Pro-war or anti-war, we are all targets
Let’s all be humble about this and admit that, at this stage, we don’t know for sure why Madrid was attacked last Thursday. Al-Qaida are yet to enlighten us as to their reasoning. Until they do, we can only speculate. Nevertheless it is possible to draw conclusions about al-Qaida's rationale in general.
Al-Qaida has launched attacks against many countries, some Muslim, some Christian, some with pro-war governments, some with anti-war administrations. Their attacks long pre-date the invasion of Iraq last year. Clearly al-Qaida are much more than a single-issue pressure group, so to speak.
They paint their patterns of death on a much larger canvas. From Bin Laden’s various pronouncements we know that he’s particularly agitated by the presence of US troops on Saudi soil, by the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East and by, what he sees as, the godlessness of Arab regimes. These are however mere temporary concerns for the lanky Saudi. He has bigger plans than simply bringing the Middle East “back to Allah”. In the long-term he seeks nothing less than an international Caliphate, worldwide Islam.
Such a large aim brings with it an equally large list of enemies. Like all extremists, Bin Laden sees the world as black and white, as "us" versus "them" In his case the "us" is a tiny number of “good Muslims” while the "them" is a great mass of “bad Muslims” and infidels. He is the implacable enemy, not just of the West and Israel, but of EVERY Muslim government as well. Conceivably every capital city in the world could be a victim of his wrath.
But, while desires are infinite, resources are finite. So how does al-Qaida decide who to attack? It seems fair to conclude that supporting the invasion of Iraq will increase your chances of being attacked. Just take a look at the blogs on this website and you’ll see that the Iraq war is the issue du jour. The occupation of a major Arab state by the US and UK has fuelled immense anger in the Muslim world. By “striking at the aggressors”, Bin Laden improves his standing in the Islamic world. His “us” gets a little bigger while his “them” shrinks ever so slightly.
Any country which takes part in Bush’s “coalition” has to accept the brutal fact that they are more likely to be attacked. Yet to be anti-war is no guarantee of safety. Just look at the major opponents of the war. France has been threatened because of its decision to ban the hijab in school. Germany has troops in Afghanistan. Russia is at war with the Chechens. For different reasons all these states are targets of al-Qaida.
Even if the aforementioned policies were changed these states would still be part of the “them” in al-Qaida’s mind and therefore still targets. Short of accepting Bin Laden’s insane interpretation of Islam, there is nothing any state can do to get off his list of targets. Being pro-war will move you up the list but being anti-war won’t get you off it.
That's why hawks should never accuse doves of "cowardice" on this issue. If you think that the war in Iraq was justified then you also have to believe that the increased threat of attack by al-Qaida is a price worth paying. But equally if you think the war was wrong then you have to accept that "sitting it out" is no guarantee of safety. There are many good reasons why attacking Iraq was wrong. "Not pissing off al-Qaida" is not one of them.