From "Old Europe"

The French have watched as terrorist attacks have hit Madrid and London over the past months. I doubt very much they feel secure from such hits just because they actively opposed the war in Iraq. After all, they also have a sizeable number of Middle Easterners who came to France to find jobs, and France hasn't exactly been gentle in their attempts to ease the flux of foreign workers from outside Europe into the French culture.

The July 26th issue of Le Monde has a rather interesting article analyzing some of the problems seen in the war on terror. While I disagree with the simplistic meme that the struggle is against "Extreme Islam," some of Jean-Marie Colombani's comments are on the mark:

4. IRAQ CLEARLY WAS NOT, AND IS NOT, A RESPONSE TO TERRORISM

The American military intervention in this country, as the Europeans predicted, has only exacerbated the rancor of Islamist militants. It has played the role of "recruiting agent for terrorism," according to the latest report from Chatham House [a London Think Tank]. It keeps a good part of the Arab-Muslim world hating the United States and clearly serves as a pretext. Even worse: with today's instantaneous globalization of images, the responsibility for each car-bomb massacre in Baghdad is not attributed to one or another group of Sunni insurgents. It is blamed on the American occupation and considered additional proof of the "war" that the West is waging against the Muslim world. Hundreds of millions of Muslim television viewers hold the United States responsible for the daily carnage in Iraq. The validity of this reasoning can be discussed, but this dominant view cannot be ignored.

5. WESTERNERS DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS

Clearly, Western democracies can and must get more involved in resolving regional conflicts, better integrate Muslim minorities, and distance themselves from regimes long-considered friends but which are obstacles to reform in the Arab-Muslim world.

But the West lacks the key answers. The battle against Islamist extremism is unfolding within the Arab-Muslim arena, so it is partly out of the hands of the United States and Europe. It is the battle of progressives against autocrats and dictatorial regimes, that of reformist imams versus fundamentalist ones, of those who want compromise against those who want purity. These changes are slow precisely because they are so decisive.

6. THE FIGHT AGAINST ISLAMIST TERRORISM IS NOT A WAR

"War on Terror" is a fashionable expression: it is no longer a question of the "Third" or even "Fourth World War." This is as sad as it is dangerous. A war ends with the surrender of one side or by negotiation. This will not be the case in the fight against Islamist terrorism. It requires a multiple, multifaceted response that involves diplomacy (regional conflicts), police action (infiltration and surveillance of networks) and, above all, ideology (helping the cause of reformers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). Because those laying the bombs under the banner of al-Qaeda are operating in autonomous cells without really answering to any "center," al-Qaeda is less an organization, and even less a state, than it is a "brand." And this brand designates a fight that they are leading against democracy and all forms of freedom.

Columbani's warning that we in the West have a long struggle before us, one that will depend on "a multiple, multifaceted response" that must go beyond mere military intervention, is clearly an appropriate one. Unfortunately, I fear the American response of appointing Karen Hughes to clean up our image in the Middle East falls short of the necessary response.