Friday
July 15 2005
IF IRAQ ISN'T ALREADY LINKED THEN LINK IT: I must confess
some confusion over the debate about whether the attacks in London
are linked to Iraq. Let me try to lay out the various arguments
as I see them:
Not
Linked
Liberal argument: Iraq is a
folly, a diversion, and fundamentally irrelevant to protecting
ourselves against terrorism.
Conservative argument: terrorist attacks were
taking place long before the invasion of Iraq and the bombings
in London would
have happened irrespective of the occupation of Iraq.
Linked
Liberal argument: the London attacks are a
direct
result of Britain's participation in Iraq and demonstrate
that the war in Iraq is a disastrous policy that is creating
more terrorists and making the world less safe.
Conservative argument: the London attacks are
retaliation for Britain's participation in Iraq and underscore
the argument that Iraq is indeed a central front in - and a
vital part of the eventual success or failure of - the War on
Terror.
While admitting
the categories I've established are oversimplified, set them aside
for a moment and consider this question: why isn't Iraq
linked to terrorism as a matter of standing policy?
What if (as
Ed Koch wrote along
a similar line the other day) coalition members in Iraq adopted
a policy that read like this:
"Any
act of terrorism committed against civilians of coalition member
countries (which includes attacks on the homeland as well as
kidnappings of diplomats and contractors in Iraq) will be considered
an attack upon all members of the coalition and will be responded
to with an increased commitment of resources to the coalition
in Iraq."
Imagine if
Tony Blair responded to the attacks in London by upping their
commitment in Iraq by 10,000 troops, or if Egypt responded to
the recent assassination of its representative in Iraq by committing
1,000 troops. What if the coalition members had responded to every
instance of terrorism against its civilians over the last two
years this way?
Again, whether
you think Iraq was a mistake to begin with or that it's currently
being botched, one thing on which most everyone can agree is that
the outcome in Iraq is important. We know it's important to the
terrorists because bin Laden and Zarqawi have both said as much
publicly.
And so by
proactively linking acts of terror against civilians to consequences
in Iraq, coalition member countries are immediately adding a deterrent
of some strategic value to the calculus of the global war on terror
that hadn't existed previously.
Here's the
problem: the investigation in London, the myriad laws that will
be passed, and the millions of pounds that will be spent by the
British in response to the bombings are important and necessary.
They will make it harder for terrorists to attack Britain and
harder for them to operate within the country - at least for a
while. But none of these things threaten the cause of
bin Laden and the network of radical clerics who sit back churning
out expendable foot soldiers for their global war.
What's most
threatening to the terrorists' cause is a free, stable Iraq and
the spread of democracy in the Middle East. They know it. We know
it. Linking acts of terror to consequences in Iraq constructs
a dynamic by which any short-term success Islamic terrorists find
in attacking coalition countries only increases the likelihood
their cause is doomed to fail. - T. Bevan 11:35 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend | Printer
Friendly
