Randall's Blog

Iraq IS SO Part of the War on Terror

A lot of people, Democrats in the US and what seems like almost everyone in Canada and Europe, believe that the liberation of Iraq was a big mistake. There are a number of reasons given for this but the one that strikes me right now is the claim that it was a "distraction" from the "War on Terror" - popularly believed to be a synonym for the "Hunt for Osama bin Ladin."

Somebody ought to inform the terrorists of this. They have been streaming into Iraq with the goal of making it impossible to form the first democratic civil society in Arab lands. Why are they doing this if events in Iraq do not relate to their goals? The answer is that they understand perfectly well that the success of Iraq will do great damage to their cause.

After 9/11, there was a lot of talk amongst the whining classes about "root causes" and "why do they hate us?" Poverty and despair caused by decades of imperialist American foreign policy resulted quite naturally, they think, in the self-immolation of 19 upper class educated Saudi and other Arab men as they destroyed the greatest symbol of Western capitalism and 3000 innocent lives. Something is not right here. If poverty and despair cause terrorism, one would expect most of them to come from places like Haiti, Liberia and the Congo. But they don't. If American foreign aggression causes terrorism we should see a lot of them coming from Vietnam, Korea, Russia, Grenada, Panama, Germany and Japan. But they don't.

They hate us because we are successful, rich (comparatively) and free. They are Islamic extremists and their agenda is domination of the planet by fundamentalist Islam. The biggest problem they face in this eternal struggle is the temptation our freedom and wealth presents to their people, without us trying or even caring about it. Strict Islamic society is not a fun way to live, and the spread of modern communications is making the difference clear to every Muslim. The very existence of free liberal societies is a mortal threat to their goals, so they have only one option, and that is to destroy them or die trying.

That is why the establishment of such freedoms, and the increase in wealth that is sure to follow, right in the middle of their territory is just about the worst thing that could have happened to them. So all you who whine about the "root causes" - look, they are finally being addressed! As the great experiment in Iraq slowly succeeds, and it will, it will be a beacon of hope to all the other Arabs who live under brutish tyrannies.

The War on Terror was never about just finding and punishing the perpetrators of 9/11. The goal is not vengeance, it is to make the US (and incidentally the entire free world) safer from future and much larger attacks. When you are being attacked by alligators, you can endlessly kill them one by one, or you can drain the swamp. There are a number of reasons why liberating Iraq was the best way to start this process, including the state of war that still remained from the Gulf War after incessant violations of the ceasefire terms, Saddam's inherent hostility and belligerence, and his inevitable drive to acquire nuclear weapons once he finished bribing the French and the Russians to get rid of the UN sanctions.

President Bush and his administration understand this. Why don't you?

UPDATE: Donald Sensing writes about root causes.

First Spain, Next Britain?

Last Sunday, Spanish voters turfed the American-friendly government of Jose Maria Aznar in favour of the local socialists, who were not expected to win the election. This occured after a brilliantly-timed terrorist attack in Madrid, carried out by Al Qaeda or some subset of it.

Now, many Spaniards (and other appeasers) are saying that they did not surrender to Al Qaeda when many of them switched their votes at the last minute. Probably many of those who switched their votes even believe this (although I have heard some comments from Spanish voters admitting they voted out of fear). Unfortunately for them, the jihadists have other reasons and far older grievances with Spain than their participation in Iraq.

It doesn't matter though - what matters is that Al Qaeda believes their operation was successful, and now that they believe that they have found out how to control the foreign policies of European governments, we can expect them to use this relatively simple tactic again.

In terms of European foreign policy, there can be no greater victory for Al Qaeda than sundering the alliance between Britain and the US. However this will not be as easy for them to pull off. Britain will likely not have a general election until 2005 sometime, and that is a long way off. The opposition Conservatives are probably more likely to remain friends with the US than even Labour is, so it would not help Al Qaeda to precipitate that change. From a recent speech by the Conservative leader Michael Howard:

"It would be a terrible thing indeed if last week's murders in Madrid led the terrorists to conclude that attacking America results in retribution, but attacking Europe results in victory.

"Countries cannot insulate themselves from terrorist attack by opting out of the War on Terror. We cannot buy ourselves immunity by changing our foreign policy. Apart from the moral cowardice of that position, it can never work in practice."

No, where Britain is vulnerable is within the Labour party itself. There is significant opposition in that party to Blair's policy of close alliance with America and the operation in Iraq.

I don't know enough about British politics to know if Blair may face some sort of leadership challenge before the next election. Here in Canada the parties have various requirements for leadership reviews at some interval between general elections. Of course they are usually a mere formality. Perusing the Labour Party website I was unable to find their party constitution or rules which may pertain to this.

So, the important question for Britons today is - how will Al Qaeda attempt to replace Blair with a more compliant appeaser? If Blair faces some sort of scheduled leadership review before the next election, I believe they will definitely use that opportunity to attack with the hope of replacing Blair with one of his rivals, who would then do what Spain is doing and pull Britain from the American-led coalition in Iraq.

If such a leadership review is not scheduled, what else might Al Qaeda try? How would Britons (and most importantly sitting Labour MP's) react to a spate of coordinated subway bombs? Might enough Labour MP's decide to bring down their own government in Parliament, or at least threaten Blair with the possibility, in order to force a withdrawl from Iraq? Would the Conservatives and other opposition members support such a move?

I believe Britons would be crazy to think that pulling out of Iraq would make them safer in the long run, but I thought that about the Spanish too, and now I know they are crazy. Hopefully, for all our sakes, the Brits are not.