Inserting a few words into my comment to prevent bug emergence, Wikipedia's coverage of the events seems to be quite good. They've got a timeline, a translation of the terrorist claim of responsibility, statements from world leaders, lots of links.

Shouldn't we reserve words like "devastating" for stuff like nuclear bombs, rather than civilian damage equivalent to a poorly targeted Mk. 82? If this event had happened in Iraq (where only Arabs got killed) it would be big news here at WoC (provided the USG wasn't responsible), but few elsewhere would care.

TJ:

We do not know the casualty numbers yet, but devastating it certainly is.

A Mark 82 in the field of battle in Iraq has quite a different psychological effect than a Mark 82 in downtown London.

Respectfully, your characterization misses the 'mark', sir.

I tend to focus on the possitive effects Bill speaks to regarding this attack. It should serve as a regrettable clarifying clarion call to the West.

Western leaders are gathered in a single place for the G8, will be forced to discuss this issue in a meaningful fashion and will sideline issues that drained resources and attention for the West, such as Global Warming and African debt relief.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that this may be what the Islamofascists want. AQ has two primary sources of recruits: the mid-east and Africa. AQ has long been active in Africa, see Somalia and the Kenyan embassy bombings.

If the G8 were to actually form effective aid programs for Africa, the result could well be an undercutting of AQ there, just like democracy is seen to undercut AQ in the mid-east.

AQ may hope that the African aid talks are lost in the noise of their attack to prevent us from essentually opening another front in Africa, and fighting them useing options other than war.

StargazerA5

I might be inclined to agree with Stargazer, accept that if AQ is smart enough to know that then they are smart enough to know the proposed aid dump is simply going to go into the pockets of thugs likely to be friendly to their cause.

Based on initial reports, the operation mirrors that of the 3-11 assault on Madrid, Spain days prior to their national election. Multiple trains and stations were hit with backpack bombs during rush hour, inflicting over 200 deaths and a thousand wounded.

There are some differences: five (one unexploded) bombs in London, 12 (two unexploded) in Madrid, all of them in four trains of the same commuter line. The City wasn't deliberately attacked in Madrid and the bombs went off earlier, at 7:35, because they were targeting a clear segment of the population, in order to change the result of the elections (it was a far more political attack, not only pure terror). Moreover the explosions happened within seconds, so no evacutation was possible.

Sadly, above zero is always too many when you talk about innocent victims.

The unexploded bomb could be important. Fingerprints, design, maybe even tracing the components.

"Shouldn't we reserve words like "devastating" for stuff like nuclear bombs, rather than civilian damage equivalent to a poorly targeted Mk. 82?"

In my opinion nuclear bombs are not devastating they are horrific. Again that's just my opinion.

"If this event had happened in Iraq (where only Arabs got killed) it would be big news here at WoC (provided the USG wasn't responsible), but few elsewhere would care."

Are we relegating WoC to blasé content not cared by anyone at all from a national / global perspective? I don't think so. Mainstream media bias may not want to report on the issue but I'm sure some political pundit would.

The question remains: Will London pull a Madrid and lose support for the war in Iraq or will it only lead to more solidarity with the US?

Interesting reader comment that showed up at The Corner a few minutes ago regarding When Terrorism Works vs. Responses to Terrorism

John: Not a Chance.

The Usual Suspects will be crying the virtues of understanding and therapy, but the British people are by and large a tough people, if occaisinally complacent.

Ever met a British Marine or an SAS chap?

The don't import them fom elsewhere, they come from British families.

Rest assured, Britain will be steeled...while the media allots a disproportionate share of Mic-Time to the Usual Suspects.

I know most of today's news has been overshadowed by the terrible bombings in London, but thought you might find this interesting and worthy of discussion too.

"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-363663,00.html

You will find Westhawk's comments about the London attack at westhawk.blogspot.com.

We would like to introduce you to Westhawk, a new blog covering national security and diplomacy.

Text to display

Recent posts discuss:

· The London subway bombings and what they mean for U.S. border security and U.S. domestic politics,
· The CIA claims that the U.S. is effectively running a training camp for jihadists in Iraq. Is this true?
· A discussion of the insurgents’ war plan in Iraq,
· Which side is closer to winning in Iraq, and what Coalition tactic really matters,
· Why the U.S. Army is going out of business,
· What post-war Iraq will likely look like and what it means for U.S. geo-political strategy,
· What the U.S. should do about North Korea and what it means for the future of nuclear weapons proliferation.

We hope you find westhawk.blogspot.com useful and we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Text to display

As soon as I understood the magnitude and tactics of the attack, I was certain that this was an al'Qaida or affiliated operation. As we'll be hearing quite frequently in the next few days and weeks, this bears a great many of their operational fingerprints:

o The obsession with public transport systems as both targets and tools

o The early morning timing of the attacks

o The synchronization of the attacks (which remains an impressive display of organization)

o The focus on splashy body counts.

I'd like to offer the following additional observations:

First, I don't think this was meant to coincide with the announcement of the London 2012 Olympics. No organization outside the olympics committee knew that London would be the beneficiary. The favorite, as I understand it, was Paris. Anyone planning to disrupt a celebration would have targetted Paris, not London. And because of the inherent unpredictability of that situation, with its five potential geographic targets, I doubt very highly that the announcement was ever designated as a social target. It's simply too risky an operation, and simply impossible to pull together on such a short time budget.

Second, I think that the G8 timing and location do play to this, but not in the way that I've seen suggested here. (At least not primarily.) Speifically, because of the G8 meetings in Scotland, the bulk of the nation's security apparatus was necessarily focussed on providing protection to the collection of world leaders gathering there. The Scotland meeting has been known well in advance, thus giving al`Qaida and their affiliates plenty of time to plan an attack... somewhere else, at the moment of maximum distraction.

So this strikes me as an elaborate strike of opportunity at a moment and place of known weakness.

Third, that said, any possible disruption of a G8 conference can only play well to al`Qaida, at least to their thinking. I simply think this was a secondary concern. The West and the Islamo-Fascists are engaged in a strategic struggle to determine who holds the monopoly on violence in what they would like to resurrect as the Caliphate. (The Islamo-Fascists, of course, would like to retain that monopoly in perpetuity; the West, in its more benign impulses, would like to establish the monopoly and then gradually transfer it back to local control.)

The strategic thinkers in al`Qaida cannot be unaware of the virtuous, mutually reinforcing cycle of liberty, security, and trade wealth. Thus, striking out at the G8, debt relief, globalization, and all the ancillary movements associated with them does make good strategic sense, if they really achieve disruption.

(It remains to be seen whether this will really constitute a disruption. Blair is a politician both skilled and lucky. He may yet turn this into a mobilizing event. More power to him.)

So what I suspect happened, is that one or more of the top tier strategic thinkers expressed a desire for something to happen this weekend, and the street-level operatives decided-- as always-- to take the path of least resistance and maximum cowardice, striking not simply where security was weakest, but where the targets were primarily civilians.

Fourth, on a less useful level, I remember fondly the outpouring of support that the United States recieved from around the world after the September 11th atrocity. If-- when-- the notion of donations to the British, even if they're nothing more than flowers fo condolence on the embassy grounds, matures into organization, I would request that WoC make that information public in a blog entry.

As soon as I understood the magnitude and tactics of the attack, I was certain that this was an al'Qaida or affiliated operation. As we'll be hearing quite frequently in the next few days and weeks, this bears a great many of their operational fingerprints:

o The obsession with public transport systems as both targets and tools

o The early morning timing of the attacks

o The synchronization of the attacks (which remains an impressive display of organization)

o The focus on splashy body counts.

I'd like to offer the following additional observations:

First, I don't think this was meant to coincide with the announcement of the London 2012 Olympics. No organization outside the olympics committee knew that London would be the beneficiary. The favorite, as I understand it, was Paris. Anyone planning to disrupt a celebration would have targetted Paris, not London. And because of the inherent unpredictability of that situation, with its five potential geographic targets, I doubt very highly that the announcement was ever designated as a social target. It's simply too risky an operation, and simply impossible to pull together on such a short time budget.

Second, I think that the G8 timing and location do play to this, but not in the way that I've seen suggested here. (At least not primarily.) Speifically, because of the G8 meetings in Scotland, the bulk of the nation's security apparatus was necessarily focussed on providing protection to the collection of world leaders gathering there. The Scotland meeting has been known well in advance, thus giving al`Qaida and their affiliates plenty of time to plan an attack... somewhere else, at the moment of maximum distraction.

So this strikes me as an elaborate strike of opportunity at a moment and place of known weakness.

Third, that said, any possible disruption of a G8 conference can only play well to al`Qaida, at least to their thinking. I simply think this was a secondary concern. The West and the Islamo-Fascists are engaged in a strategic struggle to determine who holds the monopoly on violence in what they would like to resurrect as the Caliphate. (The Islamo-Fascists, of course, would like to retain that monopoly in perpetuity; the West, in its more benign impulses, would like to establish the monopoly and then gradually transfer it back to local control.)

The strategic thinkers in al`Qaida cannot be unaware of the virtuous, mutually reinforcing cycle of liberty, security, and trade wealth. Thus, striking out at the G8, debt relief, globalization, and all the ancillary movements associated with them does make good strategic sense, if they really achieve disruption.

(It remains to be seen whether this will really constitute a disruption. Blair is a politician both skilled and lucky. He may yet turn this into a mobilizing event. More power to him.)

So what I suspect happened, is that one or more of the top tier strategic thinkers expressed a desire for something to happen this weekend, and the street-level operatives decided-- as always-- to take the path of least resistance and maximum cowardice, striking not simply where security was weakest, but where the targets were primarily civilians.

Fourth, on a less useful level, I remember fondly the outpouring of support that the United States recieved from around the world after the September 11th atrocity. If-- when-- the notion of donations to the British, even if they're nothing more than flowers of condolence on the embassy grounds, matures into organization, I would request that WoC make that information public in a blog entry.

Support for Bush's war in Iraq is waning because most people are beginning to see it has very little or nothing at all to do with global terrorism.

This attack will only reinforce that growing perception.

I don't think the West's preoccupation/fear of terrorism should be viewed as positively as you seem to. Global warming and African debt relief are real problems that affect many more people's lives than terrorism. But for some, I guess you among them, find them much more, shall we say, boring to deal with.

"Support for Bush's war in Iraq is waning because most people are beginning to see it has very little or nothing at all to do with global terrorism.

This attack will only reinforce that growing perception."

Huh? If Britain suffered a terrorist attack partly because they are in the Iraq Coalition, how does Iraq have little or nothing to do with global terrorism? Dont you find that, er, completely incoherant?

"Global warming and African debt relief are real problems that affect many more people's lives than terrorism. "

Tell that to the Londoners digging their countrymen out of the metro you glib SOB.

Trolls, Mark. Be strong.

Right. Iraq has nothing to do with combating terrorism.

That's why glorious Jihadis are apparently not streaming over from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

That's why Hizballah in Lebanon is (not, apparently) even putting on the face of a political organization after the iraqi-election/Hariri Assassination induced Lebanese demand for Syrian pullout & honest democratic elections.

That's why a lot of things apparently are not happening...because Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or terrorists.

Who, exactly, are we fighting in Iraq?

Reach out and grab a clue, Elias. It's right there.

I am interested in two results of this bombing:

Will this change people's politics in England? For examples, 9/11 moved America more right. While, 3/11 moved Spain more left.

Is there any backlash against Islam in England? For example, The IRA's formation resulted in a huge backlash going so far as non-governmental paramilitary groups forming to combat the IRA.

>>A Mark 82 in the field of battle in Iraq has quite a different psychological effect than a Mark 82 in downtown London.

Some months ago, some Marines called down airstrikes on a hospital in Fallujah. (Presumably this was a mistake, as no Marines would ever be involved with the terrorist atrocity of intentionally bombing a hospital.) I'd like you to explain how the psychological impact of the Fallujah incident differed from that of today's attack.

>>Are we relegating WoC to blasé content not cared by anyone at all from a national / global perspective? I don't think so. Mainstream media bias may not want to report on the issue but I'm sure some political pundit would.

Clarification: WoC coverage of car bombings by terrorists against Iraqi civilians is commendable and important, IMHO. That said, the general population probably couldn't care less. This reflects negatively on the MSM and general population, not on the WoC team.

>>Sadly, above zero is always too many when you talk about innocent victims.

Indeed.

Will this change people's politics in England? For examples, 9/11 moved America more right. While, 3/11 moved Spain more left.

What moved Spain left, that is, what changed one million votes out of 23, was the irresponsible Socialist opposition and the PRISA media group manipulation, not the attack by itself.

"Some months ago, some Marines called down airstrikes on a hospital in Fallujah. (Presumably this was a mistake, as no Marines would ever be involved with the terrorist atrocity of intentionally bombing a hospital.) I'd like you to explain how the psychological impact of the Fallujah incident differed from that of today's attack."

From whose point of view? From a victims point of view the answer IMO would be no different than one of stunning shock in either case.

From a delivery stand point one could reasonably argue that both were planned and intentional retaliations for egregious reasons. Difference being our armed forces try to avoid civilian casualties. This does not mean they will not happen. The terrorists on the other hand intentionally target civilians.

Mark,

I agree that if it's just more money poured down that sink hole, it won't accomplish much and the Islamofacists have nothing to fear. What I hope is the difference this time is that the ineffectiveness of these aid programs is getting more attention and there were stories that Bush was dissatisfied by this ineffecetiveness. Having the President of the US push to make changes, especially if he coordinated with Blair, and used the rest of Europe's rhetoric against them, then a new path could be forged.

I don't know if this would happen or not, but if I were AQ, I would be worried about the possibility of it happening.

StargazerA5

Presumably this was a mistake, as no Marines would ever be involved with the terrorist atrocity of intentionally bombing a hospital.

And the obvious corolary to this remark: The enemy would never conduct military operations out of a hospital, a mosque or school, right?

The hospital was being used as a fortified military location by al-Qaeda fighters. As such, it loses its protected status under the laws of war, and is no different from bombing any other building. The atrocity is on the part of those who use hospitals for such purposes, in defiance of the laws of war.

Or [sarcasm on] maybe the folks in Fallujah were drafted, and decided to blow up something nearby as their response [/end sarcasm].

As for Iraq, fortunately, Zarqawi has his own defeatists it seems. As always, wars are won by will as well as capability. This is even more true for the GWOT, a war with 4th generation dimesnions.

The British refused to be broken before, and the atacks only seemmed to spur on their response. They had good leadership, and it made a difference. Tony Blair was understated but good today, and that's cause for hope.

They'll definitely go after the Islamist networks in their country, but many of the legal obstacles (like the ones that prevent deportation of known terrorists) probably won't be repealed unless there are several more bombings and it becomes a "do it or we'll elect someone who will" issue.

I don't know how many minds any of this will change, though. For a significant segment of the left, a nuke going off in a Western city would offer them a greater helping of schadenfreude but not change their view of the West as The Main Enemy. Many left-liberals would wonder what they had done to provoke it. What you're left with are those who had been living in denial, or who experience a "Kronstadt moment" as they note their colleagues reactions and reconsider the company they keep. It's never many, but the converts tend to be activated by the experience and become vocal.

And then there's those beyond who use the incident to strengthen their existing resolve to win, or change the way they view the struggle. Sometimes this is immediate, as in 9/11. Sometimes it's a slow burn, as Spain's non-socialists are starting to wonder just how intertwined some of their opponents were with 3/11.

As I've said before, our saving grace in this war continues to be our enemies.

And may Zarqawi's defeatists prove stronger than our defeatists.

"I'd like you to explain how the psychological impact of the Fallujah incident differed from that of today's attack."

The same way getting accidently clipped by a cop in a police chase differs from being intentionally run down on the sidewalk. Intent.

"Some months ago, some Marines called down airstrikes on a hospital in Fallujah. (Presumably this was a mistake, as no Marines would ever be involved with the terrorist atrocity of intentionally bombing a hospital.) I'd like you to explain how the psychological impact of the Fallujah incident differed from that of today's attack."

because basically, by a few months ago, most folks in Iraq had decided what side they were on, and, being in the middle of a war zone, were pretty commited to whatever their approach was. Ergo Shiites, Kurds, and the few pro-coalition Sunni Arabs probably ignored the hospital bombing, the pro-insurgent folks were only confirmed in their opinions, and the inbetweeners among the Sunnis, who knew Fallujah for what it was, and how the insurgents did use hospitals, etc were probably only marginally shifted in the direction of the insurgents. Not a hearts and minds win, but a small incident compared to the whole battle of Fallujah.

Whereas folks in the UK have, I think, considered themselves largely at peace,and the WOT as not all that salient.

Thanks for saving me an entire post Joe.

I'd have never been able to summarize into a comment to my own satisfaction.

T.J. -

Well, by limiting the issue to the 'psychological difference' you're loading the dice a bit, but I'll suggest three things:

1) that destruction through error or accident in the context of a war zone is far different than damage unleashed deliberately in an area at peace;

2) that the agents of the damage in Fallouja are identifiable, and - to the extent that someone chooses to - can be identified and attacked. The agents of the death and destruction in London hide in civilian identities;

3) if the West chose to unleash a real campaign of terror and destruction in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East, we could do it in twenty minutes without risking any of our troops. We don't, and we place our soldiers at extraordinary hazard to minimize destruction caused by error or accident. I don;t think the same can be said of AQ or Hezbollah.

A.L.

Very well then.

>>Or [sarcasm on] maybe the folks in Fallujah were drafted, and decided to blow up something nearby as their response [/end sarcasm].

It would certainly be great if these A-Q assholes started getting fragged by angry neighbors who were sick of taking their ^&*%. Some time before the Fallujah assault there were rumors that some of that might be in the works. Didn't seem to materialize.

TJ... good news is indeed to be found - what you describe did take place, in Qaim. Also in Najaf against Muqtada al-Sadr. And my favourite is still the store owner who gunned down 5 terrorists in a 30-minute battle because they were harassing him. Ah, the right to bear arms!

Reactions are also brewing elsewhere (keep reading...)

>>And my favourite is still the store owner who gunned down 5 terrorists in a 30-minute battle because they were harassing him.

I had forgotten about that guy. We need more of them.

Just a quick word from London: I agree with T.J. Madison that this was not "devastating" - nor was it unexpected. Indeed, it's hard to see how it would change anyone's mind about anything, as nobody should have been all that surprised.

It wasn't much larger than previous terrorist attacks we've had in London.

When we get devastated, I'll let you know.