If it turns out (as initial reports are suggesting) that the London bombings were perpetrated by locals with no real connection to OBL specifically, or Al Qaeda in general, how does either retaliation or "continuing the fight" make sense as a real strategy for defeating this kind of terrorism?  As numerous articles and commentators have pointed out, Al Qaeda has long since moved into cyberspace, posting manifestos available to anyone, anywhere.  The London bombs appear to have been crude, home-made devices that were constructed and placed by local murderous assholes - perhaps people who read those manifestos or maybe some of our own .  There's plenty of deluded evil folks all over the globe, including our own homegrown variety right here in the good old USA.  What will finishing off OBL for whatever reason do about them?  I'm ready to hear the real strategies to confront this sort of evil, because all the hi-tech weaponry, rah-rah-USA, "multi-national" force, budget-busting bullshit we've been engaged in has not made the world or US citizens one damn bit safer. 

For what it's worth, I'm all for hunting down OBL and cohorts and blowing their sorry asses off the face of the planet.  But can we stop confusing that, or attacking Iraq, or planning to invade another muslim country, etc. with an actual strategy to combat terrorism??   

If our government was serious about containing Al-Qaeda and capturing bin Laden, it would have followed through back in Afghanistan and not allowed the airlifts to Pakistan in the fall of 2001. Enemies of the US, including Taliban that were considered potentially useful in the New World Order envisioned by the Bush administration in Afghanistan, were allowed safe passage into Pakistan, according to Seymour Hersh. Among them is believed to have been bin Laden.

Why should I not believe this, when everything the Bushco regime has averred, has turned out to be blatant lies?

What can explain the myopia of those who, like the author of this discussion, immediately make this a contest between us and Osama? What evidence is there to support the notion that even an AlQaeda splinter faction or "franchise", let alone Osama, had anything to do with this rather unsophisticated operation?


First, this was small fare compared to 911. Any serious, professional bomber would have been able to kill many hundreds, not fifty or so, with bombs set off inside of tunnels.

Second, there's utterly no political rationale to the time and place. Blair's not standing for re-election. His government's not vulnerable at all. And it was three months ago that reports appeared confirming that he's withdrawing the majority of Britain's troops from Iraq.

Third, the location of the bombings doesn't fit Osama's m.o. EDgware Road is known as "Little Lebanon," the very centre of middle-class, hip, educated muslim London. In fact, the most likely explanation is that this is another salvo in the recent redirection of the jihadists' rage toward muslim "moderates" -- note the recent execution of the Egyptian Ambassador in Iraq.

Could we please try to analyze and understand the jihadists' behavior on its own terms, with fact and logic, and without  reflexive and distorting reference to Washington's squabbles?

Ivo is right on.

The attacks in London should make clear once and for all that the containment policy we have followed with regard to al-Qaeda has failed and that we need a dramatic change of strategy.  We must continue to contain terrorism through preventive measures and police action along with military action when absolutely necessary.  However, the idea put forward on TPMCafe and elsewhere that we should attack Pakistan or blow up a few mosques will achieve nothing except encourage even more acts of terrorism.  It is not impossible that the perpetrators of the London attacks were born and brought up in England.  I doubt it will go down well in England if the US starts sending cruise missiles into the East End of London.

The containment policy fails because it does nothing whatsoever to address the genuine grievance felt by Muslims towards western actions.  The West made a serious mistake in not addressing this grievance because it has allowed Muslims to perceive terrorism to be the only way to resolve them.  The cure for terrorism is to demonstrate to the Muslim population that the terrorists are wrong and that the West will resolve their grievances.  This is not appeasement of terrorism and those that claim it to be are implicitly allying themselves with the terrorists.  We must address genuine grievances of the Muslims and ignore the worthless notions and ideology of al-Qaeda.  In trying to contain terrorism without trying to cure it we have failed those whose deaths have been sudden and brutal, we have failed ourselves but, above all, we have failed those in the Middle East who have suffered great harm from our policies there.

The seminal grievance for Muslims is the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.  Every other grievance towards the West derives from that one.  In tolerating an illegal and immoral Israeli occupation we have allowed a genuine grievance to fester and turn into a lethal terrorism.  We need to address this grievance in a way we have never done before and we need to do so regardless of the discomfit this will bring on Israel and its friends.

Muslims can look at history and see how we allowed the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait to last a few months, the German occupation of France to last a few years yet allowed the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories to last decades.  The West must resolve this genuine grievance.  We must demonstrate that we will support the Palestinian people and provide them with freedom, justice and security so that al-Qaeda can no longer pretend to do so.

The West needs to be very clear to Israel that we expect it to completely withdraw from the Palestinian Territories in a period of months not years – no ifs, no buts.  We have allowed the Israelis to dictate the terms of debate for far too long with the result that nothing happens except more people die.  The status quo, of course, suits Israel but increases the grievance of the Palestinian people and their fellow Muslims.  The Israelis and their friends will complain but they have no more right to dictate terms of withdrawal to the World than did Germany or Iraq.

The Israelis proselytize their suffering while hiding their guilt in perpetuating an occupation that is a monstrous crime against humanity.  We must make clear to the Israelis that if they are unwilling to withdraw from the Occupied Territories that we will hold them criminally responsible for this brutal occupation.

In ending the Israeli occupation we will demonstrate to Muslims that we do care about their grievances.  We will have started the cure for terrorism.  Removing this festering sore will encourage the Muslim population to drain the lifeblood of terrorism and consequently free the World from this scourge.  There will, of course, still be terrorism but I believe it will be far less serious than if we continue the current containment policy without providing a cure.

Initiating a cure for terrorism is a far greater memorial to those who died on Thursday than is a retaliation that brings sudden and brutal death to innocent Muslims across the globe.

One is the need to catch OBL and his ilk. This is a matter of justice. We owe it to the victims' families and, for that reason, it ought to be given the highest priority. But that alone will do little to stop terrorism.

For that, the root causes of the problem must be recognized and then addressed. Many Muslims (probably the majority)  feel a sense of humiliation vis-a-vis the West. Yes, there's Iraq and Palestine, but also litte things that slip under the radar screen of Western sensitivity: No Muslim presence at the G8 (yes, I know why, but that's not my point); no Muslim city contending for the Olympics; the insufferably patronizing tone of Western leaders, etc.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims simply live through it without feeling the need to blow up subway riders. Evidently a tiny fraction can't resist the urge. Those nut jobs don't hate our freedoms; in fact they couldn't care less about them. They can't take the humiliation. And US presence in Iraq is, right now, the ultimate humiliation from their point of view.

What to do? You can try to kill off the tiny fraction. But chances are that (1) you'll fail  (eg, OBL); and (2) in that very process you'll aggravate their sense of humiliation (Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, etc) and end up enlarging the pool of potential terrorists.

As the CIA recently confimed, that's exactly what's happening. 

The point of formulating renewed responses as "retaliatory" even though these are policies that (although some, like airline safety, might not be carried out intelligently) should be done anyway, is that they draw the connection between the acts and the responses.  It sends a message not only to Al Qaeda but to all the other parties observing in the world, the Pew determined 65% of urban Pakistan with a favorable view of Al Qaeda and the 55% of Jordan and 45% of Morocco.  To react in self-destructive ways is obviously not the answer, and to overreact or miss the mark or promote bigotry or even to do things that appear primarily foolish or cruel to innocents are not the response. 

      Incidentally, the RW is not at all confused about the ineffectiveness of attacking state powers unconnected or only dimly connected to Al Qaeda as a result of terrorism.  They are exploiting terrorism to transform the country into the system that they see fit -- 9/11 as "Christmas for Tories".  It is the progressives who just don't get what is going on in a way so as to effectively and intelligently mobilize against it.  As in Florida 2000,everyone is so busy getting with the program, using the venues handed down of by and for the unaccountable oligarchs, and dancing to their tune that the PURPOSE, namely to effectively protect democracy takes back seat to golden parachutes, respectability, cravenness, and simply being hoodwinked -- mainly golden parachutes and cravenness.

Too many people on the "We have to retaliate" side of the discussion are confusing (wittingly or unwittingly) justice with vengeance.

If someone has just punched you in the face, it's all too easy, as well as entirely understandable, to want to respond by hitting them back.  If it's not immediately apparent who actually hit you, the urge is often to hit whoever might happen to be standing around, especially if they look like someone who might have hit you in the face. That's vengeance.

Does it make you feel better in the short term?  Maybe.  However, odds are good that it will end up leading to a bar brawl where a whole bunch of people who were minding their own business end up getting hurt. 

To take your example one step further ...

Suppose you are getting hit in the face every night when the lights are out, but you don't know who in your neighborhood is doing it, but you know it has to be one of five families. So, you announce that you will start to respond to the nightly attacks by knocking the bewillies out of one member from each familiy every time you are hit, but will refrain from retaliating against any family that puts a lock on its door to keep everyone in at night and gives you the key to show their good faith. Sooner or later, all families will seek to prevent the nightly attacks by putting locks on their door, and the nightly atacks will stop.

34 Death Eagle on two

hut one hut two

All true.

Or, rather than knocking the bewillies out of people who've done nothing to you and thereby making them disklike and distrust you, you could try to figure out in a rational and objective way who is hitting you and why.  Then, instead of wasting a lot of time and resources beating up and alienating your neighbors, you could track down the people who are actually hitting you.

It is much easier (at least at first) to attack a country than it is to analyze a complicated situation and take intelligent action.

When you're an incompetent who needs to do your Top Gun strut, it's easy to let the neo-cons convince you to do what you wanted to do anyway (attack Saddaam).

Then have those who are knee-deep in the insanity promoted (Wolfowitz), bemedaled (Tenet), held unaccountable (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle, etc., ad nauseum). Also make sure people who get it like Richard Clarke feel so uncomfortable they have to leave government.

If we don't soon get someone smart in power with some contact with the "reality based community" we are in for a disaster of monumental proportions.

We do need to pursue Osama and his top aides to do justice to our people who were killed on 9/11, but I don't think that will stop terror attacks.  Our very presence in the Middle East, along with our support of Israel, is unacceptable to many in the area.

Now, apparently, small cells are forming outside the ME.  They appear to be of varying levels of sophistication and linked loosely, if at all with Al Qaeda .  We don't even know yet who did the London bombings, much less the motivation.  If the cells are local, the response will be by law enforcement officials with trials to bring the perpetrators to justice.  Since the bombings took place in London, I would think that the British would definitely want to have a say about what is to be done next.  

As for our broad policy, we took our eyes off the prize with Osama when we had him cornered; we apparently had Zarqawi in the crosshairs and let him get away more than once.  Then we went to war in Iraq, which has now become the chief training center for terrorists.  If this is how our policy of "retaliation" or fighting the GWOT works, we should definitely get another plan.

I hope and pray that this administration does not plan an invasion or bombing of either Iran or Syria, because we will set the ME aflame.

You need to learn how to discuss without denegrating. I won't even dignify your post.

Quite correct. These five families are rational actors, as all people fundamentally are.

If one can attack you without being reliably identified, then it has no reason to stop, as the cost to them of the attacks is zero.

If you retaliate randomly, then they will stop if your retaliation is damaging enough that

Benefit of hitting you < 0.2(Cost of getting pounded nightly).

The ones not hitting you will comply if

Cost of compliance < 0.2(Cost of getting pounded nightly).

Thus, you maximize your chances of success if you either (1) make the cost of compliance low enough that everyone not hitting you can do it easily, so that the one doing the hitting is exposed, or (2) make the cost of getting pounded so high that even the one hitting you gains nothing from it.

Generally, the compliance you require to guarantee your safety is pretty high, so that means it's necessary to inflict an especially severe pounding

Yet fear for their lives and the lives of their friends did not stop attacks by the resistance, oppression simply brought fresh recruits to their cause. You don't seem to know much history, so it will probably be news to you that the Nazis lost.

Let's see which countries the Germans or its allies annexed, invaded, conquered, or occupied.

Austria
Czechoslovakia
Poland
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Belgium
France
Albania
Yugoslavia
Greece
Libya
Tunisia
Algeria
Morocco
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia

Of these 22 nations, 22 were removed from German control by the intervention of the western Allies, the Soviet Union, or the German instrument of surrender. In other words, exactly zero freed themselves from German control by indigenous resistance.

How do you propose to stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons, which it has repeatedly promised to use?

Negotiate?  Provide incentives to Iran for stopping their nuclear weapons program?  It seems counterproductive to me to think first of violent solutions.  Don't forget Iran is an oil-producer, and look where the price of oil is going.    

I hope we won't take lessons from ourselves from Afghanistan or Iraq.  Look how those ventures turned out.  

Mr Blair warned that security and surveillance will not be enough to stop such attacks - and that there has to be an ideological struggle in which terrorism is "pulled up by the roots".



From where, Mr. Blair?

From the hairs on Blair's head?



Later, in an interview with the BBC's Today programme, he said: "If people are actually prepared to go on to a Tube or a bus and blow up wholly innocent people ... you can have all the surveillance in the world and you couldn't stop that happening. That is why ultimately the underlying issues have to be dealt with too."



Blair also denied that he had made London a terrorist target by sending British troops into Afghanistan and Iraq.



Self denial, and burying his head in the sand like an ostrich seem to be the traits predominating here.



Osama bin Laden died several years ago. (Don't ask me to prove this as you cannot prove he is alive!!)



He was the bogey man. Can anyone imagine a man with a dialysis machine trudging the Himalayan foothills where there is not even power supply to recharge any batteries?



If he is not dead, either he has made an unbelievable recovery or the forces after him are dimwits!! Take your pick. I know which one I take.



Desperation now seeks to make Zarqawi the next bogeyman. Hence the linking of the London attack to a one-legged Zarqawi in Iraq (or is it more convenient to say Syria or Iran).



And then who?

Your response represents precisely the Western attitude that has caused the Muslim grievance with the West.  You suggest a solution that rings false and hollow because it is false and hollow.

Your solution is a decade long multi-staged nation-building effort leading to a Palestinian state bounded by the so-called security fence conditional on the achievement of a string of milestones.  This is a restatement of the existing plans that have been found wanting through several decades of failure.  It continues the policy of Western appeasement of Israeli terrorism of the Palestinian people.  Your plan does nothing to end the genuine grievance Muslims have with our tolerance of Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians.

I wrote “[t]he Israelis proselytize their suffering” and you wrote “[t]hey have suffered enough.”  Quite frankly, Israeli suffering is trivial in comparison to the suffering they have inflicted on the Palestinians.  But I continued with ”while hiding their guilt in perpetuating an occupation that is a monstrous crime against humanity.”  You are unlikely to present a rational solution when you ignore the true problem – which is the suffering of Palestinians.

It is time for the World to bring a fresh approach to resolving the Israeli Occupation and not the one you suggest that merely continues the current failed policies.  We must enforce a solution that provides not only a “secure” Israel and a “stable” Palestine but a solution that ensures a secure Israel and a secure Palestine – a Palestine safe from Israeli predation.  In continuing to appease Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people we continue to show the Muslim world that we do not care about them.

We must seek a cure for Islamist terrorism and the cure starts by providing a genuinely fair solution to the Palestinian people.  That would be the best memorial for those around the world who have died in Islamist terrorist attacks.

Fred in Vermont wrote:

In the end Israel will only be willing to do what is politically acceptable to the Israelis.

What is politically acceptable to the Israelis is irrelevant.  The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories is a crime against humanity – it is a war crime.  We have not in the past, be it Germany or Iraq, allowed a criminal occupying power to dictate the disposition of the territories it occupies.  The Israeli people have long since lost any moral right they had to dictate terms of their withdrawal from the Palestinian Territories.

You continued with “[a]nd if that is not enough to turn things around then they are not going to get turned around.”  You are perhaps more honest than Neville Chamberlain when he said “I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep” but his appeasement echoes through your comment.

Albert Camus described an occupation as being like a plague.  We must find a cure for a crisis that has plagued the Palestinians and the Israelis for two generations.  In curing that plague we will remove the primal Muslim grievance with the West and start the process of curing Islamist terrorism.

The Palestinians have suffered from being held hostage to Israeli politics and we should not allow ourselves to suffer the same fate.  We owe a cure to all those across the globe who have suffered a sudden and brutal death.

Ah, "denigrate." Used to be one of my favorite words until Bush started using it in nearly every campaign speech. Probably one of the few three syllable words he could remember. Now guilt by association has made it into a Republican word.

Cincinattus, I don't get your point. Are you defending Hitler's tactics? I never said undergrounds in those countries were responsible for their liberation. I said indiscriminate retaliatory killing didn't cow anyone, as Dan Wingfoot (Nice name. Are you native American?) suggested it might. It only brought fresh recruits to the cause.

I want to add a couple of words to my previous post. You right wing types need to understand that for many people, hatred bred by oppression and the humiliation of subjugation are far greater motivating factors than fear for their lives. You, however, seem to believe fear is the primary motivating force. (Enough "shock and awe" and Iraqis will lay flowers at our feet.)

Welcome to the USA, the land of the fearful, and the group who seeks to govern them by exploiting their fears. Welcome to the Republican party.

And, yes, I am aware that Palestinians also commit atrocious acts - but on a far smaller scale.

In other words, it basically comes down to

suicide bombers blowing restaurants, seders, and discos to pieces with 20 people inside = minor atrocity

building wall to keep out suicide bombers = Hitler, gas chambers, Stalin, gulags.

Yep, it's always the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your handle is more appropriate than I realized.

I found the quotation of the President saying that he's not worried about OBL at a press conference on 3/13/2002. I think this is instructive for those who continue to believe that the White House policy regarding terrorism still includes eliminating OBL is a priority. Make of it what you will.

Q:   "But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?"

PRESIDENT: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.  And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.  And, again, I don't know where he is.  I  --  I'll repeat what I said.  I truly am not that concerned about him.  I know he is on the run.  I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country ... But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became  --  we shoved him out more and more on the margins.  He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore...."

He then ties the shift away from OBL to a broader agenda, presumably the invasion of Iraq, by saying
   
"I know what is at stake.  And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom."


Apparently, for the President and the 'command structure', world 'peace and freedom' does not include capturing OBL. 
 

I know it is very popular to start Middle Eastern history in 1967 and to call the Israeli occupation illegal. However, the Arabs tried to destroy Israel and failed miserably. They lost territory to the Israelis who initially held on to it awaiting an Arab negotiating partner. Sadat came forward Egypt got its territory back and Sadat was murdered.

I agree that Israel for its own sake ought to give pack most of the West Bank. However, the Palestinians have been used by their fellow Arabs allowing Israelis, sadly often from the United States, to take a ridiculous Biblical attitude toward the terrorities instead of a pragmatic view of what is good for Israel.

What is always ironic to me is that Israel could wipe their Arab enemies off the face of the earth. Instead they keep waiting to negotiate with someone who will oppose the blowing up school buses for political purposes. And all they hear is whining from some on the American Left.

jane and cincinatus,
You disagree about what action is necessary to prevent further terror attacks, but you both appear to agree on the crucial premise: that radical Muslims are intent on destroying western civilization as we know it.

Now, I don't want to diminish the seriousness of the issue (lives have been lost), so don't think I'm just playing devils advocate, but what is your evidence for this? 

It does not come from OBL and al Queda: he is on record as saying, in 1999 (NYT) I believe, his terror attacks would end if the US met three conditoins: get out of Saudia Arabia, stop interfering with IRaq, and stop supporting Isael in its war against the Palestinians.

It cannot come from the Taliban: the Taliban rose to power in opposition to the old al Queda revolutionaries who overthrew the USSR; also, the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia.

It cannot come from the acitons of Iraq: even the WH confirms that there was no connection to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and Iraq.

The insurgency in Iraq was created as a result of the invasion.

Even 9/11 fails to support the claim. OBL has denied any al queda connection to that attack, saying only that he was pleased it occurred. More to the point, the official WH story about it is impossible. For example, the BBC confirms that 6 of the 19 supposed suicide hijackers are still alive (other sources increase the confirmed number to 9). The evidence contradicting the official WH and 9/11 commission reports is stunning. (19 Reps. are calling for another investigation into what happened, being displeased, as I was, with the 9/11 Commissions thoroughness.)

Not from the London bombings: see my post below.

I'm not denying that attacks have occurred. Rather, my point is this: arguments about the appropriate preventative strategy assume that the identity of the perpetrators is clearly established, and that their goal is to destroy the US. It is only if these conditions are met that the US has a just cause to pro-actively 'blockade' or otherwise militarily intervene in the activities of those individuals or (soveriegn) nations.

But as i said earlier, from my point of view, there doesn't appear to be any evidence supporting either condition. Both of you, however, seem quite convinced that some action - other than withdrawl from the disputed countries, either physically or politically/financially  - is necessary. Maybe you could explain your reasoning to me.

You're correct that none of those countries militarily liberated themselves from the Nazis.  You could also have said that none of the Warsaw Pact countries military liberated themselves from the USSR.  However, the twentieth century is a catalogue of nationalist insurgents liberating themselves, unsupported, from various empires.

E.g. - from Britain: Ireland, Kenya, Cyprus, Israel
from France - Algeria
from Portugal - Angola, Mozambique

The difference is that unlike the USSR or Nazi Germany, none of the old European empires was prepared to slaughter millions in deliberate genocide. 

I think that as things stand, the insurgents ARE a match for US forces - because the US remains a civilised country reluctant to use the Total War tactics that enables the Chinese, say, to crush Muslim and Tibetan insurgents.