Jeremy Corbyn on Al Qaeda
TL;DR
Jeremy Corbyn consistently critiques post-9/11 Western military action, viewing it as counterproductive to defeating Al Qaeda.
Key Points
He claimed in 2003 that the 9/11 attacks were 'manipulated' to frame Al Qaeda and start the war in Afghanistan.
He spoke at a July 2005 Stop the War Coalition rally, stating that Al Qaeda's London bombings occurred 'because of the way we inflict an insecurity on so many other people around the world'.
He stated that it was a 'tragedy' that Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011 rather than being arrested and put on trial.
Summary
Jeremy Corbyn's position on Al Qaeda is largely defined by his strong critique of the Western military response following the 9/11 attacks, rather than by direct commentary on the group itself. He has argued that the subsequent U.S.-led, UK-backed war on terror has demonstrably failed in its objective of reducing recruitment to Al Qaeda, unintentionally boosting its credibility. His stance has consistently focused on the idea that military intervention and associated actions, such as the Iraq War, lead to radicalisation and make the West more dangerous. He has specifically expressed regret that Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011 rather than being arrested and put on trial, asserting that adherence to international law and justice should be universal.
This opposition to military confrontation extends to his voting record, where he opposed UK involvement in the Iraq War in 2003 and later opposed airstrikes against the Islamic State. He has suggested that the West's foreign policy, including its creation of certain regimes and friendships, is a root cause of the insecurity that breeds groups like Al Qaeda. Furthermore, he has linked the 9/11 attacks themselves to alleged historical 'manipulation' by the West to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. His overall approach advocates for a political and legal remedy over military action in addressing terrorism threats.
Key Quotes
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any evidence whatever that the streets of London have been made safer by our presence in Afghanistan? Or does he believe that our involvement has caused radicalisation and perhaps made London a more dangerous place, and that we need to look to our foreign policy if we want to make ourselves secure?
If we preach international law and international legal process through the International Court of Justice in the Hague, then we should carry it out and if it's possible to arrest somebody and put them on trial, then that is what should have been done.
Frequently Asked Questions
Jeremy Corbyn's position has been defined by strong opposition to the Western military response following 9/11, which he believes is counterproductive. He argues that this military action unintentionally boosts Al Qaeda's credibility and recruitment. He advocates for international law and justice, rather than military engagement, as the correct approach.
His core principle appears consistent: he opposes targeted killings in favour of legal processes. He expressed in 2011 that Osama bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy' because he was assassinated instead of being arrested and tried. He reiterated this principle regarding the death of IS leader al-Baghdadi.
He suggested that the UK's presence in Afghanistan had not made London safer, and might have caused radicalisation against the West. He advocates that making Britain secure requires a change in foreign policy rather than continued military involvement.
Sources6
General election: Corbyn 'naive to point of danger' over IS leader comments - Johnson
Jeremy Corbyn in 2003: West 'manipulated' 9/11 to start Afghan war
Jeremy Corbyn Has a Soft Spot for Extremists
Somalia: Terrorism - Hansard - UK Parliament
Empowering Salafis and Islamists Against Al-Qaeda: ALondon Counterterrorism Case Study
Jeremy Corbyn vs John Baron - Debate Excerpts
* This is not an exhaustive list of sources.