The war against the insurgency in Iraq is continuing. Violence, intimidation, killing of innocents and coalition soldiers goes on with ups and downs, but the civil war that Al Zarqawi so much desires does not seem to be on the cards. What must be worrying the al Quaeda leaders at the moment is the constitutional process reaching its goal (however imperfect) in August and the following December elections; this will not stop the violence (in fact it might increase it), but each event will be another nail in the coffin of terrorism in general. Strangely enough, it has been the terrorists and their senseless massacres to show the whole world (more than Bush speeches) the importance of a democratic Iraq and its meaning for the entire Middle East. Terrorists will now have to go for broke (a recent rumor has Bin Laden on the march toward Iraq) and hope, at best, for a continued “resistance”, with the undesired side effect of keeping the coalition forces in Iraq indefinitely.
Even if the terrorists enjoy some support from disgruntled Sunnis and Saddamites, they have completely alienated the population and must know that this is no way to lead a successful insurgency. Furthermore, they live under the constant threat that the foreign support they receive could cease abruptly; Syria and/or Iran might abandon them to their destiny if, because of increased pressure from the US or a perceived advantage, it would fit their agendas.
Their timing is lousy too: when, just after the 7/7 attacks in London all people in bad faith were resuscitating the “leave Iraq to avoid attacks” mantra and all people in good faith were seriously thinking about it, boom!, they go and blow up Sharm el Sheik killing mostly innocent Egyptians (this could be a side effect of al Quaeda decentralization). Furthermore, if, with the London bombings, they had hoped to weaken Blair and bend the UK like they did bend Spain, they grossly miscalculated. In fact, the reaction of Mr. Blair was almost one of relief; it was high time – and now I can do it, he seemed to be thinking – to pass legislation that would effectively protect the country and do away with misconceived multiculturalist approaches to integration. In addition, Europe seems to have been waiting for exactly this move by Blair, and France, Italy and Germany are speedily catching up.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
very rational, reasonable, well-written, and I hope you're right - thanks and welcome Captain M!
2 - Roamerick
Very well put. The rationale of terrorist attacks is not one that can be analysed in terms of political or military systems. It's hardly a rationale at all. Fighting it will require measures that defy current conventions, and that's going to make a lot of people very uncomfortable. Yet, something must be done, and done decisevely.
3 - Dave Nalle
I sometimes wonder if the answer to terrorism is not to fight them, but just to ignore them until they get frustrated and find something better to do with their time.
I know, I know - what about all the dead innocents. But it seems to me that no matter what we do there are casualties, so maybe we need to learn to live with them and move on.
Dave
4 - Victor Plenty
We'd certainly be better off just ignoring terrorists than turning every Western nation into a police state. Terror tactics are ultimately self-defeating, unless they goad the target society into its own cycle of self-destructive actions.
5 - Dave Nalle
Puts me in mind of the song "Working for the Clampdown" by The Clash. Which is about exactly that strategy of goading the government into making things so much worse that everyone becomes a terrorist.
Dave
6 - b mil
as if 9/11 wasnt eye-opening enough in regards to the imminent threat of terrorism. terrorism "got worse" (actually many times, but this is the most clear indication by far) once and if 3,000 is the current baseline for terrorism related deaths in a single event, aren't you afraid of what the next possibility might be? what then of this negligible threat when someone grabs hold of a nuke? would you change your mind on this policy of inaction if you knew you'd be killed in the next terrorist attack? by pledging inaction, you're automatically condemning to death those who will in the first place. you forget these fanatics are set on world domination. that doesnt happen by killing a dozen here and a dozen there. something big would happen.