Egyptian Bombings

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=1&u=/nm/20050725/wl_nm/egypt_explosions_dc

One thing I don't follow is why people link the war in Iraq with terrorist activity abroad (or lets call it Militant Islamic Terrorism). The United States was not involved in miliraty operations in the middle east prior to 9-11. Yes, we supported Israel, but boots were not on the ground (at least as far as I know).

Now, whether we should have attacked Iraq or not remains a point of contention between Bush supporters and detractors. I am ambivalent about the attack actually. Given my understanding of information available at the time, I would say that it was justified, but I think that there was more to it than simply WMD, as was advertised at the time. I think it was mishandled though, and I wonder if there is a level of naivete that was ideological in nature that led the planners to believe that the soil in Iraq was ready for Democracy to take root.

All that aside, apart for "business as usual," the attacks on 9-11 had no specific provocation. The same thing seems to be case with the recent bombings in Egypt. The list of terrorist attacks throughout the world tends to have no specific provocation, other than a simple dissatisfaction with "business as usual." So now, there's a more obvious "excuse," or "cause." Now there may have been terrorist attacks in Iraq under Saddam's rule, hard to know. Saddam was ruthless in dealing with opposition, and so if there were, we can be sure that people suffered over it, likely guilty and innocent. Now, the current war in Iraq, inasmuch as it is a war (I don't think it really is, but that's another issue) may be recruiting more terrorists. It may be stepping up attacks against Americans (at least American troops), but if this leads to the leadership, or escalates the conflict to the point where people need to take sides (this goes to the Muslim world more specifically), then at least the lines are drawn, and let's face it, Saddam was pretty much evil by any measure.

I think people need to remember what war, real war, is like. I think that this might in fact work against us in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our troops do NOT act like warriors in the traditional sense, which makes them look a lot more like occupiers. Obviously we want a political regime that is friendly to the United States though, and that can make the government we support look like a puppet government, and in fact it is a puppet government. It can't stand on its own, and that is a quandary. It's not a government that is evolving out of, or based on the real "WILL" of the people, as evidenced by their desire to fight for their future (although granted not all of them can fight very well. Then again, bands of warlords aren't really a great model either, but that is probably the stage they are at. Tha'ts pretty much how Afghanistan wound up with the Taliban to begin with.

Now, if the U.S. can succeed in dragging Afghanistan and Iraq into the 20th century as an ally of the West, that will shake a lot of the middle east quite dramatically. If anything, that seems to me to be a big reason that the other governments in the area would prefer for this mission to fail. Time will tell if we succeed. But one thing seems pretty clear. The terrorists are striking everywhere, and have been for years. The real question is what qualifies as victory in the war on terror? I don't know what sort of criteria will qualify for "Victory," and I really wish this would be clarified. However, I suspect that if it was clarified, most people would feel that it can't be won. Even so, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought.

Terrorists do have a view of their victory conditions. When you consider what they consider victory, you might re-evaluate whether they would ever stop attacking those that disagree with them. I don't buy that it's about the War in Iraq. I do think that it gives them something of a cause celebre, but they would continue their terrorist actions either way. The war in Iraq is simply a high profile event that they can use as a banner, and a geographically convenient location to directly strike at Americans.