Colluding "with the forces that promise permanent world war"

Diane Perlman's article, "Misinterpreting Osama's Message: Erring on the Side of Danger," is well worth reading. Here's a snippet to whet your appetite:

We are on the verge of going to war [against Iraq] under the illusion of preventing a threat. What has been sold as a "preemptive strike," a misuse of the term, is actually a provocative strike. This war will unleash a cascade of unintended consequences. Terrorist attacks are likely planned for the onset of war.

Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare. There is no amount of domination that cannot be turned against us, demonstrated by Sept. 11.

Counter-terrorism, attempting the physical elimination of terrorists, only creates more terrorism, inspiring new recruits and new strategies. There is no "end game." Attacking Afghanistan provokes al-Qaeda to decentralization and better hiding. We have the illusion that if we kill bin Laden we will be safer. Is it not likely that killing him will magnify his power and influence? If we kill bin Laden then the terrorists will have won. We are focused on the concrete and the physical, and so miss the powerful psychological dimensions.

The connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda is created by us; we are driving them into each other's arms. Osama has suggested that if we invade Iraq, he will respond in kind. There is every reason to believe him. The only way to reduce terrorism is to address the root causes and to transform our use of power in the world.

History is filled with military blunders. Going to war would be a megablunder. Misinterpreting Osama's message fuels the irrational drive toward war. With asymmetrical warfare and weapons of mass destruction, the consequences are unthinkable. By exaggerating the threat and censoring the message of the conditionality of violence, we collude with the forces that promise permanent world war.