There is a general principle which is well known to everybody who works in conflict situations:
Steps toward peace increase the likelihood of a violent action by people or groups with an interest in the continuation of the conflict.
Obviously, they do this in order to stop progress toward peace for whatever reason. I should add that there are often actors on all sides of a conflict, including government actors, who see the continuation of a conflict as being in their interest. Thus, we see sudden "losses of discipline", factional splintering, violent law enforcement, showy terrorizing of civilians, etc whenever there is movement in a peace process. Unfortunately, many of the people engaged in high-level negotiations on a conflict do not appear to factor this into their strategies. And a single act of violence is often enough to derail peace-talks for weeks - if not forever.
Do not be so quick to criticize George Bush simply for drawing the parallel between "progress" and "acts of violence". The correlation is often real. By denying that this correlation could ever be true, we back ourselves into a corner where every bit of progress toward peace and stability becomes hostage to the violent.
(Tim Dunlop suggests we not over-interpret Mr Bush either. He disputes the talking point that the Bush Administration, in this case, is reversing the association stated above and is attempting to suggest that acts of violence mean progress is being made.)
The problem with the remarks by the Bush Administration is that the type of progress being made in Iraq is not the type of progress that provokes violence. What progress has been made in Iraq has largely been material progress (the now famous schools, the less famous clinics, the never-ending process that is water and electricity) and has been made despite the fighting. Material gains are certainly important for rehabilitation and for the post-conflict society, but they are not progress toward "peace", they are not progress toward less violence.
There appear to be no serious discussions underway to resolve the hostilities other than with force. As there is no progress toward peace, these bombings and attacks cannot be attempts to challenge that progress.
. . .
From above:
" many of the people engaged in high-level negotiations on a conflict do not appear to factor this into their strategies "
This is being charitable, but not naively so. There are, in fact, politicians and negotiators who are unaware of this dynamic. Yes, it does seem quite odd to me that people whose task is to "solve" the conflict should lack this understanding, but some do. Whether they should be involved in negotiations is of course the obvious question.
There are also politicians who are aware that their negotiations may well prompt violence. Some of them make this awareness a part of their strategy for ending the conflict. There are also, unfortunately, those who use this tendency to upset their own negotiations (the violent elements within both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership groups are well aware of this dynamic and they are both shameless about using it).
Posted by Martial