The debate about the connection between the Iraq war and our
vulnerability to terrorism just keeps getting more surreal. Donald Rumsfeld is the latest to weigh in, who says this morning
that “some people… seem to cling to the discredited theory that the
recent attacks in London and elsewhere, for example, are really in
retaliation for the war in Iraq or for the so-called occupation of
Afghanistan,” a view he describes as “nonsense.”

What’s happening is that each side is trying to fix its opponents with
an untenable position. John Howard and his allies accuse the anti-war
forces of maintaining that Iraq is the sole cause of terrorism – a
manifest absurdity, since 11 September and other terrorist acts
pre-dated the Iraq invasion. Conversely, their opponents accuse
supporters of the war of claiming that it played no part at all in
increasing the threat of terrorism – an equally absurd proposition.

Unfortunately for Howard, he doesn’t seem to be able to find anyone who actually holds the position he’s attacking. Philip Ruddock
said on Monday that “it was unsafe to assume there would be no terror
threat if Australia had not been involved in Afghanistan or Iraq.” But
has anyone ever said that? Opponents of the war say that it has put
Australia more at risk, and has been a diversion from the real struggle
against al-Qaeda and its allies. But as far as I can see, no-one in
the political mainstream has said that terrorism is only due to Iraq,
or that it is the only reason why we should withdraw our troops.

Pro-war figures like Howard and Rumsfeld, however, really do claim that
it has made no difference to the terrorist threat – even though few
people believe them. An AC Nielsen poll published on Wednesday showed 66% saying that Australia is a greater target because of the war. As Michael Costello
(himself a supporter of the war) said recently: “Blind Freddy can see
that our involvement in Iraq… makes us a higher priority target than
we might otherwise have been.”