The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.And so? Should we withdraw from the Middle East? Does Tabarrok believe that our withdrawal would placate Islamic fundamentalists? If it would placate Osama bin Laden (or his successor), which I very much doubt, would it placate our imported and home-grown terrorists who have found in their religion an excuse to terrorize, just for the sake of doing so?
The counsel of Tabarrok and his ilk is not only to withdraw from Iraq, but also to withdraw from the Middle East. Their counsel is a counsel of appeasement and surrender.
Surrender in Iraq, and withdrawal from the Middle East generally, holds dire consequences for Americans. I have addressed the true nature of the enemy, the idea of withdrawal, the consequences of withdrawal, and the consequences of appeasement in these posts:
9/11 and Pearl Harbor
What Anonymous Really Meant to Say
Getting It All Wrong about the Risk of Terrorism
September 11: A Postscript for Peace Lovers
Riots, Culture, and the Final Showdown
What If We Lose?
Moussaoui and "White Guilt"
Parsing Peace
I Have an Idea
The Best Defense...
A Skewed Perspective on Terrorism
