Topic: Politics
Two weeks after the first bombing attack on London comes another, this time much smaller. What is going on? Is this the start of a summer of terror or the death rattle of an ideology desperate to retain some credibility as it fails to make any concrete political gains?
The evidence seems to point in different directions. Recently while playing at the Vic, Paul Parker said to me: 'Lawrence said you wrote that Al Qaeda was finished six months ago'. This is partly true.
What I actually wrote was this. I stand by the point that Al Qaeda's ambitions seem to have shrunk. That is certainly indicated by the text of their messages to the west over the years. But my parting shot "Al Qaeda's own words reveal that we are poised to win against them if we hold firm" was obviously premature, as judged by the continuing violence in Iraq.
As far as the London attacks go, they are a puzzle. If they were meant to be revenge for Iraq, why did they come two years afterwards? I am having difficultly imagining an irate extremist saying to himself in March 2003 'This war is an imperialist crusade against my fellow muslims. I must do something about it ... in two years and four months from now'. I'm sure that the police have foiled some attacks in the interim, but that can't explain it all.
And then there is the scale of the attacks. Are we supposed to be impressed? Seven years after Bin Laden declares war on the US (and by extension on the UK since we have stood by the US) and more than two years after the Iraq war, all that can be mustered are four little twerps with only 10 lbs of explosive each. Without wishing to offend those who've been bereaved, I have to wonder at times 'Is this it? Is this what is supposed to make us abandon the people of Iraq to your theocratic madness, so that you can take the country's oil wealth and use it to fund future attacks on us?'
Coming back to Iraq, who is winning? Looked from one perspective, the terrorists seem to have plenty of fight left in them. Incredibly there are still young men willing to blow themselves us for something that the majority of Iraqis don't want. There must have been an incredibly strong hatred of the Shiite muslims simmering all the time that they were repressed by Saddam's Sunni minority.
But does the escalation in violence suggest anything about the trend? Critics of the war suggest that it indicates the 'folly' of intervention in Iraq and the impossibility of nation-building. Supporters point out that the most violent years of the Second World War, especially on the Pacific Front, were the final years. The Japanese fought with increasing ferocity as they were slowly squeezed. While Al Qaeda are still making headlines and causing misery, they have not made any political gains at all since they won the 2004 Spanish election. Since then it's all gone against them. Bush and Blair were re-elected and elections took place smoothly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The writing of a constitution continues and Sunnis are gradually being drawn into the political processes.
Which interpretation applies here? What do you think?
Either way, I am more interested in a Victory Strategy rather than an Exit Strategy. In the interdependent world in which we now live, there is nowhere to exit from. If you leave your enemy undefeated on the other side of the world, he can follow you home once you leave. And he'll wait until he's regained his strength and you've dropped your guard before he attacks again.
_ DY
at 4:09 PM BST
