"Conversely - and as the London bombings seem to demonstrate - a war on terror simply makes the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" a greater terrorist target."
No, no, the argument is that it's creating more terrorists, and it is, and better trained ones. The greater terrorist target is a result of the war, but not the important one.

"It assumes that Al-Qaida has limited objectives, and that it will therefore respond in kind to conciliatory gestures,"
Again, no. It assumes that whatever is creating and allowing terrorism will be fueled by the Muslims suffering unnecessarily as a result of the war and the way it is being carried out.

"and its mystifyingly mild responses to the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, all indicated its determination not to offend the Muslim world."
This is in part true, but it also took quite a while to determine who did it. Also, Clinton was being thoroughly attacked, unlike Bush he did not have support for large scale military actions.

And let's not forget the complete lack of a response in taking out Al-Zarqawi when Bush had the chance, in following Clarke's suggested anti-terrorism operations and the great distraction that is the war on Iraq.

"Two aircraft flying into the World Trade Centre a year later."
But didn't the withdraw happen after the initial Afghan war? And hadn't the plot been planned for sometime?

"that seeks nothing less than a restoration of the Islamic empire from the early Middle Ages,"
Yeah, we know this is what Al-Qaeda wants, Al-Qaeda (which was a rather small group until the US started saying that every other group was connected to it) is merely a symptom, no one is suggesting appeasing Al-Qaeda or appeasing "Islam". Try to look at the big picture. You can't meet Al-Qaeda head on, Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda until the US allowed it and the flypaper theory is stupid, dangerous and of course, not working.

Deuc
Ater all that, I'm not sure what you are actually getting at.

I found the article reasoning almost flawless. But I think the emphasis was not sufficient.

'Al Qaeda' is just one expression of militant Islam on the war path to 'finish' what they were prevented from doing at Tours by Charles the Hammer and in the Balkans by others.

Deuc, I keep harping, that the problem is Islam itself and its world view. Forget my ChristianConservatism , and just take the arguments on merit. (or lack thereof)

This article may have tried to put an 'academic/socially responsible' face on Islam, but my recent experience with a couple dogs shows the problem. I go for a regular walk at a Melbourne Water retarding basin. (watch the smart comment :) I often encounter friendly dogs in my walk, but the other day, a Rotweiler used as a guard dog in an adjacent property, escaped, and went for me. Its not the border collies, Labradors or Jack Russels which will go for us, its the Islamic version of the Rotweiler which drives the agenda.

I looked at the article in the Age, and the mentality of those young 'immigrants' of Islamic faith was full-on and chilling.

The Brits had talks with the 'Islamic leaders' and asked "What can we do to help you fix this" they explained about 'dissillusioned young muslims' (i.e. about Israel/palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan) So, they basically said "Its your fault, get out of our pet terror training grounds".

The US involvement in Iraq, is as much Strategic as Oil related. Pakistan has Nukes and a seething mass or extremists held back only by Musharraf.

I hope that all of we westerners will review history and then do some serious thinking about our own convictions. As a Christian, I hope all of us could KNOW what we stand for, and why. Without a spiritual and moral foundation we will in Christs words "build our home on the sand, and when the storm comes, it will fall"

When considering the legality (or even moral right) of the US to lead an invasion of Iraq, there are some interesting points being raised in the “World Tribunal on Iraq”

“The Tribunal will consist of three days of hearings investigating various issues related to the war on Iraq, such as the legality of the war, the role of the United Nations, war crimes and the role of the media, as well as the destruction of the cultural sites and the environment.” http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?

But this particular article raises the issue of when did this “war on terrorism” actually begin. Was it after 9/11, or before. And if it is a “war on terrorism”, then who are the opposing forces.

This term “war on terrorism” seems to a propaganda type term that was first used by Bush, similar to the “war on drugs”, and prior to that there was the “cold war” etc. But from the US perspective, this present “war” is beginning to become a “war on Islam”, or a “clash of civilisations”, and the hunting down of Ossam bin Laden and Al Queada is somewhat secondary.

In fact Ossam bin Laden and Al Queada are often referred to as “blowback” from the Afghanistan war, where the CIA trained and supported them to carry out guerrilla type actions against Russian forces, but latter these guerrilla type actions were used against the US and the other countries. See http://www.hevanet.com/peace/cia_trained_bin_laden2.htm

So now we have a situation of the US having to fight against it’s own “blowback”.

Two recent articles are relevant :-
“Bush and Howard committed to troops” http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/598858
“Blair meets with Muslim leaders” http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/598829

I favour the latter approach, and maybe it should have been used much earlier, before the bombs rained down.

Odd how the bombing in London coincided with the UK’s desire to withdraw it’s troops from Iraq, or maybe not that unusual.

While this essay shows journalistic flair – hence “extreme critics” and “chilling” it tends to drift away from what motivated 4 Muslim Englishmen from blowing themselves up in London. Instead it moves towards a well trod American debate over hawk/dove foreign policy approaches.

On 14 March 2004 AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty spoke to Jana Wendt over the similar occurrence in Madrid “The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it's more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq.”

Now, I don’t think this statement makes Mr Keelty an “extreme critic of the US-led war on terror” rather it stems from a concern that (typically) young Muslims in some western countries may resent the presence of their national troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through sometimes strong religious feeling and often a young person’s desire for danger and glory they wish to hurt the Western countries they live in, as an act of revenge – eye for an eye.

Its not clear that large western armies occupying (or liberating?) distant Muslim countries will quash the resentment of these young men. One aim of the occupation, instilling western style democracy (in Iraq), is remote and counter productive. “Western democracy” is probably alarming to many “radical” and “conservative” Muslim countries (eg Saudi Arabia - arguably current and former Saudi’s are the largest financial and “manpower” supporters of international terrorism).

Attempting to remove Muslim fanatism (or Muslim patriotism depending on one’s point of view) through armed force in Muslim countries unfortunately will not prevent some young Muslim lads in Melbourne or Sydney from emulating the London bombers.

It would appear they might not need Al-Qaida, or other international terrorist links, to achieve this. The Oklahoma City or some other “western” bombers did not need such a connection. Understanding and “keeping the finger on the pulse” at home is preferable to foreign (ad)ventures.

Boaz, sorry for my previous disjointed post, there were so many details in the article I found to be wrong, misleading or incomplete.

The London bombings are not a response to the Iraq war, that much of the article is true. And it is not wrong to say that because Al-Qaeda has unlimited objectives it is wrong to appease them, or that it is wrong to ignore terror threats simply to avoid offending Muslims. Global pre-emption is required. Such things are clear and indisputable.

But I'm sure the article is not simply meant to point out the obvious; the title, and the opening & concluding paragraphs show otherwise. The aim is to counter critics of the Iraq war, whom the author assumes are critics of TWOT; which is false and obtuse. The author would like to show that the Iraq war is necessary and beneficial, and crucial to TWOT, but makes points utterly unconnected with Iraq. Getting out of Iraq is not about appeasing militant Islam, it is about stopping the breeder reactor we built and are feeding.

It is a dream to think that rules will be relevant forever, and many of Islam's rules are outdated like the old Mosaic law or ancient Roman law. Strict, seemingly eternal, religious rules such as those that exist in Islam make it easy for power to be controlled by those who favour cultural stability, the old rules, over principle and substance. This is universal. There is an unfortunate irony in your quote from Jesus, that Muslims stuck in the storm are encouraged to build upon the older, stable foundations that they perceive in fundamentalist Islam. It's not liberal Muslims that are terrorists, although some may be insurgents, but conservatives. I doubt liberal Muslims would have any problem coexisting with non-Muslims, but they have a systemic disadvantage within Islam that has not been removed through change as it has in other religions. Our imprudent acts make it more difficult for reform movements to grow and instead provide support for militant groups and fundamentalist ideology; but reversing this won't end fundamentalism.

Deuc,

Nice to see some balance on this topic, which is refreshing.

You say that "the author would like to show that the Iraq war is necessary and beneficial, and crucial to TWOT, but makes points utterly unconnected with Iraq."

There is one problem with this - I've had a quick look through the piece and can't find the word "Iraq" in it anywhere. Thus, I think that the the link between Iraq and the war on terror clearer in your response than it is in the article.

Perhaps this is an assumption - not an unreasonable one, I might add -but I think it detracts from your critique.

And this is not an ideologically driven response, as the jury is out on Iraq for me. I reckon that the obvious mistruth between justification before and after the Iraq invasion, (and my suspicion over US motives regarding oil) has to be balanced against the fact that the world has one less dictator, with a clear tendency for aggression, who at some time at least, seemed to possess weapons of mass destruction.

The perils of being a fence-sitter...