This article implies that the answer is no. And, thanks to the failure of the Bush Administration to provide any reasonable method for evaluating success or failure in the war on terror the answer has to be taken as 'no'.
Yet, yet, if that's the case, then why would the enemy try to kill Dick Cheney? Surely his role in what is so 'obviously' the wrong approach would be welcomed by the enemy, no? And, therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that killing Cheney would be a dumb move by the Taliban/al Qaeda? Just a thought.
Something else that bothers me is the slightly slick management of the numbers as presented in the Independent's source for the article. I haven't gone into them in any detail, but the Independent's data comes from this article from Mother Jones.
Also undermining the argument that Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are being distracted from plotting against Western targets are the dangerous, anti-American plots that have arisen since the start of the Iraq War. Jihadist terrorists have attacked key American allies since the Iraq conflict began, mounting multiple bombings in London that killed 52 in July 2005, and attacks in Madrid in 2004 that killed 191. Shehzad Tanweer, one of the London bombers, stated in his videotaped suicide "will," "What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq." There have been six jihadist attacks on the home soil of the United States’ NATO allies (including Turkey) in the period after the invasion of Iraq, whereas there were none in the 18 months following 9/11 …Well, yeah, but what's glossed over here is the Bali Bombings. 200 people were killed in that attack, which yes, took place on Indonesian soil, but I think it can be safely said that Australians and other westerners were the target. 124 citizens from the 2003 'Coalition of the Willing' died in that attack, which took place before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They left out the Bali bombing because it makes their evidence look a lot less certain.
Look, all that really matters is winning and I'm not sure that this article makes a very strong case that we're not. I admire the Mother Jones effort, however. At least they're trying to establish facts regarding success/failure in the war on terror.
