Emboldened by Spain’s cowardly retreat from Iraq in the face of terror, radical Muslims are now threatening Australia.
Chief lieutenant of ad-Sadr [a radical Shi'ite Muslim cleric], Imam Amer al Hussani, said on Monday the coalition forces should immediately withdraw and return Iraq to local control.
“The Saddam regime (is) gone and … we know how to control our country,” Imam al Hussani told ABC Radio through an interpreter.
“To be here as occupiers, they are not welcome here.”
Imam al Hussani also had a message for Prime Minister John Howard.
“We hope that Australia will follow Spain in their decision to withdraw from Iraq,” he said.
And if they don’t? Is there an implied threat there? One suspects an attack on the Australian homeland is quite likely. Elections are coming soon in Australia, and the Leftist opposition Parties would be more than happy to take Spain’s lead and attempt to win a seperate peace with the terrorists by withdrawing troops from Iraq.
The Madrid attacks have taught the terrorists a valuable lesson: Well-timed terrorist attacks can be the decisive factor in democratic elections in Western nations. Scare the populace into believing that being partners with the United States in confronting terror will lead to misery and death, and you will help elect appeasers to their governments.
It is also likely they will try this tactic against the US itself. But would a major attack in, say, October lead US voters to rally to Bush, or to run to Kerry? Their intent would clearly be to unseat Bush, but how would the voters respond?
There is also the prospect of conspiracy theories coming into play. Let’s say an attack occurs close to the US election, and it ends up boosting Bush to a close victory. There will be those on the Left that will accuse Bush of letting this happen in order to politically benefit (much like those who accused FDR of allowing Pearl Harbor in order to get the US into WWII). This surely will not help unite the country, but it is inevitable in such an unfortunate situation.
As for those who believe the attacks on Spain had to do with their support for liberating Iraq, and nothing else: How do you explain the lack of attacks on Kuwait? Without Kuwait allowing Coalition troops to invade Iraq from their territory, there would have been no liberation. By comparison, Spain had zero troops involved in the actual liberation, and a relatively small number of peace-keepers involved in the occupation. If the terrorists wanted merely to punish those who aided the Coalition, Kuwait should be just behind the US and UK on their target list. Yet Kuwait remains bereft of terrorist atrocities.
Well, maybe Kuwait has been spared due to their mostly Muslim population, some might suggest. Well, killing fellow Muslims has never been much of an issue for the terrorists. They do it all the time. Why the exception now? No, Kuwait has been spared for the same reasons Spain was targeted: The terrorists hate the West, hate democracy, and hate Christians. Kuwait is not Western, democratic, or Christian. Spain is all three.
So, what’s next? More blood spilled in Iraq, more attacks on Western nations (and not just pro-US nations: The French recently found a terrorist-planted bomb in Paris. And Russia is always a ripe target for Muslim radicals.)
I just hope the Coalition nations have the guts to stick it out, and not turn tail and run away, which is what the terrorists hope for. Liberating Iraq was optional, and costly (in both blood and treasure). But abandoning it to the terrorists, at this point, will only lead to more setbacks for the civilized world.