Are the recent series of bombings in London a prelude to renewed terrorism here? Only time will tell, but the ongoing British debate over terror and Iraq should be an occasion to rethink our own security.

Long before the initial London bombings, some terror experts, including a few staunch conservatives inside both the U.S. and British governments, issued urgent warnings. They charged that the war in Iraq would increase the risks to both U.S. and British citizens. Even Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a supporter of the Iraq war, argued that the war risked creating “a hundred bin Ladens.” They were concerned not just about retaliatory strikes against Western supporters of the Iraq war but also about the number of terrorists worldwide who would be inspired by and trained in Iraq.

In the United States, suggestions that the war in Iraq might increase worldwide terror have evoked a familiar response. Pro-Bush bloggers argue that a withdrawal from Iraq rewards terrorism. Some even imply that critics of the war must be soft on terror. Yet as political theorist Judith Butler, the author of “Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence,” comments, this charge of softness on terrorism amounts to an effort to undermine critics by challenging their integrity rather than addressing their logic.

When current policy is defended by more than name calling, the usual argument is that terrorists hate us because of our values. They will come after the United States regardless of our government’s policies. Yet even former CIA bin Laden analyst Michael Scheuer believes that al-Qaida is bent on destroying the United States because the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinians was sustained primarily by the United States. In addition, U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is seen as further evidence of a U.S. onslaught on Islam.

One can reject some or all of al-Qaida’s analysis. Even if one accepted their historical analysis, a commitment to terrorism against innocent civilians would not follow. But regardless of one’s views on radical Islam’s interpretation of recent history, scholars and activists should not be deterred from understanding the role that these beliefs can play in encouraging and sustaining terror.

Once we understand the role radical Islam’s historical perspectives and ideology plays in terror, it becomes imperative that we rethink our own response. Targeting innocent citizens to sway public opinion or foreign policy is morally atrocious, but a “war on terror” is conceptually misleading. Terrorism is a technique, not a specific enemy or state. It has been employed in nationalist uprisings over much of recent history. Osama may have used Afghanistan, but the sources of his power and influence lie in the cauldron of Middle East politics. Indiscriminate bombing of nations that supposedly harbor terrorists fails to eradicate terrorism and may even exacerbate the nationalist animosities that feed it.

Terrorism is a crime. The most effective responses are likely to be collaborative work by national police forces coupled with national and international efforts to address the grievances that contribute to its emergence. In this regard, Tony Blair can provide both positive and negative lessons. One source of Blair’s political success has been the reduction of violent crime. His effort has been defined as “tough on crime, tough on the roots of crime.”

There is nothing inconsistent in this formulation. As Butler points out, terrorists are responsible for their acts, they are not mere “dupes of an impersonal social force.” Nonetheless, “these individuals are formed, and we would be making a mistake if we reduced their actions to purely self-generated acts of will or symptoms of individual pathology or evil.”

The resort to terrorism is a pathology that hangs over all societies racked by racial, economic and cultural divisions. It is neither limited to nor monopolized by bin Laden. He should be brought to justice, but doing so will not still the terrorist impulse. Perhaps terrorism can never be fully eradicated. A world of perfect security might require a degree of uniformity and intrusiveness that would make life hardly worthwhile.

Nonetheless, the threat of terrorism can be reduced even as we preserve our liberal democratic values if we can extend the reach of those values. When ethnic groups that currently see themselves as politically excluded and oppressed gain other options many more of their citizens will develop an active interest in rooting out the terrorists in their midst.

Toward that end, however, anti-terror techniques that are based on racial profiling or that treat anti-war or civil liberties initiatives as proof of sympathy for terrorism are wrong and even counterproductive. Blair’s reference to terrorists’ barbaric attack on the British way of life may be politically effective. Nonetheless, senseless brutality has hardly been limited to one side. In the current context, such talk easily fuels widespread hostility to Islamic minorities, an evil already far too widespread in both Europe and the United States.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net