It's been one of the stranger lessons of the past few years that those most likely to passionately speak about the transcendent threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism are least likely to think strategically about how best to blunt its appeal. John McCain famously accused Obama of confusing strategy and tactics, but there are moments when it seems that some would sacrifice both of them for the fleeting pleasures of emotional satisfaction. This is one of those moments. As Marc Lynch notes the only actors more enthusiastic about Gaza than the neocons are, well, the terrorists:Ayman al-Zawahiri has finally weighed in on behalf of al-Qaeda over the Gaza crisis, calling it part of the West's war on Islam and calling on Muslims everywhere to attack Western and Israeli targets. He sounds about as happy as I can remember hearing him of late. He probably can't believe his luck.Israel's assault on Gaza has really created an almost unbelievable no-lose situation for al-Qaeda. If Hamas "wins", then al-Qaeda gets to share in the benefits of the political losses incurred by its Western and Arab enemies (Zawahiri mentions Mubarak and the Saudis in this tape, but not the Jordanians) and can try to take advantage of the political upheavals which could follow. If Hamas "loses", al-Qaeda still wins. It will shed no tears at seeing one of its bitterest and most dangerous rivals take a beating at Israel's hands or losing control of a government that they have consistently decried as illegitimate and misguided.
Lynch's analysis is not controversial. Zawahiri's tape is public. The role that Palestine plays in terrorist recruitment is well-documented. The anger at moderate Arab regimes has been heavily reported. It may be that this is all immaterial and America should back Israel's assault even at the cost of improving al Qaeda's political hand, but it would seem to be the sort of thing worth discussing. Instead, we're hearing a lot of demands to support Operation Cast Lead because Hamas, like al Qaeda, is full of terrorists. This is part of the conceptual confusion imposed by the "War on Terror" frame, which suggests we're fighting a general class of bad people called "terrorists"rather than a discrete group of bad people organized around al Qaeda. If we're fighting terrorists, than any terrorists will do. If we're fighting al Qaeda, then the question is how al Qaeda will do. These things are different. But transcendent though the terrorist threat may be, the prevailing sentiment is that it doesn't justify rude behavior like asking your ally in the Middle East to consider your interests when launching attacks paid for with your money.
