While I do agree, for the most part, with the author of the article, his analysis of the situation seems somewhat superficial. First, the attacks in London will likely not spark significant increases in support for the Bush Administration, at home nor abroad. One simply has to watch the evening news to see that American casualties inflicted by the Iraqi insurgency are chipping away at popular support for the war. So why would a small-scale attack in the UK be any different?
Within the United Kingdom, the attacks could also spell trouble for the Labour coalition government under PM Tony Blair. The war in Iraq is wildly unpopular among the British populus, causing support for Mr. Blair and his party to wain significantly. While he did achieve reelection, it was by the slimmest margin of his tenure as Prime Minister. Now, with al-Queda spilling blood on London's streets, public support for the war has no where else to go but down.
In regard to the G-8 Summit, I highly doubt it was meant to be disrupted by the attacks. The key to understanding the global jihadist movement is that it is based principally in the Muslim principle of justice. For example, Islamic extremists view American hegemony and encroachment on the Arabian peninsula as unjust, thus the Twin Towers (US financial dominance) and the Pentagon (US military dominance). The G-8's goals are not unjust--aiding a continent inhabited by a huge Muslim population. If the G-8 Summit was the real target, why not attack closer to Gleneagles and shake up the 8 most powerful men in the world a tad? Or perhaps attack the Live 8 concerts that occured worldwide, leaving hundreds of thousands of people virtually unprotected against attacks? Such questions lead me to believe that the attacks in London were motivated by the UK's presence in Iraq, not the G-8 Summit.
While I may have disagreed with a conservative, I personally concider myself very conservative. However, I believe in the politics of reality, not ideology. In order to more effectively combat terrorism worldwide, it is imperative that the U.S. avoids wagering public support from attack to attack, and focus on developing a more comprehensive strategy to combatting the insurgency worldwide--one that yields greater results.
Of course I could be totally wrong-just my opinion
"One simply has to watch the evening news to see that American casualties inflicted by the Iraqi insurgency are chipping away at popular support for the war. So why would a small-scale attack in the UK be any different?"
One simply has to watch the evening news to realize that dead soldiers are all the MSM cares about.
Yeah,
Because pictures of soldiers repainting schools would be so "newsworthy." No gives a shit about that stuff. The news IS the deaths. War has costs other than monetary. And those costs of war must ALWAYS be shared with the American public so we'll never forget. The whole "MSM hates the military" canard is stupid right-wing propaganda meant to take away from the Bush administration's clear deceit in going into Iraq.
Commenting by HaloScan
