The benefit of waiting for information

There is a very interesting theory about the Spanish 2004 election that occurred three days after the March 11 bombings. Conventional wisdom says that Spain voted to throw out the governing party, which was polling well, because they were scared into "appeasing" the Islamic terrorists by leaving Iraq.

There is another view however: Al Qaeda did not lead to the defeat of the Partido Popular (PP) in Spain. Soon after the bombings occurred, when it wasn't entirely clear what happened, the PP was quick to blame the Basque separatist group ETA, even after it became clear that ETA was not at fault. Why did they persist in blaming ETA? On one hand, the PP's crackdown on ETA was popular. On the other, very few Spaniards backed the Iraq War. This helped lead the PP to maintain that ETA was behind the attacks even when ETA itself denied it. The PP feared that the voters would back the anti-war PSOE because the war led to the bombings.

Instead, this rushed conclusion that ETA was behind the bombings led many voters to believe that the PP was trying to distort the truth and led many who would not have voted at all to back the PSOE. If the PP had been more honest (although some of them still believe it), they could have said something along the lines of "we are strong, we will not let the terrorists determine our foreign policy." The PP may have gotten won term as planned.

Well, it's a theory. But it's something to keep in mind. Many of us leapt to the conclusion that an Islamic group was responsible for the Norway attacks, including yours truly. To be fair, an extremist Islamic terrorist group claimed responsibility for it. As we all now know, it was actually done by a White Christian right wing extremist who seems to think that killing civilians (and the Prime Minister) will prevent Norway from becoming communist/Islamic.

This is why it is so important to wait for information first...

Why Norway?

That was my first thought upon seeing the headline. It was most likely done by a group related to Al Qaeda, if only because Norway doesn't have many enemies. But why Norway? It isn't leading the charge against terrorism in a high profile way. It isn't leading the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq like America is. Norway hasn't drawn any nasty cartoons lately (in case you've forgotten, that was Denmark, and Norway said sorry for reprinting them). Even Reuter's attempt to figure out what groups may have attacked Norway neglected to ask: why Norway? Most of the groups on the list are regional in character (the Islamic Movement of Uzbeckistan is probably more interested in Central Asia than Scandinavia for instance), and the closest any of them get is an LeT man interested in the Danish cartoon scandal and a Somali terrorist who was born in Denmark.

Okay, they're both in Scandinavia. But that's about it.

One argument is that it didn't really matter to the terrorists who they were killing, that they just want to kill, and Norway is just another western country on the list. But that can't be entirely true. For one thing, if someone wants to commit murder, he doesn't necessarily have to do it on behalf of some greater cause, whether it be Timothy McVeigh's extreme anti-government stance or the creation of a global caliphate. Terrorism itself is defined as the use of violence against civilians in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism without the political aims is simply murder, and the attack itself may have failed in one aim: killing the prime minister, as Rodrigo Javier suggests (See his twitter post here). But why kill the prime minister in the first place?

One might point to Norway's foreign policy. Norway contributed troops to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Iraq, Norway originally sent 150 troops, but withdrew the bulk of them in June 2004 after it became clear that the Norwegian public did not care for the war, and withdrew the last ten in 2006. Furthermore, it still has troops in Afghanistan and Libya, partially due to its NATO obligations (the same goes for Germany and Turkey, both of which initially opposed the war in Libya). Perhaps, then, the attack was done to jolt Norway out of the war just as the March 11 attacks on Spain helped get the Spanish out of the war (the situation is far more complicated than that, but the point still stands). That makes the most sense. But that is not a sufficient reason. Other targets loom larger in the scope of who "should" be attacked. Britain and France, for instance, have far more troops there. France in particular has carried out one-third of all NATO aerial strikes in Libya, and must have more of a role in Afghanistan than Norway does. So, why?

The answer, as far as I can tell: opportunity. With the strengthening of visa regimes throughout the Western world, it is harder and harder to send people to one country or another. The attempted Times Square bombing in particular was perpetrated by an American civilian. Perhaps a Norwegian finally took Al Qaeda's call to attack Norway to heart, and was aided by Norway's environment of openness. In a land where you can find anyone's email address and the classes seem to mix better than elsewhere, security seems to be low on their list of priorities.

To put it succintly: if it was caused by Islamic terrorists, then it would be due to Norway's own participation in the war on terror, a desire to force it out of Afghanistan, and the opportunity to strike it. At least I've answered my own question. I'll refrain from saying more until I know more. It might not have been Al Qaeda or such after all...it could just be some madmen who are fighting on behalf of the environment, or a fascist group. One might argue that neither group has been active in Norway for some time. Perhaps; but if you asked me a week ago if Norway would be a target of Islamic terrorism, I would say no. Let's see how the story develops...