Every time terrorists strike anywhere all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law must stand together and affirm our firm commitment to fight this scourge resolutely and unitedly. I sincerely hope that all of those who cherish and value open and free societies will join hands in the war against terrorism wherever it is fought. I wish the people of London well. -- Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh
It is odd to make the claim, as many on the left (see, for example, George Galloway) continue to do, that the war in Iraq has fomented an uncontrollable rage throughout the Arab world, and that the war is, therefore, responsible for the continuing terrorist attacks; for the claim, once considered, actually undercuts the motivation of those making it. The claim may take on two apparent purposes. In one sense it's simply a meaningless shorthand for opposition to the war, something to the effect of "I told you so", meaning 'those of us who opposed the war told you it would have dire consequences' (what war has consequences that are not dire?). But in another sense, the claim is meant as something more, it's meant to bestow by implication a degree of legitimacy on the attacks, as if they were the actions of a justifiable resistance, an insurgency fighting the imperial ambitions of aggressor nations. But it is also meant to lay blame at the feet of the U.S.for creating an insurgency, as if no Islamic threat existed before the invasion of Iraq. The claim explicitly ties the activities of the insurgency in Iraq to those Islamic elements staging attacks in Egypt, London, Beirut*, etc... and attributes a causal relationship between those actions and events in Iraq. 'Events' in the preceding sentence refers, of course, to the removal of Hussein and his Baathist regime and the establishment of a (feebly) functioning democracy in Iraq.
But notice that a negative response ( by negative I mean an inflamed, committed to blowing up civilians or oneself kind of response) to the events in Iraq would then entail one of two wishes: either a fervent wish to turn back the clock, that is, a wish to reinstate some sort of Baathist regime or to even return Hussein to power, or a desire to assume control over the political destiny of Iraq - presumably with institutions markedly less democratic and a great deal more theocratic in nature.
In the first case, Hussein was reviled by much of the Islamic world. For much of his rule he was avowedly secular and was, after all, by far the biggest murderer of Muslims throughout the Middle East. Baathist holdouts are unlikely to find much support among the wider Muslim world, and it is unlikely that the bombings in London and Egypt are the actions of die hard Baathist committed to returning to political power. The last days of major combat witnessed a fair amount of party holdouts and hangers-on making last ditch efforts. But the continuing efforts of the U.S. military, the death of Hussein's sons, and his subsequent arrest squashed whatever glimmer of hope for a triumphant return remained.
In the second case, however, it is no secret that some former Baathists have found common cause with the foreign fighters spilling in from other countries. But that is only on pragmatic grounds and based on the idea that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' rather than on any deeper sympathies or ideological correspondence. It is also a truism that the insurgency is intent on weakening resolve throughout Iraq, on making a vibrant and functioning democracy impossible to achieve. Such an achievement would likely represent the death blow to the wish to establish Islamic rule (see here for something they'll really hate) throughout the greater Middle East. Exacerbating ethnic divisions in order to foment a civil war is one such method for achieving this hope. Diminishing the will of the U.S. and thereby forcing a withdrawal is another. Terrorizing the world through senseless acts is yet another. For tactical and logistical reasons, the last method is the least likely to to produce large scale damage, though it may affect public opinion (That's a gamble. Such actions had their intended effect in Spain, but - by all appearances - are likely to have the opposite affect in London). But all the methods share a common purpose: to prevent representative government from taking hold in Iraq and to destroy the fragile chance for democracy to blossom throughout the larger region.
So in one sense (though many countries were targets long before the war in Iraq, as Australia's Prime Minister Howard eloquently explains here), those claiming that the war in Iraq has led to an increase in terrorist attacks are correct. They most certainly have. That is because much is at stake, and for logistical reasons it is far easier to attack Iraq and - for a variety of reasons having to do with lax immigration laws and an entrenched Muslim community, including radical Islamist elements - London (though as Belmont Club has argued, one should be heartened by how unsuccessful and small scale the attacks outside of Iraq have been). It is vitally important to the Islamist elements throughout the Middle East and Europe that the project in Iraq not succeed. It is vitally important to the West that it does. But the assertion that events in Iraq have drawn the ire of the Islamic world - and its concomitant implication that they have therefore spawned a legitimate resistance movement - is justified only if one believes that subverting the will of the Iraqi people, that ruthlessly subjugating them to the strictures of a medieval fundamentalism, that forcing them to trade one devil for another is a legitimate purpose of the insurgency, that that is a justifiable and righteous cause of 'the resistance'. But that is to undercut the motivation of those making the claim, for in admitting that it is the worst elements of Islamic society that are committed to Iraq's undoing - and that they would either like to see a return of the Baathists or the tyranny of Sharia - one only bolsters the case for seeing the project through to the end; one is actually making the case for resolve and tenacity in the face of barbarism. That's kind of the point - unless, of course, one yearns for the oppressive days of Hussein's rule or finds common cause with those who would deny democracy and flourishing to those hopeful souls struggling so frantically in Iraq. But that would be downright traitorous, if not appallingly inhuman.
(*In all fairness, though the Cedar Revolution was most certainly, in part, sparked by hopeful events in Iraq, it is unlikely that the recent attacks in Lebanon - as some have argued - have anything to do with the insurgency in Iraq except in the most general and incidental way; though Syria's continuing use of proxy violence is a useful indication of the desperate panic that is seizing parts of the Middle East now facing genuine opposition to corruption and tyranny.)
Comments