“We can see today what kind of a world the ‘War on Terror’ has led us towards – the need to articulate and deliver a fundamentally different vision for our future has never been greater.”
By Ben Hayes
Looking back to George W Bush’s declaration of a ‘War on Terror’ 25 years ago, and recalling the figures involved in leading the charge, it in some ways feels like a memory from a bygone era- reading various recollections last month of how people heard news of the attacks on the World Trade Centre highlighted that this was, after all, a moment in time where the proportion of British households with home internet access was still under 40%. In many others, however, its legacy continues to shape events today: both in terms of its material consequences and the ideological narratives which were at the heart of discussions around it.
In his 2001 speech to Parliament, then Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that the coalition behind the War on Terror was acting “for justice” and “with world opinion behind us”- a claim which may now seem like something from a parody, but was widely propped up by prominent media figures (with the overwhelming majority of daily newspapers adopting a pro-war editorial stance). Of course, the reality played out rather differently. Brown University’s Cost of War project estimates that over 4.5 million deaths in total were attributable to it, and the legacy of destruction and destabilisation spread out across the region (including the rise of the ultra-violent and sectarian ISIS/Daesh group).
The war also played a major role when it came to shaping politics in Britain itself. A renewed effort was launched to identify Muslim communities as forming a collective internal enemy, combined with a series of measures clamping down on civil liberties. For all that was put into selling the war, it was met with an unprecedented level of public opposition: the formation of the Stop the War Coalition (originally launched to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan) brought together peace campaigners, trade unionists, MPs, faith organisations and cultural figures and famously led to the largest demonstration in British history over Iraq in 2003. The latter war also prompted what is still the largest Parliamentary rebellion ever recorded in the House of Commons, and played a hugely significant role in various proponents of it losing their seats in the 2005 general election.
The anti-war movement of the period also left a clear longer-term legacy: not only in terms of the ongoing alliances it established, but also in a widespread scepticism towards involvement in military adventures amongst the public. Even during the military action in Libya, which just 15 MPs voted against, polling from ComRes found 45% of people were opposed (compared to 35% in favour). And just two years later, numerous figures from a range of different parties cited messages from constituents urging them to “learn the lessons of Iraq” as a major factor in voting against proposals to join bombing Syria, inflicting a historic Parliamentary defeat on the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government.
Today even amongst strong followers of the Blairite project, all but the most zealous loyalists will somewhat awkwardly acknowledge that “everybody makes mistakes” when the question of the war is raised. And, whilst in practice maintaining military cooperation with the US, it is notable that even a figure as averse to both taking popular positions and straying from Atlanticist foreign policy as Keir Starmer was, at least in terms of his public messaging, was keen to emphasise that he had ‘kept Britain out’ of the current war on Iran.
This brings us to the current state of play globally, where the US has largely dispensed with the rhetoric of the Bush and Obama administrations around supposedly being motivated by a desire to spread democracy, freedom, human rights, etc in favour of unashamedly setting out their intention for control over natural resources and geopolitical hegemony. Whilst his first successful campaign for the Presidency made rhetorical overtures to anti-war voters and blasted the “neoconservative adventurism” of the traditional Republican Party leadership, Trump in office has been enthusiastically working his way through the classic neoconservative wishlist: bombing Iran, kidnapping the Venezuelan President and First Lady, ramping up attempts to isolate and destabilise Cuba to an even more aggressive level than usual, and emphasising confrontation with China. His first term even saw the brief return of former Project for a New American Century founder (and one of the few figures able to challenge Trump himself when it comes to cartoonish supervillainy) John Bolton, this time as White House National Security Advisor.
Just like the War on Terror policy, this also has major implications for British politics. With the war in Ukraine continuing and wider tensions increasing, the ‘rearmament’ agenda is coming to the fore here (notably being the official grounds for what turned out to be the temporary departure of current Chancellor John Healy from the Cabinet during the dying days of Starmer’s premiership) and across Europe, with large mobilisations amongst young people in Germany against the threat of military conscription. And just as in the 2000s, this has been accompanied by an increasingly draconian set of measures: news this week of popular author Sally Rooney’s books being limited from sale in Britain has again highlighted the farcical consequences of categorising Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organisation, and this year saw convictions for prominent anti-war and international solidarity campaigners Chris Nineham and Ben Jamal for breaching the 2023 Public Order Act.
There has been a tendency in parts of the labour movement over recent years to portray questions of foreign policy as outside of its remit, and, if anything, to welcome greater militarism as a boost for job opportunities. Whilst this narrative attempts to portray activity on such issues as simply the preserve of a narrow fringe, it is notable that, as well as the biggest protest ever seen in Britain being in opposition to the Iraq War, the largest five after that were also over issues relating to the country’s relationship to the wider world: membership of the European Union and solidarity with the people of Palestine. Whilst the former was a considerably more divisive issue on the left, this illustrates that these matters do create strong public feeling- as did the latter’s undoubtedly significant role in various electoral results over recent years.
And even purely through the lens of living standards here in Britain, the recent speech from General Sir Roly Walker warning that the public must “consent to sacrifices” in relation to funding priorities highlights that it is likely to become increasingly impossible to try and ignore this trend- any force that has nothing to say on it is likely to find that events have left them behind.
With the threats we face now being in no small part shaped by the consequences of paths taken 25 years ago, it remains vital to have an understanding both of what happened and the popular responses to it- in particular the necessity of building unity around attempting to shape the concrete positions of our own government. We can see today what kind of a world the ‘War on Terror’ has led us towards- the need to articulate and deliver a fundamentally different vision for our future has never been greater.
- Ben Hayes is an Arise Festival volunteer and a regular contributor to Labour Outlook.
- The Red Weekly Column will appear each week on Labour Outlook from one of our regular socialist contributors.
- If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please donate here or become a regular supporter on Patreon here.
