Aftenposten quotes Rami Khouri, chief editor of the Lebanese newspaper Daily Star, who sees another Afghanistan emerging in the Sunni triangle:

- It appears that Iraq has become a magnet, says Khouri. He has a background as an analysist for the International Crisis Group (ICG). The situation in Iraq has similarities to what happened in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation in the 1980's. Muslims from all over the world travelled to Afghanistan to take part in the holy war against the occupation forces, among them Osama bin Laden, then with American support. But the differences are also significant. Now the warriors have no super power to back them up with dollars and weapons.

This is to get everything slightly wrong. Osama bin Laden was not supported by the Americans, but by Saudi Arabia, who matched the American support dollar for dollar, but channeled it through different people - bin Laden's people, the same people who later became al-Qaeda. American support dried up, but the Saudi support for al-Qaeda merely went underground. Al-Qaeda and other terrorists involved in Iraq may not have the backing of a super power, but they have a good substitute - the support of alternately scared and fanatical wealthy Arabs.

No, the largest difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that in Afghanistan, the Mujahedin and Arab jihadists fought for and with the Afghan people, against the Russians. Bin Laden came to help the Afghans fight off the foreigners. (Then he came back with foreigners to oppress the Afghans, but that was later). In Iraq, the liberators have to fight the locals and the occupants. The massive coordinated attack in Baghdad yesterday primarily killed and injured civilians and policemen - only a few victims were American. There may be non-Baath Iraqis who see the Americans as the largest threat to their country, but the Baathists and foreign extremists are working very hard to change their minds. It's true that many blame the Americans for the lack of security, but it's a very long step from "you're not doing enough to protect us" to "get out and leave us alone".

Here's another odd idea:

Both [Nawaf Tell at the University of Amman] and Khouri believe that the best opportunity for the US-led occupation force to calm things down, is to transfer national sovereignity back to the Iraqis as soon as possible.

Aftenposten is so impressed with this idea that they repeat it in an editorial:

A democratization of Muslim societies will probably weaken those who use terror as a mean, with religious fanaticism as the excuse. Therefore the US should seek a broader cooperation concerning Iraq, and hasten up a transfer of sovereignity - partly or fully - to Iraqi politicians, who are responsible for their own voters. This might isolate the terrorists and show that terror doesn't work, neither in the US or Baghdad.

This is bullshit. There's no logical connection between Monday's attack and the American administration of Iraq. There's a connection between the attack and the presence of American troops, and the insistence of those troops in creating a democratic society, but the terrorists aren't going to call it all off when Paul Bremer hands over the reins to the first elected Iraqi president/PM. They're not going to call it off when the last American soldier leaves. They're going to call it off when the last trace of Western influence is gone. Can you imagine bin Laden saying "Oh, Iraq is ruled by Iraqis now? And they're elected in a free and fair manner? Well, they don't need our help any more then, now do they? We'll pack up our things and go home."

I believe terror and instability will remain in Iraq for some time, and the problem of fighting that terror and instability is not part of the problem of introducing democracy. Solving the second does nothing about the first, which will have to be solved by itself whether it's by Americans, Iraqis or both working together. (In the long term, it is true, democracy will probably undermine radical Islam, but radical Islam isn't going to sit quietly and let that happen.) I suppose what Aftenposten is trying to say is that "many people were killed the other day AND the Americans must leave Iraq soon", that last bit being an obligatory closing thought, like "Carthage must be destroyed". Perhaps Aftenposten should attach it at the end of all their articles. Might work, too. The pressure on the Americans would be intolerable.

* A democratization of Muslim societies will probably weaken those who use terror as a mean, with religious fanaticism as the excuse. *

Wasn't this an actual, if unintentional, admission that the whole US-led project to liberate Iraq as a step towards a long-term eradication of Islamist terror is bascially a good idea?

The jihadis are starting to piss off our soldiers. In some ways, this is a "good thing."

At the risk of the kind of reductionism that drives me crazy, there appear to be two schools of thought about terrorism. One holds that terrorism (or "militancy") will cease when there no longer is an excuse (e.g., occupation) for the terrorism. The other holds that the terrorists must be defeated, if necessary by imprisoning or killing them.

Aftenposten holds the first school to be self-evident - that the only possible reason why PIJ, Hamas, Hizballah, Fatah, Al Qaeda, etc., murder is that they have a legitimate grievance. While the means might be deplorable, a PC person would concede that the ends are just.

I've always been struck by the irony that so many on the radical left-wing seem to think that a totalitarian "secular" regime in Iraq is preferable to Westernization, or that a nasty, misogynistic regime in Afghanistan is preferable to what's going on there now. It's even more ironic that the main driving force behind Palestinian terrorism is blatant nationalism, something the socialists claim is way beneath them.

Leif,

Exactly. This is the marxist approach to terrorism: there must be an oppressive state and economic inequalities behind it.

Fact is, terrorist leaders, or even rank and file, are rarely poor and deprieved. They are upper middle class, sometimes upper class, like Bin Laden. There grievances are ideological, even if they may use marxist jargon.

There were no real grievances behind the extreme-left terrorism in Europe of the 70s that needed to be met with understanding. Their terror was rooted in fanatical devotion to absurd ideas (in their case, marxism). They were broken not by giving in to any demands, but by brutal suppression (sometimes at the cost of civil liberties).

Heck, that was the time when Germany, France and Italy were tough on terror, and the US were soft (looking the other way while Irish-Americans funded and aided the IRA). The US has learned the lessons Europe learned back then, and continental Europe has forgotten them.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/511