by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 1, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

ess than two years since home-grown terrorists detonated bombs on London's Tube killing 55 bystanders July 7, 2005, mischief-makers were up to their old tricks, packing a Mercedes Benz with a deadly mix of gasoline, propane canisters and nails in Piccadilly Circus. While President George W. Bush sees Iraq as the “central front in the war on terror,” Londoners are beginning to see the battlefield in their own backyard. Bush frequently warns that Iraq's terrorists have their eyes set on the U.S., while supplying no such proof. Bogged down in Iraq, the U.S. military finds itself fighting a defensive guerrilla war against a shadowy enemy, hell-bent on wreaking havoc by booby-trapping with Improvised Explosive Devices {IEDs] and Explosively Formed Penetrators [EFPs], killing record numbers of U.S. troops. It's doubtful whether the Iraq war has helped the global war on terror.

      Placing car bombs in the heavily populated tourist areas like Piccadilly Circus was designed to cause “significant injury or loss of life,” according to British anti-terror police chief Peter Clarke. Unlike the U.S. that was attacked Sept. 11, 2001 by 19 foreign terrorists, largely from Saudi Arabia, the 2005 U.K. incident involved homegrown terrorists, mostly of Pakistani extraction. Scotland Yard reported that a second vehicle, towed and impounded in Central London, was also wired and packed with explosives. “There was a considerable amount of gas canisters. As in the first vehicle, there was also a quantity of nails. This like the first device was potentially viable,” said Clarke, elevating Britain's threat index to “severe.” Britain's new Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in his first week on the job, expressed grave concern about the prospects of more terror on British streets.

      While Britain faces its own problems with terrorists, some experts blame former Prime Minister Tony Blair's unqualified support of Bush's Iraq War. Others doubt whether terrorists are sophisticated enough to try to influence the government's foreign policy. It's also unknown whether Washington's announcement this week about Blair serving as a special Middle East envoy had any effect. “We are currently facing the most serious and sustained threat to our security from international terrorism,” Britain's new home secretary Jacqui Smith told and emergency meeting of top-officials, concerned about the growing threat of terror. According to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), British authorities retrieved a mobile phone identified as a remote control detonator. An unnamed British official indicated that the car bombs resembled those found by allied forces in Iraq.

      Conservative backers of Bush's anti-terror policy, including his strategy in Iraq, believe that the war on terror must be fought with the military, not law enforcement. Britain has used its domestic spy agency MI5 to successfully intercept terror plots. While the White House likes to point out that no terror plot has occurred since Sept. 11, it's also true that the CIA and FBI have been heavily involved in monitoring and intercepting possible threats. “I will stress to the Cabinet that the vigilance must be maintained over the next few days,” said Prime Minister Gordon Brown, insisting the U.K.'s terror alert remain maxed out. While lobbying to become prime minister, Brown was highly critical of Blair's Iraq policy, believing it exacerbated Britian's terror threat. Brown will have to decide soon whether it's time to pull out of Iraq or continue to support Bush's current policy.

      Bush insists that al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq are the same ones that plotted and carried out Sept. 11. White House officials also insist that al-Qaida cells in the U.K. and elsewhere are also tied to Osama bin Laden, the Sept. 11 mastermind, apparently hiding in the mountainous no-man's-land between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Painting the broad Al-Qaida brush helped Bush make his disastrous detour into Iraq, claiming, on the eve of war in 2003, that Iraqi agents met with Mohammed Atta, the Sept. 11 ringleader, in Prague, Czech Republic. Neither was that meeting ever confirmed nor was the ballyhooed relationship between Iraq's al-Qaida point-man, Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden. When U.S. forces killed Zarqawi June 7, 2006, Iraq's insurgency was supposed to weaken. Since then, the U.S. has witnessed a steady rise in injuries, casualties and chaos.

      Britain's latest foiled terror plot reminds the government to take a hard look at its Iraq policy. Brown promised to extricate Britain from Iraq, believing it makes the U.K. less safe. With growing pressure on Republicans in the U.S. congress, Bush will be forced to consider an exit strategy before next year's presidential elections. White House backers have accused war critics of a “surrender policy” and supporting U.S. enemies. Brown will most likely chose to exit Iraq, if, for no other reason, to anticipate Bush's next moves before the 2008 presidential elections. “It's a way of testing Gordon Brown,” said Bob Ayres, a security expert at the London-based Chatham House think tank. “It's not too farfetched to assume it was designed to expedite the decision to withdrawal [from Iraq].” While the military has its place, recent events have proved its best to fight terror with intelligence agencies and local law enforcement.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.