Untitled Document

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