He starts off claiming that the War on Terror is a "bad cause". He then wastes a lot of "ink" basically saying that the bombings in Istanbul reinforce the views of George Bush and Tony Blair.
He then says
it is bad taste, but true, to say that if the only way of protecting ourselves worldwide is through enhanced security and the violent pursuit of those who threaten us, then all is lost. If the al-Qaeda network is as our leaders describe it, then what force on earth can surround every Briton and British interest abroad with armour, proof against a suicide bomber? We must resign ourselves to decades of exposure to random explosions all over the globe, directed against ourselves and against those who do business with us. Alongside the Americans, our two nations will pay the price alone.He claims that Britain could have avoided this by allowing the US to battle Al Qaeda "alone". Here he is clearly wrong. Al Qaeda is being battled by the French, Germans, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Turks, Spanish, Morrocans, Australians and many, many other countries, including Ireland.
I guess he has forgotten the Bali bombing, the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia, the bombings in Casablanca, etc. Amazingly, he seems to have forgotten the bombs in Instanbul last weekend. No, the price is being paid globally. And, he has also ignored President Bush's calls - two in recent weeks - for greater freedom and opportunity in the Middle East. So, it is not only through "enhanced security and violient pursuit" that we are protecting ourselves.
We are also working to provide freedom and opportunity so that young men have better options than suicide bombing. The US has rejoined UNESCO and paid past dues in a bid to ensure that the poor Islamic children get a better education that what they've been getting from the Madrassas.
The end of the article is the best, however. He says "attack is not the answer", but then he doesn't tell us what is. But, he does tell us where to find it - "in that complex, fragmentary, doubt-provoking knowledge we call truth".
