THE Manchester atrocity is going to dominate the General Election; that is now unavoidable. People are shocked and rightly appalled by an indiscriminate attack on innocent young people. However, cynicism knows no bounds, and the Conservatives are trying to make this about Jeremy Corbyn, using people’s sense of outrage to pound home their message that the current Labour leader is “weak” on or even complicit in terrorism. They believe this innuendo is a winning strategy. Maybe it is, but be warned, because Corbyn is gaining in the polls and perhaps, for once, reason will prevail.

Conservative strategy will make the election hinge on two belief systems. In one corner, we have New Labour, the Tories, and much of the media establishment, who want voters to believe you can fight terrorism by invading and/or drone bombing countries who are “funding and harbouring terrorists”. In the other corner are most of the public, Corbyn, the SNP, and Plaid Cymru, who believe adventurism is costly, wasteful and likely to backfire.

Who is right? Well, Western countries have been fighting this war for nearly two decades, and the verdict is in. The War on Terror didn’t work, won’t work, can’t work. There are libraries of academic evidence, and a forest of US and UK Government committee reports, showing causal links between Western invasions and the risk of domestic terrorist attacks.

The wars that New Labour and Theresa May voted for to stop terrorism failed miserably by any measurable standard. They cost trillions and made the West a more dangerous place to live.

Does this excuse the Manchester attacks? No. It doesn’t matter that invasions carried out in our name left a trail of corpses, wasteland economies, civil wars and dictatorships behind them. Even under the worst circumstances, individuals are morally responsible for their actions, and a deliberate attack on civilians is wrong no matter what you’ve suffered. Nobody is treating Muslims as a set of Pavlovian dogs who simply make knee-jerk responses to Western atrocities.

However, our governments aren’t Pavlovian dogs either. They aren’t constrained by some physical reflex to match violence with far greater violence. They are also responsible for their moral choices.

Manipulating public outrage to start wars in an unstable, oil-rich region is a choice. There are other ways to fight terrorism. They are cheaper, smarter and far less risky.

First, the obvious one: get tough on the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, the wellspring of most terrorist funding, ideas and cadres including the 9/11 hijackers. It’s not just leftists who name Saudi Arabia as the problem. Sensible conservatives and libertarians have long noted the extreme abuses of the Saudi regime, and point to it as terrorism’s principle source of money and organisation. Fareed Zakaria, for instance, notes that “the country central to the spread of this terrorism, Saudi Arabia, has managed to evade and deflect any responsibility for it”.

But New Labour, the Tories and the Americans take the opposite view. They glorify Saudi Arabia as our main ally in the “war on terror”. Just last week Trump was selling them $110 billion of weapons. Tony Blair has worked for the Saudis, lobbying the Chinese Government on their behalf, while the Bush family and the Saudi royals are close enough to be considered cousins. Meanwhile, the sainted Barack Obama lavished praise on King Abdullah for his “steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the US-Saudi relationship as a force for stability and security in the Middle East”.

So, let’s insist on point number one: end the hypocrisy and sanction Saudi Arabia, otherwise you simply aren’t taking terrorism seriously.

Number two, let’s divert wasteful and destructive spending on wars to better purposes. Rather than simply ignore the impoverished countries that present a risk of terrorism, we should make a visible effort to develop them.

America has spent an estimated $4.79 trillion on its war on terror, and the balance sheet is negative without exception. Imagine if we spent a fraction of this on improving schools and hospitals in the poorest countries.

Three, stop funding and supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. The US has just agreed to give Israel $38bn military assistance over the next decade with no strings attached, and Israel has been the biggest recipient of American aid since World War Two. During that time, Israel launched an occupation and settlements programme condemned as illegal by the United Nations. It’s hard to ignore the conclusion that they are being paid to break international law. Why do we expect others to obey laws we flout so openly?

Fourth, stop playing divide and rule. Following America’s regional strategic manoeuvres is like trying to make sense of an Escher painting. Western intervention has turned the harmless historical division between Shia and Sunni Islam into a murderous rampage for money and power. Replace the great chessboard with principles.

Fifth, on that basis, support democratic institutions even where it hurts. Prove you’re serious and not just cynical. In Egypt, the bloodthirsty dictator al-Sisi is another of the biggest recipients of Western aid and weapons (and also another despot “advised” by Tony Blair). He came to power after overthrowing the democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi, bringing an end to the Arab Spring. The West could easily have stopped it, but instead they’ve “pragmatically” supported the restoration of the Egyptian dictatorship, with appalling consequences for human rights. Next time, do the opposite.

Indeed, that’s my general rule of thumb for Western governments. Take what you’d normally do in the Middle East, and do the opposite.

The policies above cost far, far less than our current approach. Indeed, they’d save money for schools, hospitals and, yes, even police to monitor potential terrorist attacks in our borders.

But rather than engage in a sensible debate about security, we’ve got smears and innuendo.

I really hope it doesn’t work. If voters rise above Theresa May’s tactics, it will be a massive vindication of the common sense and basic decency of ordinary people.

Ultimately, when the debate is rational and considered, people know the War on Terror has failed miserably. The Tories are trying to manipulate our emotions about the Manchester attack to pursue an irrational foreign policy. Shame on them, and shame on their media allies. These are the tactics of desperate and dangerous demagogues. Surely we’re better than this.