# Posted 3:20 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DAY OF TERROR: In terms of moral depravity, there is no difference between the separate bombings that took place yesterday, one in Baghdad and one in Jerusalem. In political terms, however, the attacks bear little resemblance to one another.

The sensless destruction of UN headquarters in Baghdad demonstrates just how desperate the Ba'athist underground has become. For as long as the Ba'athist remnants held fast to their strategy of assassinating American soldiers, they could plausibly represent themselves as rebels against a foreign occupation.

Now, having murdered 17 representatives of the United Nations, the Ba'athists have made it clear to the people of Iraq that they are still the same brutal thugs who served as loyal enforcers of Saddam's dictatorship.

Unsurprisingly, no one at the New York Times seems to have noticed that the attack on UN headquarters is a sign of desperation rather than ingenuity. A masthead editorial entitled "A Mission Imperiled" argues that the attack is evidence of the United States' failure to restore in Iraq. Maureen Dowd makes the same misguided point, albeit with more of an anti-Bush spin.

Most disappointingly, Thomas Friedman writes that

The bad guys in Iraq have been gaining so much momentum in recent days -- with their attacks on pipelines, US forces, and UN headquarters -- that they are steadily eroding the sense of partnership between US forces and the Iraqi people.

That is absurd. By attacking the UN or even by attacking local infrastructure, Ba'athist forces demonstrate their total disregard for the welfare of the Iraqi people -- which isn't that surprising given that they have been practicing that sort of disregard for over thirty years. (A similar point is made by a security expert in the NYT's news analysis piece on the Baghdad attack.)

The one positive message sent by the NYT staff is that the only acceptable response to the attack in Baghdad is to increase the US commitment to rebuilding Iraq in both military and economic terms. Surprisingly, Dowd writes that "We can't leave, and we can't stay forever. We just have to slug it out."

What happened to "Bring Our Boys Home" or "Give Peace a Chance"? While leftist groups in NYC and San Francisco have been busy posting handbills and stickers which advocate a similar point of view, mainstream liberals will never be able to sympathize with such a point for as long as the US remains committed to promoting democracy in Iraq.

In short, the President has his critics in a rhetorical vise. There is no way they can advocate the abandonment of the Iraqi people without coming across as retrograde isolationists. On the downside, this situation also diminishes criticism of the Administration's lackluster effort to rebuild and democratize Iraq. But with enemies as incompetent as those who attacked the United Nations, the United States and the people of Iraq may succeed despite their unpreparedness to nation-build in the Middle East.

Now Israel. Regardless of whether it was Hamas, Islamic Jihad or both who were responsible for yesterday's attack, the bombing was not senseless from a political perspective. On the one hand, there is no question that the violent death of 18 Israeli civilians will force the terrorists to shoulder most of the blame for ending the ceasefire, assuming that Israel moves aggressively to retaliate against those responsible for the attack.

But Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- or at least their military commanders -- never had much to gain from the ceasefire. While it may have given them time to re-equip, it also gave Mahmoud Abbas time to prepare his strategy for consolidating power in the hands of the PA.

What is hard to know is why Hamas and/or Jihad attacked first, rather than waiting for Abbas to attack them. Had the Prime Minister done so, Hamas and/or Jihad would have been able to represent themselves as righteous victims of an Israeli errand boy.

One explanation for the decision to pre-empt Abbas is that Hamas and Jihad were afraid that they could not recover if Abbas had the opportunity to strike the first blow. But I doubt it. The greater threat may have been that Abbas would have done nothing at all for five or six months, maybe more. Each day without violence raised the political cost of breaking the ceasefire. If Abbas attacked his opponents five or six months from now, they may not have been able to mount the most effective possible response: killing Israelis.

Thus, recognizing that Sharon and Abbas actually were committed to peace and able to cooperate with one another, Hamas and/or Jihad decided that the optimal strategy available to them was to undermine the ceasefire before its roots took greater hold.

It is possible, of course, that this strategy will backfire. The desire for peace on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide may be too intense. But I am not going to get my hopes up. Unless Abbas is willing to move hard and fast against the terrorists, Israel will do it for him. Negotiations will break off and the people of Israel will inch ever closer to accepting that the closest they can come to achieving real peace is to build another Berlin Wall and hide behind it.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds says it's hard to know whether pro- or anti-Saddam forces are behind the UN attack. If it were the latter (which I doubt) my analysis above would be, well, wrong.

Matt Yglesias think the good Professor has his tongue buried well inside of his cheek, but I'm not so sure.

Also, Josh Marshall links to footage of the attack.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion