We haven’t absorbed the lessons

Philip Bobbitt, the acclaimed author of ‘The Shield of Achilles’, says that the attacks were the work of an ultra-modern movement — closer to Mastercard than the IRA in structure. The worst is not inevitable: but it is distinctly possible

With terror, the murderous act itself is always nihilistic; it is the reaction that gives the atrocity political meaning. The meaning of the London transport bombings is that a society accustomed to the predations of the IRA and, within living memory, the terror bombing of the second world war will not be easily shaken. This stoic reaction masks, however, several troubling, less reassuring reactions here in London and in the ethereal network that connects al-Qa’eda.

While experience of the IRA may have helped cauterise the wounds inflicted on 7 July, it also misleads us into thinking we understand the forces arrayed against us. It is a popular European retort to American policy since 11 September to say that the only thing new about the attacks that day is that US citizens were the victims. Societies that have endured attacks by the IRA, Eta, the FLN and other groups are sceptical about American perceptions of the terrorist threat posed by al-Qa’eda. It is only natural, it is said, that the Americans, being unused to such attacks, should exaggerate their importance and their novelty.

In the 20th century, national liberation and ethnic secessionist groups used terror to gain the power exercised by nation states. Indeed, terrorism in the period immediately past typically represented nationalist ambitions — the PLO, PKK, Tamil Tigers and the Stern Gang are all examples — pitting established powers against embryonic ones in a struggle to control or create states.

Terrorism in the 21st century will present an entirely different face. It will be global; it will be decentralised and networked much like a multinational corporation; it will outsource many of its operations.