I think the difficulty lies in the differing connections people choose to draw. For example, one might say that had the UK not chosen to help oust Hussein that London would not be a target for jihadis. This would be in error. One might say London would be less of a target and this might in fact be the case. My question would then be to ask how, say, Russian or Chinese or French military, economic and diplomatic support for the Hussein dictatorship has helped them fair with their own jihadi problems.

And I have a more important objection. There was surely a connection between the Blitz and London's belated decision to stand up to the Nazis. Had the Brits handed over Poland as well as the Saar, the Sudetenland, Austria and Czechoslovakia I suppose it is possible to imagine Hitler would have stopped at that. While I think this is an unlikely conviction it is one I can imagine people being eager to share given the horrors of the Great War and the spectres of what would indeed follow in the Second World War. But even if giving in to the fascists could positively mean reducing our own danger from fascist terror it would still leave countless millions in captivity. So to me the question of a "connection" is largely moot. The real question is about the morality of leaving people to their fate in the hopes the bully will pass us by.

The "connection" discussed in this way only the connection in the mind of the jihadis. I would think the only thing that can be compared is how actions of separate western nations and even the western lifestyle itself is connected in the mind of the terrorist to the decision to undertake an act of terror. But I think you have it. It is irrelevant what is in the mind of the terrorist as once one has determined that stateless roving terrorism is a valid form of political action you are lost to civilization and only a target. Once a civilized nation appreciates that and reacts appropriately, it is inevitable that the terrorist becomes focused in return on that nation that has determined that the terrorist must be killed. <p>Along those lines, I was quite pleased to see Major General Leslie of the Canadian Armed Forces on Studio 2 last night discussing Canada's expanding role in Afghanistan and his indicate that, in addition to the bases in Kabul and Kandahar, there are small groups of our soldiers throughout that country "in no danger" - because he was referencing but would not elaborate on JDF2's specific activities other than to talk of Canadians killing so that girls could attend school safely among other forms of civility being brought back. Were Canada to suffer large losses or even a terrorist attack at home due to these activities - due to the connection - would we say that it was no longer worth protecting the education of those girls? I would hope not.

I think what fuels the "debate" is a desperate need on the part of the British government to protect policies past and present from criticism. To admit there might be a link between terrorist actions and the British presence in Iraq calls that policy into question, and it's becoming a less and less comfortable discussion to have as the death toll mounts and the protests gain momentum.

Whether or not a person might agree on the need for one country to have its soldiers in another country, there is an immutable fact of life: you cannot stamp out terrorism by creating more terrorists.

When we in the West use superior force - whatever the justification - to impose a new order on another people, the conditions are perfect for recruiting terrorists. And when innocent citizens become collateral damage - a necessary by-product of arm's-length warfare - their family and friends become our implacable foes.

Since they know they cannot defeat us in a head-on clash, their only recourse is to terrorist acts. And having picked up the pieces of their own children, and mothers, and grandparents, they can be ill-expected to respect the safety and security of our innocents.

In the War on Terror, George Bush has achieved what alchemists and inventors have failed at for so many millennia: perpetual motion. A machine that fuels itself.

I think we only disagree in the perpetuity. Two things will kick in to curb it: the benefits of not being a terrorist will eventually become clear but it may take a generation and, hopefully sooner, the bell curve will kick in and the first wave of violent dingbats will be killed off. One imagines the awful earthquake in Pakistan may have actually done some good in that way in the caves in the mountains.