Iraq is the Fort Benning of Terrorism

Or so it has been suggested.  That is, were those responsible for the London terror bombings grown in Iraq and sent to do harm in London? Wretchard at The Belmont Club has a great series of posts regarding the London attacks, but this one specifically looks at the question above as well as the available options and ability of terrorist cells during the post Iraq war environment.  A taste:

From a technical point of view the London bombings, when compared to their counterparts in Iraq, the West Bank or Beirut, have the look of marked poverty. The quantity of explosives employed was in the tens of kilos max. This is far less than the Canary Wharf bomb employed by the IRA which was rated at 500 kg. For that matter, it was much less powerful that Timothy McVeigh's device at Oklahoma city. It was nothing compared to what blew Hariri sky-high in Beirut. The weapon of choice in Iraq, the trademark of Zaraqawi, is the car bomb. If we had seen a car bomb used in London, then we might say, 'aha! An Iraqi insurgent has come to mentor the British Al Qaeda cell'. That might still be true; but there is no obvious way one can get from Iraq to the London operation. Occam's Razor urges a simpler conclusion: that Al Qaeda's British minions either didn't have enough explosive to do worse or they didn't have the know-how to assemble a bigger bomb. It might still be argued that Al Qaeda is 'holding back' -- that it "reserved its best operatives for attacks against Europe and the United States while sending its foot soldiers into the trenches in Iraq" -- toying with the West really, teasing it with these tiny little bombs when it was capable of much more. Mark Steyn in the Telegraph argued that this self-restraint theory made no sense. The London attack was as deadly as Al Qaeda could make it. They would have blown up 30 trains if they had the means. Certainly it was not the milk of human kindness that stayed their hand.

Of course, read the whole thing.  I might suggest that what Wretchard writes about makes the assumption, it seems to me, that those responsible for the London bombings are the same as those in Iraq.  In that they both believe in the Al-Qaeda fight and wish to join in, there is no question; but as to some connection - they were trained, financed, sent on a mission, etc. from cells in or around Iraq, or even some central station from which all terrorists emanate is to me a stretch. I rather think those responsible for what occured in London did it themselves, without much word from some higher source, much as many of those fighting in Iraq itself came on their own and were both embraced by Bin-Ladenites, and/or used the name of Bin Laden to gain some seeming credibility within the terrorist community.  I've no doubt that those fighting against us in Iraq take great pleasure and satisfaction from what happened in London, but as for it being coordinated, I am not convinced.

Still and all, I think the argument that the Islamofascists are over-extended, as much as we might be or more, is a perfectly valid one. Further, it has the ring of truth to it evident in the size of the London attack.  This is not traditional warfare and the fronts are much less defined, as is the foe.  Whether those fighting us in Afghanistan or Iraq (or anywhere else) are connected is immaterial.  Both wish to do us harm, practicing the exact same method of warfare.  And one must consider Iraq a front in the war on terror, as central and vital as any other front.  And on that front we are pressing them hard.  More from Wretchard:

The inevitable question then is 'why could Bin Laden not find the means to attack 30 trains?' The answer it seems to me, must be Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and hundred other places where he is engaged without quarter by US forces. Resources, whether Jihadi or no are not infinite. They do not have some magical machine that allows them to be everywhere at once, to sustain losses yet grow. There's no free lunch, not even, and especially not for Bin Laden. If it were true that Islamism would shrivel faster were it pursued more passively, then pre-911 policy should have finished it by now. But what we empirically observe is that ignoring them allowed them to mount 911-scale attack. Hit them continuously and in four years they could scrape together enough to blow up a London bus and some subway trains.

So regardless of exactly where the Islamists came from in London, the point is they failed to mount anything larger.  Each incident since 9/11 has seen less carnage and damage.  This must indicate a lack of ability, because as Mark Steyn noted above, "certainly it was not the milk of human kindness that stayed their hand."  As I have stated before on this blog - yes, Iraq may have caused more fundamentalists to join in the terrorist cause, but that only means that those inclined for such are then put in harms way.  A dead terrorist does not place bombs on subways or fly planes into buildings killing innocents.  Between that and giving people prone to such activity an alternate - that is liberty and a chance for growth and wealth - I think the situation will eventually cause the balance to fall in our favor.  Question is - can we see that happen before the general public grows too complacent or self interested once more and tires of the conflict?  It is my biggest worry.  That is all.

Comments

[Keiper]

Zarqawi isn't an international terrorist is he? I was under the impression he's just a local terrorist.