by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 8, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

aking its lumps in the “war on terror,” Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror machine struck London's Underground and a double-decker bus, detonating four separate charges within an hour during morning rush hour. Only one day before, the U.K. celebrated the International Olympic Committee's selection of London for the 2112 games. Over 50 deaths and 700 injuries marked Britain's heavy price for supporting the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spain endured deadly attacks in Madrid on its subway March 11, 2004, killing 191 commuters. While Spain's attack affected national elections and precipitated a withdrawal from Iraq, Britain vowed to not be cowed. “We will not allow violence to change our societies or values, nor will we allow it to stop the work of this summit,” said British Prime Minister Tony Blair, returning to London from a G-8 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland.

      In the months leading up to Blair's May 6 reelection, he sustained a relentless pounding in the press and public opinion on his Iraq policy. Viewed as a patsy to the White House, Blair skated on thin ice and was expected to retire, abbreviating his next term. After the euphoria of landing the Olympics, Thursday's terrorist attacks strengthen Blair's hand, and, likewise, do the same for President George W. Bush, whose own terrorism policies, especially in Iraq, has come under fire in recent months. Declining poll numbers dropping his approval rating to 45% were largely attributable to Bush's war on terror, allowing Osama bin Laden, his al-Qaida counterpart in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and many key Taliban figures to run amok. London's bombings raise concerns about Bush's war on terror and, more importantly, whether his Iraq policy needs an urgent overhaul.

      Deploying 138,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, diverted valuable assets from Afghanistan and other destinations in the war on terror. London's bombings also raise concerns about the lack of actionable intelligence on which to take preemptive action. Few people have questioned yet how MI6—Britain's equivalent of the CIA—missed all possible clues. Arguing that the attacks “could have been a lot worse” is no excuse for the current intelligence breakdown. Planting bombs at four separate locations should have been picked up by some element of British intelligence or law enforcement. Reviewing surveillance videos doesn't explain how al-Qaida slipped under the radar screen. Bush insists that fighting in Iraq will prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil or other foreign locations. With al-Qaida terror cells proliferating, Bush's theory seems more and more farfetched.

      White House officials like to remind skeptics that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11. While that's true, it's also true that Bin Laden's henchman take years to plan the next mission. Concluding that the Iraq war has kept al-Qaida from attacking the U.S. or any other country rationalizes the current policy that deploys nearly 25% of the armed services in Iraq. There's no excuse for Bin Laden to operate on foreign soil, when the White House claims he's on the run. When a U.S. Chinook helicopter was shot down July 17 in Afghanistan killing at least 17 special forces on a secret mission pursuing Bin Laden, the public despaired about capturing the world's most notorious terrorist. Whether Bin Laden works independent of foreign terror cells is anyone's guess. It's exasperating to know that he still gives spiritual inspiration to Islamic radicals.

      London's bombings give rise to more questions about the White House strategy on combating terror. Taking the fight to the enemy doesn't mean getting bogged down battling an unending insurgency in Iraq. While Bush asks for more patience, young Americans pay the ultimate price. There's no evidence that democratizing Iraq will change al-Qaida's global calculus of recruiting Islamic radicals into its global cells. “There will of course now be the most intense police and security service action to make sure that we bring those responsible to justice,” said Blair, redoubling efforts by MI6 and Scotland Yard to flush out terrorists. Local intelligence and law enforcement won't change Bin Laden's global terror network, hell-bent on reshaping the world's political landscape. Blair must go to the U.N. Security Council and fashion a multinational strategy for combating al-Qaida.

      London's bombings reflect another failure of today's war on terror. It's not enough to find a silver lining that only 50 deaths and 700 injuries spared Britain a far worse catastrophe. U.S. and British officials must press the U.N. Security Council to fashion a real strategy that sanctions foreign governments that aid, abet or in anyway support terrorism, including selling arms to outlaws and rogue regimes. While Londoners won't be cowed, there's no escaping the heightened fear connected with bombing the Underground. Bush and Blair must do more than condemn the attacks or, for that matter, strengthen their resolve in Iraq. They must recognize that there's no correlation between terrorist attacks in Iraq and mayhem in London. U.S. and British intelligence and law enforcement must do a better job of rooting out al-Qaida cells at home and abroad.

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.