Democracies usually have to lose to win

There's plenty of pessimism to go around these days, in the aftermath of the London attacks. London is supposed to be one of the most secure cities in the free world, but yet it was still the target of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, this is the way democracies work. Democracies ignore repeated warnings of danger and then, after they are attacked, adapt to obvious realities. The terrorists made a mistake, to the advantage of the civilized world, by waking the sleeping democracies of America and Great Britain.

Jack Kelly believes that while Al-Qaida has scored a tactical success, it made a strategic mistake

Just two years ago, Kenneth Livingstone, the very left-wing mayor of London, called President Bush "the greatest threat to life on this planet."

But "Red Ken" sounded a lot like Dubya Thursday in his denunciation of those who placed bombs on three London subway cars and a double-decker bus.

Noting that people have come to London from the Middle East to find a better life, Livingstone said: "They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."

And Ralph Peters also sees the London attacks as a case of Pyrrhic Terror

London will return to business as usual. But Iraq and Afghanistan won't. We're not going to back down. Terrorists will draw blood for years to come, but they will never rule another state.

It's going to take time, but in the end their fellow Muslims will destroy the terrorists — if the casualty count in London were broken down by religion, dozens of Muslims would be on the roll of victims.

Islamist terror isn't a sign of a great religious revival. It's a cult in love with death, not with any god. In the end, it's terror for terror's sake. Since 9/11, more Muslims have been its victims than Christians or Jews.

So, now that we are all awake from those alarm clock London bombs, we need to consider the current regime in Iran, the world's most vigorous supporter of international terrorism and possessing an appetite for nuclear weapons.

My question is this: Does America really need an Iranian nuclear bomb to be detonated in Los Angeles or New York before it places all of its military and intelligence assets in the cause of toppling the current Iranian regime? Some say that the Iranian people are so opposed to the current regime that no overt American assistance is necessary. Perhaps the Bush administration has a secret plan to affect regime change without firing a shot.

The bottom line is this: If current regime in Iran obtains nuclear weapons and a nuclear bomb is subsequently detonated in North America or Europe, the war on terror will have been a failure, despite all of the lofty rhetoric about "killing and capturing high-ranking Al-Qaeda" and "bringing democracy to the Middle East."

UPDATE: Be sure to read this excellent column titled Economies and Islam and another titled Europe's Angry Muslims.