A few weeks ago there was a bit of a brouhaha over prominent Muslim politicians’ letter to the Prime Minister (rightly) bemoaning British foreign policy and clumsily linking it to the threat of terrorism against the UK today. The political and media response was entirely predictable, and correct in the central point (i.e. that foreign policy should not be surrendered to terrorists). At the time I did feel a desire to write an article giving them a wrap on the knuckles for being so politically naïve, though managed to restrain myself. Nevertheless, I did say to myself that I would write an analytical piece about it, in the fullness of time [sic].
under|progress has, however, beaten me to it, with a very well argued essay, Policy, profiling, poverty. A very well recommended read for everyone. Here’s a snippet:
For too many people the explanation of terrorism in Britain stops at this point about foreign policy. That is, the foreign policy is a shambles and therefore we can expect some kind of response from would-be defenders of the people who suffer from Blair’s delusions of grandeur. But the argument fails, or is higly limited, on several points. It does not offer a ‘root cause’ explanation. As far as I am aware, no Iraqi or Afghan has decided to attack Britain for its role in the two invasions and subsequent occupations (instead some living Britain have made there way to Iraq to fight). Only, by and large, British-born, English-speaking Muslims. The simplest refutation of the foreign policy argument is that, despite anger Blair’s foreign objectives, there are Muslims who do not engage in such acts of violence. Is their anger or concern any less than those who take to bombing tubes and buses? Further, such an explanation is actually an insult to Muslims who don’t feel the need to engage in such acts or find such actions against their religio-moral principles. This explanation says Muslims are unable to rationally deal with the situation and that their only response is bound to be a violent one. This is, plainly speaking, rubbish.
Quite right! (Even if he failed to spell check it before hitting publish! 
)
Whoever he is, he’s going on the blogroll.
“…to the treat of terrorism against the UK today…”
Freudian slip?
salam
Thanks for the link. I see you’re an engineer; so am I, although the more old-fashioned kind (mechanical).
I was surprised that the politicians signed the letter because of the potential for abuse such a letter had. If they wanted to link terrorism and foreign policy should have signed the letter not as “Muslims”, but as concerned citizens and got others to sign it too.
And yes, I really should use the spell check facility!
wasalam
Ooops! Well spotted Andy. I’ve now corrected the article.
I guess it’s sod’s law that when you comment on another blogger’s typos you’re going to end up exposing yourself…
Its an interesting way of looking at it.
Perhaps analysis all depends on whats at the top of your mind. I think we muslims aren’t going to get over colonialism anytime soon, especially the old school who have political memories like elephants. It is something that also overlaps with the lefty type conclusion that everything is to do with power, who has it and who doesn’t.
I think the poverty link might come from people in those professional fields for whom it is a focus.
This reminds me of one of when one of our IC profs made the case that nuclear energy wasnt a good idea for the uk, due to the risk of criminal attack, and that renewables were safer strategy. Pk, the central issue was energy, but you see how discursive strams were joined here.
One aspect that is lacking, is the voice of our educators. Rather than talking about imagined communities, why not look at this mess through community institutions, like schools?
How do people get misled to this extent? What wise social relationships were lacking in the lives of the bombers? Can we show that they were forsaken in some way by their own culture?
amyway, its all about the teachers.