■"Chechens' Terror Links Drawing Attention," by Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press via Yahoo News, 26 September 2004, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040926/ap_on_re_eu/russia_terror_ties_1.

This story mirrors a recent Journal story on the Chechen leader Shamil Basayev. My basic take on that article was that it showed how radical Islam and al Qaeda were becoming an umbrella organization to which "adherents" flowed simply out of necessity, changing their spots along the way. Basayev, in that article, was described as a very recent "convert" to Islam. What struck me about that article was that it reminded me how, during the Cold War, many revolutionary leaders "found" Marxism. Why? Typically because they were first turned down by the West oróspecificallyóthe U.S. Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh wrote his declaration of independence from colonial master France, cribbing it whole-cloth from Thomas Jefferson's original. He saw himself as a natural George Washington, and couldn't understand why Washington could not. We didn't recognize him as such, because France was a big ally vis-‡-vis the Sovs, so guess what? Ho had to become communist and Vietnam suffers that choice to this day.

Am I suggesting we should have sided with Basayev? No way. I see that independence movement as just more fracturing of the Core, as well as historically irrelevant/counterproductive to the larger integration processes of globalization. All I'm saying is that when you can't join one side, you're left with the other, and the other right now is radical Islam. When this happens, you'll see that transnational movement absorb all sorts of cats and dogs, Basayev being one of them.

This article points to the opposite effect: not only are the Basayev's of the Gap switching their stripes to join the radical Islam camp, but the radical Islam camp is basically accepting all comers. Point is, this movement, which always had a tenuous grip on religion because of the way it twists the Koran to its own cruel ends, will become increasingly divorced from that larger meaning over time as it accepts all comers who share the same basic end: kill the Westerners and drive them from our lands. Now, in effect, both sides of this equation are actively recruiting the other side, just like it was with the ideologically-barren-but-entirely-opportunistic Soviet bloc for the latter half of the Cold War (or basically, after they made their peace with the West with dÈtente).

Did we create this phenomenon by invading Iraq? No, but we certainly accelerated it. Could we have prevented this phenomenon from emerging? Also no. Radical Islam is the best offer out there right now to those hoping to offer prolonged violent resistance to the expansion of the global economy and its "nefarious ways" of "perverting local cultures." Since the global economy (the Core) is impinging right now primarily upon those regions where Islamic faith is most in abundance, this us-versus-them breakdown was not only in the works, it was inevitable. The only question for the Core is how fast we seek to engage this struggle: do we hold off, accept the offer of civilizational apartheid, and wait them out? Or do we seek to actively transform the Middle East, bring it into the larger global economy in a broadband fashion andóby doing soóend its disconnectedness and defeat those committed to perpetuating and deepening that disconnectedness?

I say, embrace the tough tasks with zeal. They only grow worse from delayed action.