Failed States, Rogue States

An underlying difference between Bush and Kerry during this campaign that hasn't come to the fore much is the role of states as supporters of terrorist activity. Josh Marshall revisits a good analysis of this disagreement. President Bush and his advisors, perhaps under the influence of the Arab-Israeli conflict, see terrorist groups as dependent upon state sponsorship for their operational capacity.

Obviously, states can play that role, but that it doesn't represent the primary problem can be seen from al-Qaeda, the main terrorist group we're fighting. True, al-Qaeda was given sanctuary by the Taliban, but they could have carried off the September 11 attacks without them. They continue to operate in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, where they have no state sponsorship. The Madrid bombings were carried out by cells with connections in Spain and Morocco, again without state sponsorship. In Liberia, when Charles Taylor wanted to deal with al-Qaeda, he didn't send envoys to Kabul, he talked directly to the leadership of a transnational militant network.

Yet President Bush continues to see states as the primary problem. The invasion of Iraq was to cut off a highly hypothetical possibility that Saddam Hussein might act as a state sponsor of al-Qaeda. This is also what Bush meant when he said that "You can't win it" but you can get to a point where terrorists are less welcome in certain parts of the world. (can't find exact quote) Unfortunately, his actions are only making things worse as he spreads the instability in which modern terrorism really does thrive.