Put Iraq aside and concentrate on the terrorist threat

Of the 200-odd prisoners taken to Guantanamo Bay for questioning, not one has been charged

One of the things I cannot understand about the run-up to the 11 September anniversary is why we are spending our whole time discussing Iraq and not al-Qa'ida. It is al-Qa'ida, after all, who were responsible for the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, and it is their form of terrorism that must most concern ordinary citizens in the West. Yet here we are, 12 months after the initial attack and 11 months after we started bombing Afghanistan. And what have we got?

Only one suspect charged in the United States with direct association with the attacks and five further suspects accused on uncertain evidence of providing supplies. We have arrests in Germany and Morocco of radicals almost certainly connected with al-Qa'ida, plus the "shoe bomber" caught on a plane to Boston and a man with a gun stopped in Sweden, who may or may not be connected with al-Qa'ida or acting on their own.

But of Bin Laden and his inner circle, there is no word. Of the 200-odd prisoners taken to Guantanamo Bay for further questioning, not one has been charged. And from our political leaders, not one squeak – nothing about whether they think Bin Laden is alive or dead, or how they think the so-called "war on terror" is going. Instead we have endless argument over why we should/shouldn't go to war on Iraq and what are Saddam Hussein's intentions.

The cynical explanation is that one is a diversion from the other, that Iraq is being built up at this time precisely because the US administration has failed so dismally to bring to justice the perpetrators of the crimes against it. Behind the scenes, the group is reorganising to wreak a new wave of terror on a half-suspecting world.

The more optimistic explanation is that a great deal is happening but, on grounds of security, none of the details can be released. There is even a view that the reason we are hearing so little is that al-Qa'ida has been effectively broken as a force.

I'm not sure that I believe any of these theories, or that the public should either. The problem of evaluating the continuing threat is that the terror groups involved are both simpler and more elusive than the image of a highly-organised army with a command and control structure and a ready access to funds would have it.

It would seem reasonable to assume at this stage that al-Qa'ida as a recruiting organisation that trained young men eager to fight for the Muslim cause, whether in Chechnya, Afghanistan or the Philippines (who made up the bulk of the organisation's membership), has been severely damaged, if not actually destroyed.

But the world cannot afford the luxury of believing that, as an inner group of people determined on terror, al-Qa'ida is defeated. The bombing of its bases in Afghanistan will have dealt it a severe blow. At the same time, however, it has also scattered the members more widely, most back to their homes, many of them with access to local funds and eager at some point to show that they have not been brought to their knees. Depending on how events unfold in the Middle East, other individuals or small groups may arise spontaneously, eager to demonstrate anger at the United States or the West by violent incident. Their actions are likely to be much more opportunistic, and scattered wherever a combination of target and access appears.

No society can defend itself absolutely against such threats. But it is nonsense to argue, therefore, that there is little it can do. What is needed is a combination of vigilance in security and hard policework in discovery. In the end terrorism requires money, association and movement. By concentrating on these and ensuring that as many countries as possible, especially the Muslim countries, are co-operating and sharing information, it should be possible to keep a lid on the threat.

This is where one starts to worry, particularly about the current obsession with Iraq. Of course everything may already be under control and a massive international effort under way. But the record of the US intelligence services was so bad before the war, and their analyses of countries such as Iran so contradictory, that it would need an act of considerable faith to trust them now. The claims in a new UN report that al-Qa'ida funding remains intact and on the increase, although disputed in Washington, are too worrying to be dismissed lightly (even if the press and politicians took no notice of them).

The concentration on Iraq has meant that some of the impetus of international action on terrorism is disappearing. Worse, Iraq actually threatens to make the terror threat worse, by rousing Arab public opinion against Washington and making it more difficult for Islamic regimes to look as if they are hounding Islamic radicals on America's behalf. If the US troops do go into Iraq to unseat Saddam, the world will be in the perverse position that the more successful they are, the greater will become the urge among Muslims to take revenge through outrages on civilians.

No, all this lack of information on terror is doing no good. Governments need to be asked how the policies and intelligence efforts are going – the public surely has a right to know – and to be told in no uncertain terms that this is where they want the war fought.

a.hamilton@independent.co.uk