My Point on Iraq, Spain, Dean, Terror, etc.

The fundamental point that I have been trying to make in regards to the potential al Qaeda link to the Madrid bombings, and the issue of whether Spanish involvement in Iraq prompted the attack, is that I think it makes claims, such as the one made by Dean cited below, that Iraq had "nothing" to do with terrorism, or claims made by others that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror, to be clearly incorrect.

Now, as Chris Lawrence notes on his blog this weekend, variables in social scientific inquiry are often continuous, and not dichotomous. In other words, in the case of Saddam’s regime in Iraq it not the case that the “terrorism/al Qaeda” variable only has two values: “0” for “no terror links whatsoever,” or “1” for “its an unholy alliance of massive proportions between Saddam and bin Laden.” Indeed, those are two extremes on a continuum. Many for the anti-war side have argued “0” (indeed, when Dean says that Iraq had “nothing” to do with terrorism, that is what he is doing), while many on the pro-war side have argued “1”. Most who take the “0” position cite the “Saddam is a secularist, and bin Laden hates that” argument, while those on the “1” side have argued that “Saddam hates the US, bin Laden hates the US, so Q.E.D.”.

Neither is correct. There is clear evidence that Saddam has both sponsored terrorism, and has aided al Qaeda, but it is also clear that there was not a continual, or even frequent, set of interactions between al Qaeda and the old Iraqi regime.

The appropriate argument to have, therefore, is one that deals first with where on the continuum between the poles the truth lies, and then to determine if that point on the spectrum helps to justify the invasion (along with many, many other factors) or if it does not. This is the debate I would prefer to have, rather than the 0 v. 1 game that seems to dominate the discourse on this topic.

I recognize that part of the reason that al Qaeda would be angry at the US (and Spain) over the invasion in Iraq is over the fact that the West overthrew a Muslim regime. However, it is also clear that a new Iraqi regime is far less likely to be even a temporary ally in the war on terror that Saddam no doubt was, and could have been in the future. And further, it seems quite clear that al Qaeda has never been neutral in regards to Iraq, which one would expect if Saddam and bin Laden were so utterly and totally anathema to one another.

And, further, given that Saddam had sponsored terrorism (such as paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers) and because our invasions helps to put fear in the minds of other states which sponsor terrorism (e.g., Libya), there are clear ties to the war on terror in Iraq.

The bombing in Madrid (again, assuming that the al Qaeda link is true) adds evidence to the claim that we are, in fact, in a true global war against terrorism, and even if one thinks it should defined differently than pure “war” terms, that the law enforcement paradigm is insufficient to deal with this threat.

Posted by Steven Taylor at March 14, 2026 02:26 PM | TrackBack