Friday 29 February 2008

The Bullet Magnet of Helmand...


Kings, Princes, Dukes and Earls, all in ages past have seen their fair shares of military action. From William the Conqueror and George VI, to Prince Andrew the Duke of York and the 7th Earl of Derby, all have engaged in some kind of warfare. The news in recent days that for the past 10 weeks Prince Harry has been fighting in Afghanistan has come as a surprise to many, considering he was prevented from serving in Iraq early last year. The 23 year old is said to have arrived in the country on Christmas Eve, before moving on to serve with a Gurkha regiment in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, where the majority of British forces are based. The news today is that the Prince is being withdrawn from Afghanistan after a news blackout deal with media companies was broken; a decision by the MoD taken to ensure the continued safety of the Prince and the rest of his regiment.

From the point of view of a Royalist through and through, I see no problem with members of the Royal family or the Nobility serving on the front line with the rest. It is in our History as a nation to have such high standing members of society on the battlefield, fighting along-side their fellow countrymen. The difference here from a battlefield somewhere in 14th century Europe, is that the Taliban consider God to be their commander in chief, not a physical social being equal to that of Queen Elizabeth II. Had they have discovered the whereabouts, if not the existence all together, of Prince Harry, I'm sure they would have expected a man on some sort of elaborately decorated gold podium, rather than the typical officer he was soon shown to be seen as.

The decision to prevent him from going to Iraq, seemed to me, to be the correct one. British forces now have a limited presence in Iraq, while the influx of American troops there continues to grow. I think our promise to invade Iraq as part of a coalition has been fulfilled, and our duty has more or less been done in terms of securing the areas that we were given to control; the handing over of a now stable Basra having been a prime example of this. In Afghanistan, the fleeing Taliban are losing, their retreat into the desert regions of the country, away from the madrassas and mosques of the cities has ensured that Afghanistan is now far safer for a soldier than Iraq. Foreign Islamist fighters prefer Baghdad to Kabul, seeing Al-Qaeda in Iraq an easier organisation to find and join, than the simple, often farming, fighters of Afghanistan's Taliban.

For doing his part in support of the democratic Government and people of Afghanistan, the Prince is to be commended. His determined attitude towards potentially serving with his regiment has ensured he has succeeded in doing so, completing a tour and the job he has been trained to do. Participating in military service of this practical kind is an acknowledgement which I hope will stay with the Prince for many years to come; an acknowledgement which deserves respect in a time where Kings and Queens are seen by many as nothing more than mere figure-heads in the modern world.

Three cheers for Harry...

(Picture: Prince Harry in Helmand province, Afghanistan.)

Saturday 23 February 2008

Mistaking the Mehdi...


Yesterday the leader of Iraq's Shia Mehdi Army, Muqtada al-Sadr, extended the August 2007 ceasefire by an additional 6 months, amid fears that violence could once again rise in the country should the ceasefire run out. The group, which was formed in 2003, has been fighting against coalition troops and Iraqi security forces since its creation, and has made many efforts to also concentrate firepower against Sunni/Kurd-insurgent groups such as Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna. Although suicide-bombings are looked upon as 'Haram' by members of the group, roadside-bombs (known by coalition forces as IED's) are not; and the discovery of high-tech weaponry used by the group has risen speculation that neighbouring Iran may play a part in it's initial and continued arming.

To me the move by the cleric doesn't make sense. The Mehdi Army has never been afraid of violence, hence its voluntary creation in the first place; and ending fighting, or denouncing violence would render Muqtada al-Sadrs leadership as pretty pointless, (unless the group was to become a political entity, rather than a purely paramilitary one). Another possibility is of course that the group just wants to re-stock up on arms, and the expected delivery date from Iran has been delayed. Iranian-post huh, but hey what did they expect?

As a long standing supporter of both the Iraq & Afghanistan invasions (both for different reasons), I find it hard to admit that coalition governments may have underestimated the cultural, religious and ethnic tensions left as part of Saddam Hussain's notorious legacy in Iraq. As is known, the Sunni-dictatorship which ruled Iraq horrifically persecuted both the majority Shia, and Kurdish populations of the country; using weapons of mass destruction, in operations like that of the Al-Anfal campaign, to do so. Since the invasion, both Sunni & Shia Muslims have been treated very much the same by coalition forces, which perhaps mistakenly saw them as just 'Iraqis', rather than seperate entities. By examining past events in History, perhaps I can further highlight what could have been done in utilising the political climate to our gain.

Last month here on the Isle of Man, I went along to a lecture on the English Civil War which was conducted by a leading man in the field, Professor Ronald Hutton of Bristol University. The professor outlined in the lecture that even before King Charles I raised his banner at Nottingham in 1642, declaring war on Parliament, the religious and cultural tensions within society had already decided which members of the population would side with who. Professor Hutton likened the situation to a rock which has been thrown against a wall with force. The rock will not break in a random fashion, but rather along pre-existing fault lines already existent within the rock. Studying these fault-lines before the rock is thrown could enable us to predict how the situation will unfold, and therefore help us know how to use it to our advantage.

The same could be said about Iraq, without understanding the tensions between Iraq's communities prior to the invasion, the hard-road might have been taken in trying to unite its reluctant peoples. The coalition governments, upon removing Saddam Hussain from power, expected the liberated Iraqis to take over the country, much as most liberated peoples have done in ages past. The people however were divided by tensions, and inexperienced in leadership and free-thought, deeming them incapable of anything to begin with. The crisis of the growth in violence and continuing political instability in the country was the impact of that rock hitting the wall, and the events that followed could have been known.

In my view, more of an effort should have been made to appease the majority Shia population in the forming of a new Iraq, rather than the Sunni. The Sunnis had their chance in ruling the country under the Ba'ath Party, and can't have felt anywhere near as persecuted as the Shias and Kurds. This desire for revenge by the Shia population was not appeased by the trial and execution of Saddam Hussain, but was split, bent and directed towards coalition forces and many innocent Sunni civilians in anger. This upsurge in violence by the Shia community could and should have been predicted by coalition governments.


A surprised realisation of the violence, followed by an attempt to stop the Mehdi Army using force, has not only encouraged the desire by Shias to make coalition forces their enemy, but has also ensured the group now has backing from Iran. British bases in Basra reported frequent rocket-attacks by Shia militias before the handover to Iraqi security forces in December, since then Iraq's second largest city has been much quieter. During the attacks however, some people in the nearby streets were heard by several inhabitants of Basra speaking 'Farsi', the language of nearby Iran; and many shells were also understood to be from across the border.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now, and has been since the invasion, a huge threat to the national security of the country. With foreign fighters actively recruited and imported by Al-Qaeda to fight the U.S. and Iraqi security forces, suicide bombings are commonplace and are seemingly very hard to prevent. The might of the Mehdi Army, had the Shias been properly utilised by coalition forces, could have been used to fight the Sunni Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq; and with the right support, could have potentially wiped out Al-Qaeda from Iraq all together. Instead, the road in making Iraq a democracy again has been made much harder due to the failure to understand community tensions, making coalition forces an enemy of both the Mehdi Army, and Al-Qaeda in post-invasion Iraq.

Despite what might seem as being harsh criticism towards strategic operations in Iraq, I have overwhelming faith that the country will one day become a fully democratic, fully in-control one thanks to the continued presence of coalition forces there, and every day the Iraqi government's mere existence is living proof of this. I hope also however that the fury of the Mehdi Army can somehow be tamed before Iraq arrives at what is generally considered to be the most deciding factor in the future of middle-east politics...


(Picture 1: Leader of the Mehdi Army and Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.)
(Picture 2: Members of the Mehdi Army during a street march.)

Friday 15 February 2008

The Flight Against Terror...


Last week, the convictions of five young British Muslim men jailed over extremist literature were quashed by the Appeal Court. The men, all of whom had been convicted in 2007, were originally arrested for downloading extremist literature, obtaining an Al-Qaeda Manual, and for having involvement with jihadist websites, on which they adopted the names of suicide bombers. The case for the prosecution was that the five extremists had planned to go to Pakistan to receive terrorist training and then go on to fight in Afghanistan, however the requirement to prove that every shred of evidence recovered supported this accusation may have been too much for the Crown Prosecution Service.

The case for the defence was that although it was evident the men were planning to go to Pakistan, it could not be proved that the extremist material recovered by police was to be used there; and so the case had the potential to be thrown out due to supposed lack of evidence. That, mixed with the ambiguity surrounding the Terrorism Act 2000, and the institution of politically biased Judges eventually led to the men's convictions being dropped, a decision which may prove to be a mistake should any of the men go on to be part of Britain's next batch of suicide bombers. Indeed the news of this 'triumph' will ring in the ears of many would-be jihadists, sending a message clear enough to them that involving themselves in internet terrorism and downloading Al-Qaeda manuals is something which is, in terms of law, somehow acceptable.

The argument for many, in favour of the dropping of the men's convictions, is that the very freedoms of expression and freedoms of thought existent in our democracy might have been undermined had the case succeeded in the allocation of jail sentences. This 'freedom at all costs' sentiment has been the stumbling block for many who attempt anti-terror measures, and scrutiny of British security agencies became apparent most recently with the bugging of Labour MP Sadiq Khan whilst visiting a terror suspect. The allegation was that a bugging device had been placed in an area where the Mr Khan and one of his constituents, a suspected terrorist, were sat; and that the conversation the men had was recorded by security officials.

Since the allegation came to light, many MPs have expressed the view that such discussions between MPs and constituents should be private, and that recording such discussions is an infringement of individual freedoms, and should therefore be outlawed. Never before had I realised that members of Parliament, and indeed members of the public, had the right to tell security agencies what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do in terms of surveillance. Maybe they have such high standing in society, that they will also be telling MI5 what colour their building should be next painted, or indeed what brand of staplers should be used in their offices.

As an avid fan of the fictional, spy-thriller, mini-series 24, the idea that legislation could prevent a character such as Jack Bauer from bugging a suspected terrorist because that suspect was with an elected Government official, seems to me to render the whole purpose of a security agency as futile. After all, security agencies like MI5 are dedicated to discovering which members of our society actively support or engage with enemies of the United Kingdom through the use of stealth surveillance technology, not brut force or torture which is used in many other countries. For those of you who might have devoted countless hours of your life into watching the award winning 24, you will know that Special Agent Jack Bauer is no stranger to using torture in the field; fiction of this kind however enables us as a society to have a healthy understanding of such situations, from which we can base our levels of morality which formulate the zeitgeist.

The controversy surrounding the allegation also highlighted the worry of many that Britain is creeping further and further towards a surveillance-state, a prospect that, in the wrong hands, could deeply benefit a dictatorship government. The trouble here, is that we don't live in a dictatorship, but many people still don't trust intelligence agencies or the establishment; seemingly regarding them as potential threats to their individual liberties. This is a mentality formed by many years of bombardment from well aired conspiracy theorists in the media, including the likes of Mohammad Al Fayed and the ridiculous David Ike. A broad mentality which, in this war against extremism, could not have come at a worst time. Calls for limitation or banning of surveillance technology should not come as a surprise, in this age where the principles of liberty have become somewhat of a betrayer in halting the attempted prevention of terrorist activities, but nor should such requests be taken seriously.

Thankfully justice did prevail yesterday, when 37 year old Parviz Khan was jailed for life for plotting to behead a British soldier 'like a pig'. Khan, a British-born resident of Birmingham, was also secretly recorded teaching his five year old son to hate the 'Kuffar' or non-believer, by security officials. "Who do you love?" asked Khan, "I love Sheik Osama Bin Laden...Allah and Sheik Abu Hamza" replied the boy. "And who do you kill?" Khan had asked, "America, Bush I kill, Blair kill, and yeah, Kuffar" replied the boy. Khan claimed up to £20,000 a year in benefits and often boasted about himself making the non-believers 'bleed financially', saying it was the duty of every Muslim to 'take from the Kuffar'. He made his children sleep on the floor of his cold home at night, to apparently 'toughen them up' should he ever take them to fight in the mountains of Afghanistan; and is thought to be totally unsafe for release at any time in the near future due to his murderous nature and wholehearted indoctrination.

Thanks to the covert and yet effective operations of British intelligence agencies, such plots are successfully prevented all the time. If agenices are successful in this then there are concerns over the wellbeing of the suspects from liberal extremists, and if they are not successful there is widespread criticism from those same people directed at our security services. No one should realistically be exempt from surveillance in the right circumstances; after all that is how dictatorships flourish.

If anything, we should be following the examples of Israel's Mossad in the fight against home-grown Islamic extremism, instead of persistently accommodating the concerns of a few paranoid communist sympathisers into our statute books.

(Picture: Kiefer Sutherland as 24's Jack Bauer.)

Friday 8 February 2008

The Devious Doctor...


This week Dr Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England, sparked outrage among many followers of the Anglican faith by openly suggesting in a speech at the 2008 Temple Festival that aspects of Islamic Sharia law should be adopted in Britain. The speech made by the Archbishop was only an hour long, but the days following have seen huge criticism of the comments by senior Anglican Bishops and MPs from all three main political parties. In the speech, Dr Williams talked about looking at "...what might be entailed in crafting a just and constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory law of the United Kingdom", and then went on to attempt to "dispel some myths about sharia". He commented on these 'myths', which it seems, he believes are irrational and falsely based; and said that most people think Sharia is "...oppressive to women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments". The way in which Dr Williams gave the lecture was a way that implicitly patronises its audience, a situation by which he is the enlightened preacher, and we are the sheep to be taught. I suppose one could expect nothing more from the Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who's job it is to lead Britain’s most senior Christian community, but to conduct a speech on a matter of serious political context in the way in which religious doctrines are given seems to me utterly absurd and quite arrogant-like.

To quote Dr Williams, he said the following "It seems that if we are to think intelligently about the relationship between Islam and British Law, we need a fair amount of deconstruction of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether mythologies about the nature of sharia or about the nature of the enlightenment; but as I’ve hinted I don’t believe this can be done without some thinking also about the very nature of law." The implication that we should somehow invest resources in altering perceptions of Islamic Law in Britain, for the soul purpose of bettering community relations, is quite a frightening prospect. In these times of 9/11, home-grown suicide bombers, and radical organisations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, people should be left to their own conclusions on the acceptability of Sharia Law in Britain. With access to the internet and a basic understanding of Arabic, one can easily see the punishments given out to thieves, murderers, homosexuals, and even drunks in Saudi Arabia, punishments which are all dictated by Islamic Law. The vital thing in this example is that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic Republic, like Iran or Pakistan, but is a Kingdom ruled by a Royal Family; Sharia Law therefore can be compatibly implemented under the reign of a Monarchy, and Dr Rowan Williams, the man who represents our Queen's Church, is seemingly sympathetic to the idea.

The Archbishops speech on Thursday has made the lives of many integrating Muslims against the implementation of Sharia Law very difficult, and has made many others, like me, question their own support for Anglicanism in the process. If we are to talk about improving community relations in terms of common ground, I think the successor of the Archbishop should undoubtedly be one of the most admirable and righteous figures in the Anglican faith: Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. The Bishop is just the kind of strong mediator the Church of England needs if it is to stand any chance of survival after the abysmal leadership of its current one. I don’t recall the church having so many divisions, rebellions, and public upheavals before Dr Williams was appointed, a man whose resignation is without a doubt now due. In researching the past affiliations of Dr Rowan Williams, it was no surprise to find that most of them were Anti-Nuclear, Anti-US and Anti-Coalition. He was once famously quoted saying that he believed the descendents of victims of the slave trade should be financially compensated, when referring to Al-Qaeda once said "...terrorists can have serious moral goals", and even openly criticised "Christian Zionists" for supporting the Jews return to Israel, in the British Muslim magazine 'Emel'. His appointment in 2002 has ultimately led to the weakening of the Church's credibility in terms of traditional foundation, as well as rational teaching; and has turned many away from the faith into what is now considered to be a largely secular society.

The Church Times columnist Andrew Brown once said "The trouble with Rowan Williams is that he can never remember that he is Archbishop". It's true, he seems to think that he's at some sort of Socialist Worker street rally every time he gives a speech; casually giving his views on all sorts of political issues, instead of on what he is supposed to. Of course the man should have his own political views, but it is not irresponsible to unnecessarily spout them and in the process label the whole Anglican faith? At this point might I remind everybody reading that the Pakistani-born Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali was born into a Punjabi-Christian family, and I firmly belive that because of this reason, the Bishop of Rochester has a better understanding of Islam than the Archbishop, and of course has had practical experience of Sharia. His outspoken comments on Islamic-extremism in Britain pull no punches in stating fact, and his appreciation for British culture and national identity I find deeply touching. If ever there was a man to strengthen the foundations of British Anglicanism in the face of increasingly hostile times, surely it would be him.

When the news came on Thursday that the Archbishop had made a speech on Sharia Law in Britain, I had a slight spell of Deja Vu. My mind harked back to Sunday night's Channel 4 programme 'Divorce Sharia Style', in which the lives of several Muslims were filmed as they dabbled with the idea of divorcing their spouses. The programme focused on the Sharia Council based in East London's Regents Park Mosque, and their attempts to assess the requests of divorce based on Sharia principles. I thoroughly enjoyed the programme and found it to be highly educating in terms of community insight and belief. During the middle of the programme however, Council representatives began to speak of how they wanted their practices of Sharia Law to be recognised by the state. A statement I initially took to mean in reference to Marriage and Divorce, not in what Sheikh Hassan, Senior Judge and Secretary of the Council, was about to say next. "We know that if Sharia laws are implemented then you can change this country into a haven of peace. Because once a thief’s hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. If only once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. There would be no rapists at all. This is why we say that, yes, we want to offer it to the British society. … And if they don’t accept it, they would need more and more prisons." I couldn't believe my ears, this man was openly advocating the proposal that Britain should not only implement Islamic Law with regard to wedlock, but with everything else as well.

That sort of talk I had heard before, from the lips of fundamentalist members of the radical group Hizb-ut-Tahrir on shows such as BBC2's Newsnight, a group dedicated to the creation of an Islamic State in Britain. I quickly dismissed the man as just another misguided old idealist who wanted what he thought was best for people. Not a bad man necessarily, just one of many other religious scholars who want everyone on the Earth to be united by the same faith. I went to bed that night and picked up Ed Hussain's 'The Islamist', a book which I have been reading for many weeks. In it Hussain describes in detail what he experienced as a young extremist, revealing the story of his life at the beginning and the end of his radicalisation. By a stroke of sheer coincidence, the chapter I was to read was about Hussain's joining of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, their beliefs and morals from his understanding, and their ultimate goals. From reading that night I learned that Hizb-ut-tahrir was not only an organisation dedicated to implementing an Islamic State in Britain, but eventually a world-wide Caliphate, or Islamic super-state. The organisation is banned in many countries including Saudi Arabia, but it is currently legally active in the UK. There is no doubt that people like Sheikh Hassan are in support groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or at least have some sympathies with them, a view not in the least shared by all Muslims.

Looking back at the programmes airing, I do wonder if the Archbishop happened to be watching Channel 4 that Sunday night, and whether or not his sympathies with such naive people did indeed prompt the speech. God Almighty I miss Henry II...one can only imagine would he have done with the man...