London Calling

The bombings in London this week have revived a litany of arguments that ought to be familiar to anyone who was in America on September 11th. I've been following the debates there with a mixture of hope and revulsion similar to that I experienced in New York four years ago.

Even more than back then, the web is awash in punditry, some inspired, some cringe-inducing. There is a notion, popular amongst those Brits who love to talk of how London "saw this coming", that this is the price of collusion with the American behemoth. And indeed it is. The question is what is to be done?

One thinks when hearing such talk that the sensible response is to stop colluding. This thinking mirrors those of the terrorists themselves, who chalk up their blood lust to Western aggression. But it is foolish to believe that by not antagonizing terrorists you won't draw their fire. If Britain goes the way of Spain, the jihadists will add another notch to their belt and set their sights on the next target.

Amir Taheri pretty much nails that thinking to the wall in the London Times.

Friedman had an unoriginal, but generally correct take -- ultimately, Western cities are most secure when Muslims are restraining their own, something they have done a remarkably poor job of, as demonstrated by Joseph Braudie in the New Republic.

Ian McEwan's piece is worth more than all the news accounts combined, but I desperately hope he's wrong. I think London will recover its confidence. And sooner than most people think.