Iraq:
A major question stemming from the terrorist bombings in London is whether, as in Spain, they will create a greater gap between the U.S. and Britain, or whether they will strengthen ties.
1) Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War is deeply unpopular, and many Britons will blame that involvement for the attacks. A leaked intelligence analysis in the U.K. suggests that young Muslims there are joining terrorist movements because they see their own government as oppressive toward Muslims in other countries.
2) Whether Prime Minister Tony Blair wavers or not, both Britain and the U.S. are already secretly plotting their exit from Iraq, another British press report suggests. As we have reported for months, top U.S. officials are convinced that the real driving force behind much of the insurgency is not Islamic fervor, but nationalism and tribalism—a resentment of the presence of foreign occupiers.
3) In fact, the jihadists and the nationalists are now showing clear signs that their goals are different and incompatible, giving rise to a major split in the insurgency along these lines. Some U.S. forces in the field have reported battles between different groups of insurgents, in which both sides ignore the American presence and instead shoot mortars at one another.
4) Recently, U.S. intelligence translated a speech purportedly given by Iraqi al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi, in which he makes the distinction between the two insurgencies. A U.S. intelligence report from July 5 notes that Zarqawi “differentiated between ‘the honorable resistance fighting for the sake of God,’ and a ‘resistance willing to stop fighting on the condition of issuing a timetable for the withdrawal of the foreign enemy.’”
G-8 Summit:
Although overshadowed by the terrorist attacks in London, the G-8 Summit in Scotland produced several interesting results, including a major victory for President Bush on the issue of global climate change. Prime Minister Blair’s attempted coup at Gleneagles in Scotland failed to bring his close friend Bush into conformity on the Kyoto protocol.
1) The British, French and Germans pushed hard for U.S. submission to binding carbon emission targets. Yet to the amazement of the scientific community, Europe capitulated and agreed that the world should await further scientific conclusion rather than rush decisions that could deflate economic growth and cost America jobs.
2) U.S. negotiators insisted on removal from the summit’s communiqu???? © language describing global warming as “an urgent threat to the world” requiring “immediate action.” Also eliminated were references to melting glaciers and rising seas, plus an audacious effort by France to link Europe with some pro-Kyoto U.S. cities and states.
3) In addition, the final version of the Gleneagles communiqu???? © conceded that “uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science,” rejecting the environmentalist dogma of “settled science” about global warming. The G-8 Summit’s declaration of stopping and slowing the growth of greenhouse gases “as the science justifies” is lifted verbatim from language Bush used in 2002.
4) Blair, who as a strong war ally could in this case afford to ambush Bush in a friendly way, had hoped that the Senate in late June would repudiate Bush on global warming for the first time, creating momentum for Kyoto at the G-8 Summit. But the McCain-Lieberman bill actually lost ground in the Senate, as an added nuclear energy provision intended to attract conservatives cost the support of four Democratic senators.
5) This is a big and rare victory for Bush at a time when victories seem few and far between. For his first term and a half, Bush will have held the line against the global warming hysteria, even getting his G-8 colleagues to go along with him.
