Thousands die but terrorists thrive

What a tragic contrast. The carnage in Casablanca, the suicide bombers in Saudi Arabia and the chaos in Kenya highlight the continuing threat posed by international terrorists.

The failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq demonstrates that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was hugely exaggerated in order to justify a war.

Predictably, the unnecessary war against Iraq has fuelled the terrorists' cause, making them more dangerous than they were before.

Al Qaeda is linked to last week's acts of terrorism and the warnings of further atrocities in Kenya and beyond. The war against Iraq has helped to bring al Qaeda back to life. Osama bin Laden must be hugely grateful to President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Once again the words of Mr Blair uttered in advance of the war ring hollow now. For several months he repeated with apparent passion that the "biggest threat to the world is the link between terrorists and weapons of mass destruction".

He even dared to hint a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Mr Blair was speaking nonsense. The terrorists do not need weapons of mass destruction to wreak havoc. This was as obvious before the war as it is today. Organisations with fanatics willing to kill themselves for a cause have all they need to cause mayhem.

At huge cost in terms of lives and the reputation of international bodies such as the United Nations, President Bush and Mr Blair have removed Saddam - and what happens?

Bombs explode in Casablanca and Saudi Arabia, while East Africa is a virtual no-go area for British travellers. Of course it is possible to argue that the terrorist attacks would have happened without the war against Iraq.

What the Prime Minister cannot claim after the past few days is that his supine support for America's war has addressed in any way the threat posed by terrorists.

Even if Saddam had possessed the weapons of mass destruction, he always made a hypothetical leap in assuming that the tyrant would hand some of them over to al Qaeda. The hypothesis was never enough to justify a pre-emptive strike.

Now it is increasingly clear that Saddam did not even possess the weapons in the first place.

Last week the Government was scandalously rowing back on this issue.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw claimed on the BBC that "it's not crucially important" for the weapons of mass destruction to be found.

Only three months ago he took a very different line, warning that "some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them".

Mr Blair spoke with even greater passion about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war. Now he looks irritated when the issue is mentioned, as if he had never raised it in the first place.

Mr Blair and Mr Straw should not be allowed to forget their passionate justification for a war that not only killed and maimed thousands of civilians and soldiers, but also divided the international community in a way that will make it harder to fight the "war against terrorism".

The political leaders responsible for the war against Iraq must be held more fully to account.

What was it for?

Thousands were killed and the terrorists thrive.

- INDEPENDENT (editorial)