For one thing, the British have a very thorough security plan in place, which has proved effective, without being overbearing or intrusive on its citizens, in thwarting terrorists attacks. Reportedly, the intelligence agencies had managed to put off eight attempted terrorist attacks in the last five years in Britain. But in a game like this, the terrorists need to be lucky only once, whereas the security forces need luck to go their way every day. And no system is totally foolproof to prevent determined groups to circumvent it.

This is the first suicide attack in Europe and certainly the most serious bombing incident and the largest casualty that London or indeed Britain has suffered since the IRA bombings began in 1971. However, at the risk of sounding cynical and to put the matter in perspective, there has been on the average one London every day in Iraq since the handing over of sovereignty in June 2004.

The difference in the reactions to post 9/11 and post 7/7 is also very remarkable. There was nothing that exposed, if there were any at all, malice in the utterances of anybody, common people or officials, against any particular community or demonstration of a revenge mentality. There was no hurry in Britain to link "Islam" to the bombing, as evident from the remarks of the assistant commissioner of the London police to the press on the day of the incidents, although the perpetrators, as it turns out, belong to the Muslim faith.

So far, several arrests have been made and the British police have revealed the identity of all but one of the four suspected bombers. Although their al Qaeda link is yet to be established, experts suggest that their modus operandi point to al Qaeda connections. Thus, the rationale of the perpetrators may not be far to seek. Although Mr. Blair sees no causal link between his Iraq policy and the bombings of July 7, and while some other political leaders in Britain have been more circumspect in their comments, one fails to see what other motives could be attributed to the four suicide bombers? George Galloway has been denounced for saying that Londoners have paid the price for Iraq and Afghanistan. He saw the bombing as a consequence of the US-led coalition's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo, which had inflamed hatred of the West in the Muslim world. Be that as it may, taking innocent lives for the policies of governments, whether in Iraq or in Britain or Spain or Indonesia, is an idea abhorrent to and despised by Islam.

It would, however, be folly to link the perpetrators with any particular community. Terrorists have no religion or creed. They claim linkages only to validate an immoral act. They should be seen for what they are -- terrorists -- and dealt with as such. To hold people of a particular community responsible for the actions of the perpetrators and subject them to revenge acts as a consequence will only be playing into the hands of the terrorists.

The British government must not make this incident an ex post facto justification of the Iraq war. Nor should it become an excuse for enacting draconian laws in the name of fighting terrorism that one fears might well be the case, following in the footsteps of the Americans. These are some of the long-term consequences of the London blast that observers fear the British might eventually have to face. It will be interesting to see how the demands of security and safety of its citizens are reconciled with the need to keep democratic institutions and practices alive in the UK.

There are several other things that the London bombings have reaffirmed and raised several questions about.

First, there can be no absolute guarantee against terrorists.

Second, we are no more secure against terrorism now than when the war against terror was launched. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the US strategy, which has fanned rather than stunted the rise of terrorism around the world.

Third, given the faulty strategy of the war on terror, how do we change course to address the issue? What, if any, new strategy does the international community need to formulate to douse the flames of terrorism?

The Madrid conference on terrorism in March this year testifies to the seriousness with which the world community holds the issue. There is much merit in the formula that was presented at Madrid by the UN Secretary General that merits consideration.

While the US had a good chance to successfully tackle international terrorism when it launched its operations in Afghanistan, with the concurrence of the international community by and large, it squandered the opportunity because of the over-obsession of Mr. Bush and the hawks in his cabinet with regime change in Iraq.

Since the London blasts, there have been dispassionate arguments on the current anti-terror policy in several quarters in the West, calling for a complete reformation of the strategy being followed by the US. The general consensus, reinforced by the London bombings, has been that it is not by military means alone that terrorism can be subdued. As one ex-British Foreign Secretary recently spelt out, there must be de-emphasising of the confrontational attitude, in particular on the part of the US, and more involvement of the moderate voices in the Muslim world, in conceiving strategies.

What is heartening to note is that it has dawned on the leaders, and not a moment too soon, that there is the need to go into the root causes of this phenomenon. You can destroy a bunch of terrorists, but terrorism will keep on coming back unless the reason that causes it to reappear is addressed. Even Mr. Blair has been moved to acknowledge this truism.

However, in conceiving strategies it would be an unmitigated folly to consider acts of terror as a mere tactic, as some senior retired US generals have been led to believe. Terrorism is a strategy adopted by the terrorist; therefore, the causal link between the terrorists and the current spate of terrorism must be addressed if it is to be effectively countered.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.