The alleged plot to attack aircraft and passengers announced by Scotland Yard yesterday obviously concerns us all and, for the time being, we have to take it at face value. There have so far been some modest successes by the security services in bringing terrorists to trial. But the government's actions have also been marked by misinformation and false scares. The supposed ricin poison plot, the Forest Gate raid and the "padded jacket" Jean Charles de Menezes never wore when he was shot dead by police last year come immediately to mind.
More important for public safety are the false government claims made after last summer's London tube bombings that the attacks were made by people unknown to the authorities. It is now known that some of the attackers had been under observation, and that at least one member of the public was ignored when he did what the government asked and acted as its eyes and ears. We badly need effective counterterrorist tactics and strategy. The threat is real both at home and abroad. But the problem is not that his critics "don't get" the terrorist threat, as the home secretary has put it, but that the government has, with the US, abandoned all the principles of effective counterterrorism. These were practised by the British against countless insurgencies. Whether or not you agree with Niall Ferguson and Gordon Brown about empire, it is instructive to review the five key principles that - usually - allowed imperial rule with minimum force.
First, ensure good coordination between security services and police. Karen DeYoung's indictment of the failure of the US security services to talk to each other in this week's Washington Post is truly damning. By refusing to communicate, the US services render their, and by extension our, services less effective. We now know that US officials have a routine seat at Britain's joint intelligence committee, a fact that one of its former chairmen told me makes it hard for the British state to think independently. Do US officials also sit in on the UK's counterterror organisations, and if so how do they relate to the myriad, non-communicating services detailed by the Washington Post?
The other four principles are to deny the enemy a base, secure your own base, keep the political and moral high ground and address your opponents' grievances.
Our leaders say there are no grievances to be addressed, despite the fact that the London bombers said they were motivated by the Iraq war and our security services warned that the occupation of Iraq would increase the terrorist threat.
Our moral high ground is preserved by a US attorney general who was promoted to this office after sanctioning the Guantánamo detention camp and the practices used at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The Islamist terrorists still have a base in Pakistan and Afghanistan. By shifting attention to Iraq after 9/11, we gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a respite for which British troops are now paying the price. And more people are prepared to provide tacit support to those fighting the US.
Our own base is now less secure than before 9/11, based on the number of actual and alleged threats, while our continued unnecessary dependence on oil makes our home base hostage to adverse regime change abroad. There are indeed those who do not get the terrorist threat. Principal among them are the prime minister and his supporters.
· Dan Plesch is a research associate at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
#comments { font-size:70%; font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}#comments div.commentheader p { font-size:1.2em;}#comments { clear:both; margin-top:25px; width:256px;}#comments h3 { color: #fff; padding:2px; margin-bottom: 10px; font-size:1.3em; background-color:#999;}.individualcomment { font-size:1.2em; clear:both; margin-top:10px; padding-top:10px; border-top:1px solid #999;}.dateline { font-weight: normal; color:#999; padding-top:2px; margin:0 0 15px 0;}.byline { font-weight:bold; padding:0; margin:0;}
