Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller’s horrific description of countless British terror cells, planning countless heinous deeds, is not an easy thing to question. There’s no way to check information compiled in secrecy. Call it exaggerated and you open yourself up to the accusation of endangering human life, and of course you really do make yourself hostage to fortune.
Nevertheless some external evidence can be factored-in, for one thing Tony Blair’s ringing endorsement. Judging by his track record his understanding of such matters is shamefully inadequate. Taking his opinions seriously has proved disastrous for the world and its inhabitants. To any rational mind Blair’s agreement with any assessment of world affairs must subtract from its credibility. It’s almost a guarantee of error.
Also the timing is highly convenient. The very week the Bush administration is castrated, another blast of terror – at least on paper. Just as the whispers of dissent start to become audible ‘terror’ returns to stifle them. The message is clear and tediously familiar – stay on board, look what happens without our protection.
But more than anything there’s the strange issue of the time-scale. Manningham-Buller suggests that the current wave of Islamic terrorism will “last a generation”. You have to ask, what is the basis for this claim? How did she arrive at this figure?
Obviously much depends on what she sees as the cause of Islamic terror. Many see Islamic atrocities as a response to western atrocities. As long as the west continues to treat Muslim life casually we can expect some Muslims to treat us with equal compassion. If our thirst for oil compels us to mistreat masses of innocent people, some of them will respond in kind.
Alternatively some see the problem as inherent to Islam. Muslims have an innate tendency to world domination (eerily familiar?) and care little for who they kill along the way. In fact they relish dying in the process, because of all the fleshy heavenly rewards.
I can’t see that the head of British Intelligence is of the first opinion, her response would be just too good to be true. If she sees Islamic terror stopping in one generation she must also be predicting the end of western brutality – perhaps something she and the other security services are working towards?: Palestinian liberation, US bases removed from Saudi, Iraq given back to the Iraqis.
A nice thought, and certainly something I’d like to work towards, but it seems unlikely this is what she means. Mere discussion of such an obvious strategy is forbidden in powerful circles. If you want to get anywhere in the state you have to accept that some options are not to be considered, even if this wilful ignorance endangers the people you are employed to serve.
Far more likely she takes the second view. But if so it’s still difficult to imagine how she arrived at the ‘last a generation’ claim. If radical Islam is the problem she suggests what have she and MI5 got in mind, and how do they account for the proposed time scale? If radical Islam really is a hurricane of madness, spiralling through madrasahs and carrying off young minds, exactly what plan has the state devised to tackle it? And why will it take one generation to implement? Why not half a generation, or three?
I suspect the real reason for the time period is political expedience. One generation is the goldilocks option. Any longer and it would sound as though we’ve already lost. But any shorter and it would require evidence of strategy, other than just business as usual, and its usual depressing consequences. ‘Within one generation’ sounds do-able, just don’t expect to be able to detect any progress. We’re in for the medium-term haul.
