Innocents Abroad
September 2, 2004; Page A12

You might think that having watched workers leap to their deaths from the Twin Towers, nothing about Islamic terror could shock us.

We thought so too. But even in the midst of a bloody battle for civilization itself, the images that converged on America yesterday scream out: The photograph of the dead girl hanging out the window of a suicide-bombed Israeli bus on newspaper front pages; the Web footage of a Nepalese worker in Iraq having his throat slit, one of 12 hostages killed; and the Russian children who at this writing are being used as human shields by terrorists (presumed to be Chechens) who stormed their school, killed some people and are threatening to kill 50 children for any member of their group harmed.

An Israeli girl. A group of Nepalese guestworkers. Russian schoolchildren, their parents and teachers. What unites them is not simply that they were all murdered in the name of some Islamic cause but that they all define innocence. Maybe it is possible to believe, as many of those protesting outside the Republican convention apparently do, that even in the face of such crimes the threats to world peace are President Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton.

We say: Look at the pictures. Look at the children who die not because they are collateral damage but because they are targets. And ask yourself the uncomfortable but defining question of this campaign: Is this the kind of enemy that requires a "more sensitive" war?

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Stopdown comment:...We would like to point out that aspects to the occupation of Iraq lack sensitivity and may therefore cause further, perhaps long-term rebellion, and that it should be obvious that this is bad for the U.S.  The practice of breaking down doors and jailing thousands of men and boys without charges for months, refusing communication with families, is making enemies, driving men and women to join the rebellion. Is this what the WSJ thinks should not be criticized as insensitive? Would it be coddling terrorists, in the WSJ's view, to stop this wanton abuse of innocent people? Apparently very few of the people so incarcerated have any link to terror, and these few have not been important operatives......This is a political as well as military operation. But with a president who calls for rebels to "Bring it on!", one wonders.... Perhaps the WSJ is only aiming its double barrels at terrorists, but the tone is one that seems to treat torrorists as some sort of discreet target.

See article on General David Patraeus and his friendly approach to the occupation in his zone.

As for the "battle for civilization," this is the kind of sloganeering that pretends political grievances against the U.S. and Europe have nothing to do with terrorism. The troops in Saudi Arabia, Western support for dictatorships in the Middle East, and the failure to compensate Palestinians whose homes were stolen in 48 and 67, are examples of political grievances that make Muslims scorn the U.S.  The current administration has chosen to pretend these political complaints play no role in Islamic militancy.