Worthington: We must not waver This is what the war on terror's about, says peter worthington By PETER WORTHINGTON
IF ANYTHING was needed to prove that the U.S.-British war on terrorism is correct and necessary, the co-ordinated bombings in London are such proof.
While it may be premature to conclusively identify the perpetrators, there can be no dispute that this was raw terrorism -- aimed at disrupting the G8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland but also aimed at Britain's alliance with the U.S. in trying to bring democracy to Iraq.
There will be faint hearts who will blame the aggressive policies of U.S. President George Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair for this terrorist violence.
If so, that's superficial and wrong.
In the past 40 years of increasing terrorist violence around the world, it has become clear that appeasement or conciliation does not deter terrorism -- it encourages it.
While London symbolizes the civilized heart of the English-speaking world, it also symbolizes courage and resistance to tyranny, as proven during the Blitz in World War II.
Londoners are unlikely to crumble before terror, be it the IRA or Islamic extremism. Life will go on. It's the outside world that needs to understand what is going on here.
Even though the G8 Summit may be the trigger for the London attacks, the "war" in Iraq is more significant.
The goal of Islamic terrorism against America and Britain and their allies is not merely to defeat them in Iraq, but to defeat democracy as a concept and way of life.
A THREAT TO TYRANNY
If genuine democracy can be introduced as a way of life in Iraq, tyranny in all Islamic dictatorships is threatened. That's why Iraq's neighbours -- Syria and Iran -- are so fearful of democracy's success in Iraq.
That should never be ignored about the Middle East and its politics.
Of some 40 Islamic countries, probably Turkey comes closest to practicing democracy -- sometimes tentatively and imprecisely, but certainly progressively.
Since 9/11 shocked the U.S. out of its lethargy and hesitant response to terror (the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen), vast changes have occurred in the Middle East.
Libya has renounced terror and nuclear weapons and now poses as a peacemaker, Lebanon has ousted Syria's military, Egypt has begun partially free elections (as has Saudi Arabia), Palestine has held real elections, suicidal bombings against Israel have eased, peace talks have a glimmer of hope.
Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that dictatorship can be replaced with political choice. This isn't lost on tyrants -- or their victims.
Hence a certain desperation in terror attacks. Some are susceptible to intimidation -- but not the Brits, nor the Americans.
MISCALCULATION BY ENEMIES
The terror attack on London is more likely to harden than to undermine British grit. Britain's enemies always miscalculate her resolve.
Historically, when times get tough, the British get tougher. Look at the British army -- tending to lose all battles except the last one.
Many countries have experienced terrorism: America, Britain, Russia, France, Spain, Japan, Morocco, Thailand, Egypt and others.
Inevitably the London attack will result in more security. That's increasingly a reality of the 21st century.
Curiously, one country that has escaped what could be called Islamic terror is Canada -- not because we are more vigilant and alert, but because we are useful to potential terrorists.
Our strange laws require that any who claim to be refugees, even though they enter Canada fraudulently with false passports and a background of training in terrorist camps, cannot be deported without years of reviews and appeals, often while living on welfare with medical and legal advice.
Why would any terror organization jeopardize this convenient status by committing a terrorist act here and possibly provoke Canada's government into tightening the rules?
Meanwhile, we can sympathize with the Brits, join the CBC in blaming `Bush, and feel our neutrality protects us from bad guys.
