that is primarily because there was little if anything available which would have marked him out as such from very many others. I think specific findings in relation to his history could be made public by way of an explanation but much, if not all, of the rest of these points would not be capable of detailed examination in a public enquiry without compromising ongoing operations.

Response on the day and post-event:

Ambulance response on the day
Aftercare of victims and families
Anomalies in the version of the day ( still no official version)

Again I think you could add a lot more here. As with the Crisis management / planning part I think each individual report probably contains most of what happened though it may be useful to pull it all together (and again LESLEP would be a logical forum in which to do that). From the various things I have read, I think the police, ambulance and fire services all acknowedge shortcomings in their response. Hospitals have done likewise in some respects (though A&E emergency response broadly worked well once casualties had made it that far). The government aftercare response was well-intentioned but did not work anywhere near as well as it should. That was the first time I have seen that sort of response on that sort of scale and a lot MUST have been learned. A public acknowledgement of exactly what would help.

In relation to anomalies in the version of events, my understanding is that that a best possible account is one of the principle things that the narrative is meant to provide. If it does then "What happened" should have been answered as well as it can be. If not, then some alternative way of reaching that point is necessary because, as you say, you cannot work out "Why?" until you have established "What?" happened - these are basic principles of the Experiential Learning Cycle.

Conclusion

I do not think that a public enquiry is merited. There are too many disparate aspects to be properly dealt with within a single one in any event. Yes, I think there is probably going to be a need for further information to the public even after the narrative is published but I do NOT think that a public enquiry is he best way to achieve that. As has been noted they are (a) expensive; (b) slow and ungainly; (c) tend to be hidebound by their terms of reference and (d) tend to be something of a blunt instrument.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Thanks for that detective boy; that is a very good summary. There are loads of things I could have put in the list but I wanted to knock out a selection rather than paste up a definitive list. I think that I would be okay to move to the position of an indendent rather than full public enquiry if that would speed things up and not compromise Crevice and July 21st Trials and further on going investigations: what worries me though is that you have all these internal reviews going on - conducted internally and shared internally but not publicly. This means that things are being missed or skipped.


As we have seen by the fact that the London Asmbulance service initially said to the GLA Resilience Committee that the radio system 'worked fine' - only to be forced into an admission by the BBC that no, it didn't, since the radios only worked if the operators were in their vehicles - so it seems that not everything is coming out and being shared as it should. Arse-covering is understandable in an internal enquiry into a traumatic event that must have afected many, but it's not about blame, it is about dragging everything out into the open and making sure learnings are sharted, funding is given, equipment and protocol reviewed and upgraded if necessary.

The ridiculous denials and wrigglings about Iraq are a cause of great anger and mistrust: there is the issue of foreign policy and domestic policies and their impact in terms of disconnect and mounting anger with many sections of the UK population and the Muslim communities here and abraod. There is also the issue of radicalisation: the ideological position of al Qaeda sympathisers is stoked by real events, and a perception that there is a 'war on Muslims'. I don't personally think there is a war on Muslims ( I think it is about territory, power and resources, not idealogical Crusading) but the US and UK foreign policy do make it look as if there is. And it really doesn't help. We should not have invaded Iraq on such dodgy precepts. There is a chain of events from that decision that encompasses Khan et al deciding to blow themselves up and kill 52, injure 700+ last summer.

 

[Blagsta]

Anyone who blames Britain's involvement with the Iraqi War for the attacks of July are implicitly also saying that they wouldn't have happened if Britain had stayed out. I disagree with that analysis.

Errr...you're contradicting yourself

I still can't believe that anyone ever doubted that involvement in the Iraqi War highlighted the UK in the eyes of the terrorists.

 

[Blagsta]

The fact is that the terrorist attacks last July COULD have happened, and were often threatened, even if Britain had not participated directly in the Iraqi War.

I don't think anyone denies that. What the war did do was to make it more likely (which you yourself have admitted). So what is your point?

 

[Lock&Light]

So what is your point?

My point is that as Britain was already under terrorist threat, any additional threat could never be allowed to be a reason for not getting involved in the Iraqi War.

 

[TAE]

Anyone who blames Britain's involvement with the Iraqi War for the attacks of July are implicitly also saying that they wouldn't have happened if Britain had stayed out.

That is not the same as saying that not attacking Iraq would have been a guarantee of safety.

It is quite possible that the July bombing would not have happend, yet some other terrorist attack (eg. to do with afghanistan) would still have been a possibility.

 

[Blagsta]

My point is that as Britain was already under terrorist threat, any additional threat could never be allowed to be a reason for not getting involved in the Iraqi War.

So you still think the war is justified then? Even though it led to 7/7?

(that's not even mentioning the utter mess we've made over there)

 

[Lock&Light]

So you still think the war is justified then? Even though it led to 7/7?

If terrorist threats can be allowed to influence the foreign policy of a state, then that state has become redundant.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I still can't believe that anyone ever doubted that involvement in the Iraqi War highlighted the UK in the eyes of the terrorists. Nevertheless, anyone who suggests that Britain would have been immune to terror attacks if only Blair hadn't gone along with Bush can only have forgotten that Bali sent no soldiers to Iraq.

It's not black or white will it happen or wont; it's likelyhood. The UK would have had a far less chance of being attacked had we not gone into the US invasion. Bali was targetted because it is a well known tourist spot by Australians. You might remember that their government stands "shoulder to shoulder" with the US and UK (and formally Spain until common sense overtook their electoral system).

 

[Blagsta]

If terrorist threats can be allowed to influence the foreign policy of a state, then that state has become redundant.

You haven't answered my question.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

If terrorist threats can be allowed to influence the foreign policy of a state, then that state has become redundant.

Another red herring. You have things back to front. If states didn’t create terrorists [by their foreign policy] there would need to be a worry about terrorists influencing states.

 

[Lock&Light]

It's not black or white will it happen or wont; it's likelyhood. The UK would have had a far less chance of being attacked had we not gone into the US invasion. Bali was targetted because it is a well known tourist spot by Australians. You might remember that their government stands "shoulder to shoulder" with the US and UK (and formally Spain until common sense overtook their electoral system).

You, like so many, seem to think that there was very little chance of Britain being attacked before the Iraqi War. I remember that time differently. You do know, don't you, that 9/11 happened before there was any war.

 

[TAE]

If terrorist threats can be allowed to influence the foreign policy of a state, then that state has become redundant.

It was the threat of terrorism that the pro-war lobby were using to justify the Iraq war.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

You, like so many, seem to think that there was very little chance of Britain being attacked before the Iraqi War. I remember that time differently. You do know, don't you, that 9/11 happened before there was any war.

*grits teeth and tries to ignore the patronising tone and general obtuse manner*

Yes and again that's a flacid arguement for the reasons I gave above about terrorists influencing states.

 

[TAE]

You do know, don't you, that 9/11 happened before there was any war.

Male bovine's excrements!

There were plenty of US military operations before 9/11.

 

[Lock&Light]

Male bovine's excrements!

There were plenty of US/UK military operations before 9/11.

In the context of this thread I was obviously referring to the Iraqi War. But you knew that, didn't you?

 

[Lock&Light]

*grits teeth and tries to ignore the patronising tone and general obtuse manner*

You have caused me many a ground down tooth over the years.

 

[TAE]

The context is what motivates someone to do a terrorist attack.

 

[Blagsta]

You still haven't answered the question.