I once wrote here that terrorism is the last resort of an oppressed group of people. When a group feels that it is being ignored, and attempts at diplomacy have failed, that group bypassing the government and starts instilling fear into the civilian population, hoping that the civilians will press the government to change its policies.

That's only half true now. Time magazine published in this week's issue an article about fundamentalist Muslims, entitled "Meet the New Jihad." The article talks about the goals of a new kind of terrorism, what I would call active terrorism (or "offensive terrorism") as opposed to passive, or defensive terrorism. The difference here is that the old terrorists -- the people who attacked the World Trade Center the first time, the PLO, and even al-Qaeda -- are "passive" terrorists who respond to events. The PLO responded to what it perceived as Israeli incursion onto their land. Al-Qaeda was largely protesting our policies on Israel and they wanted U.S. troops out of the Persian Gulf.

Time's article suggests that terrorists in Iraq -- the same terrorists who have been attacking U.S. troops and beheading anyone who supports the U.S. -- are becoming more active:

Their goal now, say the militants interviewed, is broader than simply forcing the U.S. to leave. They want to transform Iraq into what Afghanistan was in the 1980s: a training ground for young jihadists who will form the next wave of recruits for al-Qaeda and like-minded groups. [...] And now the conditions are ripening for the insurgents to turn their armed struggle into a political movement that aims to exploit the upheaval and turn parts of Iraq into Taliban-style fiefdoms.

The terrorists, apparently, are taking advantage of the confusion and turmoil in Iraq to institute an Islamic state there. No longer are they merely responding to perceived U.S. incursion; rather, they are attempting to use terrorism as a political force to create their own country. What we have seen in Iraq is not a message to the U.S. to "get out," but an attempt to force the U.S. out and take the country while it is is still weak, making it easy to install a fundamentalist regime into power.

What this means is that Iraq could easily fall into the time-honored tradition of civil war, as the forces of Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi battle the forces of Iyad Allawi, Iraq's interim prime minister. Who will prevail depends on who has U.N. peacekeeping forces on its side (hopefully, Iraq's government will). It also depends on who is doing some international snooping to infiltrate and break up terrorist cells around the world (hopefully, the CIA is).

The terrorists, though, seem hell-bent on getting power in the world. Do they feel that the U.S. is a bad influence? Do they yearn for the days of the Islamic Empire throughout the world? The old Islamic Empire was by no means a strong-arm force; it was a force of learning and culture that preserved Western European traditions and texts -- until the Christians pushed them out and attacked them in Jerusalem.

These are extremists, fundamentalist "crazies" who don't represent mainstream Islam. Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, most of North Africa, Pakistan -- these are all Muslim countries that don't want to take over the world. Even the PLO, dominated by Muslims, just wants land back. The crazies led by Zarqawi do want to take over the world, it seems.

Dick Cheney has suggested that we are all safer now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. I submit that we're worse off. First of all, people weren't being beheaded every other day when Saddam was in charge. Second, while Saddam didn't like the U.S., his thirst for control over Iraq outweighed any U.S. hatred he had. Saddam would never have allowed a terrorist group to thrive in Iraq if it presented any challenge to his power. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Not for Saddam. While he was a brutal dictator, he didn't present much of a threat to the international community. This new breed of terrorists does present such a threat, and the absence of a strong authority like Saddam's allows them to exist unabated. Ironically, it is this group of crazies that present a real threat to the U.S. Perhaps allowing Saddam to stick around wouldn't have been so bad, after all. The alternative is certainly much worse.

The Time article's final sentence is a chilling prophecy of what may be in store for the next twenty years: "Asked what the jihadists will do if U.S. forces finally pull out, one of Abdullah's comrades offers this answer: 'We will follow them to the U.S.'"