The London attacks and the Bush Doctrine

Ivo Daalder has some thoughts on The True Face of Terrorism (TPM Cafe 07/07/05).

He points out how the London attacks are a reminder of the mistake for which he has criticized the Bush administration for years now, which is to regard the problem of terrorism as primarily an issue of state sponsors of terrorism:

From the very first moment following the 9/11 attacks, it was clear that the Bush administration operated on a flawed understanding of the terrorist threat we now faced. To it, a threat of this magnitude could come about only if states provided the essential support, which is why the administration focused less on combating the terrorists than on going after state sponsors -- first Afghanistan, then Iraq. Had Iraq not become a mess, Syria and Iran would have followed.

That is what Bush meant by the global war on terror: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," Bush declared on 9/11/01. Two days later, Paul Wolfowitz argued that the war would focus on "ending states who sponsor terrorism." ...

Today's terrorists are independent operators, beyond the control of any state.  They roam relatively freely around an interconnected world -- striking when they are ready and we least expect it. 

The best way to deal with that threat is not by invading countries, which often makes matters worse.  Rather, it requires greater international cooperation among the states capable and willing to deal with the threat. That should now be the principal focus of our counter-terrorism strategy.