That fear has already led to questions about why the British security agencies did not anticipate the attacks, why the wealthy nations have not done enough about the root causes of terrorism and why Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden continue to function after almost four years of the so-called war on terrorism. Many will wonder why the United States is mired in Iraq while Al Qaeda's leader still roams free.
There are no easy answers to these questions, just as there is no easy defense against acts of terrorism.
The implication that terrorism would go away if the U.S. just gave away more money is outrageous and offensive. The root cause of Islamic terrorism? Islamofascism, a totalitarian ideology that sees the West as weak, corrupt, and decadent, and seeks to impose Sharia upon the entire world. This is apparent to leftist writers such as Paul Berman. Why can't the Times see it? Of course, the Times uses weasel words and phrases: "Many" doubt the U.S.'s role in Iraq, they write. Why not come out and take responsibility for a position you're clearly espousing, weasels?