The massacres in New York, Bali, London, Madrid and Mumbai were horrible but politically insignificant. They lacked even the IRA's policy-changing programme. They were a howl of rage from a deranged fanaticism, threatening lives and property but not the security of any state. They are best treated as accidents of globalisation.This justifies Jihad while labeling any armed response as mere jingoism. I agree with Norm Geras:
Objectify and minimize: terror to be treated as an 'accident' of globalization, as mere rage and derangement. He could equally treat torture as an accident of the war on terror or, by tracing out causal continuities, as itself an accident of globalization; he could see it as rage and derangement. But Jenkins wouldn't. He wouldn't dream of writing of the use of torture by Western governments in such terms, and rightly not.BTW, Democrat lawyer/journalist Stuart Taylor is one of better sort of friends of democracy, and his current National Journal column is a useful antidote to the view of the war from Jenkins' ear (historical pun).
For a section of the Western commentariat, real threats, carrying the weight of moral responsibility, only ever come from (loosely speaking) 'us'. Those attacking 'us', on the other hand, can be objectified and minimized. New York, Bali, London, Madrid and Mumbai -- Jenkins himself begins a list of infamy that could be extended -- but 'politically insignificant'. The lives taken, the bodies broken, the families bereaved -- 'politically insignificant'. So you say. It is good that not all the friends of democracy think so.