Jihadists groups have carried various attacks for a whole host of reasons, some totally unrelated to Iraq.  Various disputes between Morocco and Spain seemed to have figured into the Madrid attack.  http://slate.msn.com/id/2097370" title="http://slate.msn.com/id/2097370" target="_blank"http://slate.msn.com/id/20973...  Pace Mr. Hiller, one explanation that continually falls flat is the notion that the Jihadists have attacked and will continue to attack is because "They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties".  The Swiss enjoy the same freedoms as Americans and Canadians do and no one thinks that Geneva is in immediate peril. 

As some have liked to say, it is what “we” do rather than who “we” are that explains it.  Al Qaeda brass has designs on the Middle East and they will use violence and advocate the use of violence to achieve their aims.  This includes bringing the war to the “far enemy” (i.e., those western states who impede in some way the prospects of a caliphate.)  

In order to rally their base, so to speak, in a war against the “far enemy”, Al Qaeda has focused on foreign occupation and or dominance of Muslim lands.  The difficulty for Al Qaeda and others of like mind is how to impose some sort of strategic matrix over the Jihadist world.   

Of late, they have been remarkably successful.   The Madrid bombing is something of a watershed in this respect.  Now, there was a lot made of the fact that in December of 2003 an article on a website was found indicating that the Jihadists wanted to influence the Spanish election.  This they did in a round about way.  The bombings set in motion a series of events that led to the conservative government’s defeat.  However, having driven a wedge between America and one of its allies the Jihadists almost drove everyone closer to the US by attempting to carry out an attack after Spain had already said it would pull out of Iraq.   The attack failed and the various Jihadists groups, including Al Qaeda tried to spin the failed attack as just a warning.  Indeed, Bin Laden went so far as offer a truce.  “THIS is a message to our neighbours north of the Mediterranean Sea with a proposal for a truce in response to the positive reactions which emerged there.    ….

I offer a truce to them [Europe] with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including [participating] in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world. This first truce can be renewed upon expiry and the establishment of a new government agreed upon by both parties. The announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement.

Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its [war’s] sons and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it.

Stop shedding our blood to save your own and the solution to this simple but complex equation is in your hands. You know matters will escalate the more you delay and then do not blame us but blame yourselves. Rational people do not risk their security, money and sons to appease the White House liar.”  

It was Bin Laden’s speech, his first aimed at Western audiences, including Western Muslims, rather than the bombing itself, that represented a new strategic turn as it were.  Since that time the Jihadists have debated anything that might drive the west together. 

The kidnapping of the two French journalists was a good case in point.  Inspired by Abu Musab al Zarqawi condemnation of the French head scarf ban, Jihadists in Iraq threatened in kill the journalists if France did not lift the ban.  Others feared that if would drive the France and US together. 

It was not clear why the journalists were released.  There were rumors about a ransom having been paid and still others claimed that they were released entirely for political reasons given.  Whatever the case, the pretext for releasing them is quite revealing.  “They were freed ‘because they were proven not to spy for US forces, in response to appeals and demands from Islamic institutions and bodies, and in appreciation of the French government's stand on the Iraq issue and the two journalists' stand on the Palestinian cause’   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/41159 75.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/41159 75.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...   It speaks to the strategic debate present in the Jihadist world. 

People must reference such a debate when making reference to how likely an attack on Canada is.  Strategically it makes little sense for the Jihadists to attack Canada under the pretext of our involvement in Afghanistan.  Pretty much every country in the world backed the operation in Afghanistan.   The Jihadists could try peeling off allies one by one, but why go to all that trouble?  The West is already divided as a result of Iraq and attacking attacking a country (e.g., Canada) under the sole pretext that it supported operations in Afghanistan might very well unify theWest.

The Iraq war, in other words, has turned out to be something a double edged sword for Canada and indeed for France and Germany as well.  In so far as the Iraq war has spawned more terrorists Canada is less safe in the long term.  However, on the other hand the Iraq war has placed Canada and the US in opposing camps and this has only served to make us safer. 

Relating this back to the London attacks, Blair is right to cast doubt on the argument that Britain was attacked solely because of Iraq.  Al Qaeda has championed various causes, most notably the Palestinian cause, for solely political reasons.  Iraq may very well be just a pretext.  What he did not say that it would not have strategic sense to attack Britain had they stayed out of the war.