The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
This Is How to Prevent Another Week of Terror
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The massacre in Manchester is a horrific event born out of the violence raging in a vast area stretching from Pakistan to Nigeria and Syria to South Sudan. Britain is on the outer periphery of this cauldron of war, but it would be surprising if we were not hit by sparks thrown up by these savage conflicts. They have been going on so long that they are scarcely reported, and the rest of the world behaves as if perpetual warfare was the natural state of Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, South Sudan, North-east Nigeria and Afghanistan.

It is inevitable that, in the wake of the slaughter in Manchester, popular attention in Britain should be focussed on the circumstances of the mass killing and on what can be done to stop it happening again. But explanations for what happened and plans to detect and neutralise a very small number of Salafi-jihadi fanatics in UK, will always lack realism unless they are devised and implemented with a broad understanding of the context in which they occur.

It is necessary at this point to emphasise once again that explanation is not justification. It is, on the contrary, an acknowledgement that no battle – certainly not a battle to defeat al-Qaeda and Isis – can be fought and won without knowing the political, religious and military ingredients that come together to produce Salman Abedi and the shadowy Salafi-jihadi network around him.

The anarchic violence in the Middle East and North Africa is underreported and often never mentioned at all in the Western media. Butchery of civilians in Baghdad and Mogadishu has come to seem as normal and inevitable as hurricanes in the Caribbean or avalanches in the Himalayas. Over the last week, for instance, an attack by one of the militias in the Libyan capital Tripoli killed at least 28 people and wounded 130. The number is more than died in Manchester, but there were very few accounts of it. The Libyan warlords, who pay their fighters from the country’s diminished oil revenues, are thoroughly criminalised and heavily engaged in racket from kidnapping to sending sub-Saharan migrants to sea in sinking boats. But their activities are commonly ignored, as if they were operating on a separate planet.

Britain played a central role in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 without considering that there was nothing but such warlords remaining to replace his regime. I was in Benghazi and Tripoli at that time and could see that the rebel bands, financed by Gulf oil states and victorious only because of Nato airstrikes, would be incapable of filling the vacuum. It was also clear from an early stage that among those taking advantage of this void would be al-Qaeda and its clones.

But it is only since last Monday that people in Britain have come to realise that what happened in Libya in 2011 dramatically affects life in Britain today.

British Libyans and Libyan exiles in Britain, who saw their “control orders” lifted and their passports returned by MI5 six years ago so they could go and fight Gaddafi were never going to turn into sober citizens the day after his fall. Just as the link is undeniable between the perpetrators of 9/11 and the US and Saudi backing for Jihadis fighting the Communists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, so too is the connection between the Manchester bombing and the British Government using Salafi-jihadis from the UK to get rid of Gaddafi.

The British Government pretends that anybody making this obvious point is seeking to limit the responsibility of the killers of 9/11 and the Manchester attack. The Conservative response to Jeremy Corbyn’s common sense statement that there is an obvious link between a British foreign policy that has sought regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya and the empowerment of al-Qaeda and Isis in these places has been dismissive and demagogic. The venom and hysteria with which Mr Corbyn is accused of letting the bombers morally off the hook has much to do with the General Election, but may also suggest a well-concealed suspicion that what he says is true.

The Manchester bombing is part of the legacy of failed British military interventions abroad, but is this history useful in preventing such calamities as Manchester happening again? Analysis of these past mistakes is important to explain that terrorists cannot be fought and defeated while they have safe havens in countries that have no governments or central authority. Everything should be done to fill these vacuums, which means that effective counter-terrorism requires a sane foreign policy devoted to that end.

There should be nothing mysterious about the cause and effect which led to the Manchester bombing. Yet the same mistakes have been made by Britain in Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2006, Libya in 2011 and in Syria over the same period.

It is no advertisement for President Bashar al-Assad to say that any well-informed assessment of the balance of forces in Syria from 2012 onwards – and the powerful foreign allies supporting each side – showed that Assad was likely to stay in power. Fuelling the war with the expectation that he would go was unrealistic and much to the advantage of al-Qaeda, Isis and those who might target Britain.

Eliminating the bombers’ safe havens is a necessity if the threat of further attacks is to be lifted. Security measures within Britain are never going to be enough because the al-Qaeda or Isis targets are the entire British population. They cannot all be protected, particularly as the means of murdering them may be car or a kitchen knife. In this sense, the bomber will always get through, though it can be made more difficult for him or her to do so.


Better news is that the number of Salafi-jihadi networks is probably pretty small, though Isis and al-Qaeda will want to give the impression that their tentacles are everywhere. The purpose of terrorism is, after all, to create pervasive fear. Experience in Europe over the last three years suggests that the number of cells are limited but that committed Jihadis can be sent from Libya, Iraq or Syria to energise and organise local sympathisers to commit outrages.

Another purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction, in this case the communal persecution or punishment of all Muslims in Britain. The trap here is that the state becomes the recruiting sergeant for the very organisations it is trying to suppress, The ‘Prevent’ programme may be doing just this. Such an approach is also counter-effective because so many people are regarded as suspicious that there are too little resources to focus on the far smaller number who are really dangerous.

Atrocities such as Manchester will inevitably lead to friction between Muslims and non-Muslims and, if there are more attacks, sectarian and ethnic antipathies will increase. Downplaying the religious motivation and saying the killers “have nothing to do with real Islam” may have benign intentions, but has the disadvantage of being glaringly untrue. All the killers have been Muslim religious fanatics.

It might be more useful to say that their vicious beliefs have their roots in Wahhabism, a very small portion of the Muslim world population living in Saudi Arabia. Of course, this would have the disadvantage of annoying Saudi Arabia, whose rulers Britain and much of the rest of the world are so keen to cultivate.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Libya, Middle East, Terrorism 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. hyperbola says:

    As usual Cockburn covers up more than he reveals. How about the role of Theresa May in protecting the perpetrators while Foreign Sectretary? Why does Cockburn not mention that?

    UK Government Harbored Terrorists Linked to Manchester Blast for Decades

    And the attempt to link this to Saudi “wahabis” is blaming of the western patsies for western crimes.

    The UK’s century-long war against Yemen | Middle East Eye

    UnzReview should drop Cockburn as an author. He is clearly just a propaganda shill.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  2. Talha says:

    Solid article – well stated – this demonic snake has been birthed by many mothers and none of them should be let off the hook.


  3. Snippet says:

    >>> Downplaying the religious motivation and saying the killers “have nothing to do with real Islam” may have benign intentions, but has the disadvantage of being glaringly untrue.

    Beyond that, it falls into the “You’re not fooling anybody, and your attempts to do so reveal a deeper truth about what you really think of Muslims and their capacity to deal with criticism.” category.

    These are the same people who LOVE to blame Americans, white people, males, Christians, “Westerners” etc… for pretty much everything.

    And then a bomb goes off, 22 young girls are killed, E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E knows who’s behind it, and suddenly the cloud of obfuscation forms around the event.

    BTW, I think I saw the insinuation that we should revert to supporting Islamist-bashing dictators. On paper, that looks realpoliticky, but supporting Islamist-bashing dictators was basically the policy environment in which Al Qaida incubated.

  4. anon • Disclaimer says:

    It just seems to me that if no Muslims had been allowed to COME to Britain then they couldn’t kill any British people IN Britain. Muslims moving to a non-Muslim country is a Trojan horse for Muslim terrorism. Even without that I hardly see Muslims as desirable arrivals.

  5. Libya is only a small part of the “vast area stretching from Pakistan to Nigeria and Syria to South Sudan”.

    It is Saudi Arabian government policy to promote the migration of Sunni Muslims to developed countries, and to radicalise (“Wahhabise”) Sunnis everywhere.

    Whenever there is trouble in previously peaceful Sunni Muslim countries, even Bangladesh and Indonesia, the corrupting influence of Saudi Arabia is not far away.

    We tolerate this because we are afraid the Saudis will stop selling us their oil. The least we could do is invest a lot more in development of alternative energy sources; and normalise relations with Iran, to reduce the Saudi dominance of the world’s oil supply.

  6. Yeah, I agree that destabilising the region was probably one of the root causes, but allowing mass migration of muslims at the same time (Derb has pointed out several times that muslim migration to the US has increased since 9/11) was effectively introducing a force multiplier to an already precarious situation.

    We can’t put the genie back in the bottle, so it might be a bit gratuitous to say, but far fewer people were dying on both sides when Saddam and Mohamar were in power.

    I will also point out that we had small bouts of terrorism in the ’80s. Aside from the very public but limited bombing of Libya, most of the war on terror was conducted in secret small ops that simply killed terrorists, and the problem remained fairly controlled. The never-ending GWOT has done nothing but radicalise an unbelievable quantum of terrorists all over the place, and that fantasy that we are “fighting them over there so they won’t fight us here” is showing itself for the canard it always was.

    These are supposedly the best and brightest running our institutions, so the fact that they’ve screwed up the world would seem intentional when one considers their wealth and power have significantly increased as the world they created gets dicier for the rest of us.

  7. Ben Frank says:

    If you want to live with Muslims and Africans, move to the Middle East or Africa.
    Let the rest of us live like Americans. Control immigration now!

  8. Anonymous [AKA "Buzzkilla"] says:

    And your passing over the Saudi-Link is a traitorous coverup

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr