|
|
|
Jewish World Review Jan. 27, 2011 / 22 Shevat, 5771 Small-scale Terrorist Attacks: Big Strategy? By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
On Tuesday, while it was being reported that Russia had endured another terrorist atrocity killing 35 and wounding over 150, the Dow Jones Industrial Average surged almost 109 points. That got me thinking about a statement Democrat candidate John Kerry made the 2004 presidential campaign: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance…(terrorism) isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life." Have we reached such a point--or have Islamic terrorists embraced a brilliant strategy for lulling the West into a distorted sense of complacency?
On September 11, 2001, Islamic fascists killed nearly three thousand Americans in an hour-an-a-half. While this was no doubt a grand victory for al Qaeda, et al, in the short term, it was a long-term strategic error for a movement determined to transform the world into a giant Islamic Caliphate. It was an error based on the fundamental calculation that America was, as Osama Bin Laden put it, a "paper tiger." Bin Laden was reasonably sure that our country had been permanently scarred by our premature withdrawal from Vietnam, which the American left, up to their collective eyeballs in anti-war sentiment, characterized as a "victory" despite the extermination of nearly three million Asians in the following years.
Another calculation was likely part of the mix as well. From the extermination of 241 American troops in Lebanon in 1983, to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000, which killed 17 American servicemen--along with a string of atrocities in between, including Pan American Airlines Flight 103 blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988; the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of the U.S. military's Khobar Towers in 1996; and the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998--it must have seemed apparent that America had no over-arching plan to deal with radical Islam. Or perhaps even more encouraging, Bin Laden concluded America was content to deal with every atrocity through the lens of "law enforcement" and its piecemeal approach. From that standpoint, it was logical to assume that the attacks of 9/11 would yield a lot of talk and hand-wringing, and perhaps some high-profile civilian trials, but nothing on a grand scale with respect to retaliation.
From a tactical point of view, it was a fatal miscalculation. Aside from the number of people killed, Al Qaeda underestimated the fury of a country which had endured only one other substantial attack on its homeland. Once again, as it was after Pearl Harbor, a "sleeping giant" had been awakened and "filled with a terrible resolve." On September 14th, 2001, Congress voted to "authorize the use of United States armed forces" to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The vote totals where overwhelming: 420 yes, 1 nay and 10 abstentions in the House; 98 ayes, 0 nays and 2 abstentions in the Senate. On October 11th , 2002, Congress also authorized the use of force in Iraq, with a 77-23 majority in the Senate and a 296-133 margin in the House.
Thus the war on terror began in earnest, and in the ensuing years, Islamic terrorists have been unable to mount anything resembling the level of carnage America endured almost ten years ago. There is no question that the forces of terror also endured catastrophic losses in the interim. Many of Al Qaeda's top operatives have been captured or killed, and their safe haven in Afghanistan, along with a sympathetic Ba'athist government in Iraq, no longer exist. As a result, many American leftists now insist that the threat of terror is "overblown," or part of a "politics of fear" strategy to be exploited during election campaigns. Those on the right like to believe the Bush administration dealt international terrorists such a terrible blow that they have yet to recover, based on the aforementioned lack of large-scale terrorist attacks since 2001.
What if both sides are wrong? What if Islamic fanatics have seen the error of their ways and realized that an attack on the scale of 9/11 was premature? What if they have come to the conclusion that anything which engenders large-scale retaliation against Islamic terror at this point in time could be fatal to their long-term interests? Certainly if one considers an Islamic birthrate which exceeds that of every Western nation, Western apathy and indifference towards defending our own heritage, the double-game being played by our ostensible allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who continue to support terrorism even as they deny it, and the seemingly unstoppable pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran, one could make the case that time is on their side. Perhaps Muammar Qadaffi was prescient when he said, "We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims will turn (Europe) into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
And it's not just demographics which accrues to the interests of Islamo-fascism. The march of technology does as well: when Iran becomes as capable as North Korea, it's a whole new ball game. When Islamists get the inter-continental missile delivery systems to go along with the bombs, it will be even worse.
What to do in the interim? How about maintaining jihadist morale and and fine-tuning terrorist operational capabilities? How about a series of attacks from Bali to Beslan, from Madrid to Mumbai, along with Tuesdays attack in Russia, all of which produce substantial numbers of killed and wounded--but insufficient numbers to galvanize a worldwide response by the West? A West which still possesses the capabilities to destroy terrorists as well as the nations who support them, but apparently lacks sufficient provocation to do so?
In addition, how about exploring new safe havens on the continent of Africa even as the West explores "tougher" sanctions against Iran? How about making meaningful inroads into Western cultural institutions, even as Congress holds meaningless hearings on radical Islam in which experts who know the genuine nature of jihadism are excluded from the process? How about gearing up for future theaters of operation, even as America announces its intentions to gear down in both Iraqi and Afghani theaters in the next three years?
How about preparing for world war, even as countless Western apologists continue to insist Islam is a "religion of peace?"
Even those who understand the true nature of Islamic radicalism probably believe that if terrorists could kill a million people, they would do it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Like 9/11, such an attack would invite far worse retaliation, maybe even the annihilation of large population centers and the abandonment of our "politically correct" approach to war, in which winning hearts and minds and nation-building would be replaced with the kind of grim determination that won WWll.
Right now, all the game-changing capabilities are in Western hands--and the terrorists know it. Until that changes, I suspect we'll continue to see a calculated level of atrocity perpetrated in the name of Islam. It will be enough to keep their jihadist followers amped up, but not enough to engender a full-scale effort by the West to destroy them completely. If so, it's a brilliant, "death by a thousand cuts" strategy. One I'd like to think has been contemplated by people paid to think about the unthinkable.
Vladmir Putin has promised a strong response to what occurred on Tuesday. Yet one suspects that no matter how strong that response is, Russia will continue to do business with Iran, despite that nation's inarguable role in facilitating worldwide terror. Attorney General Eric Holder will still refuse to nix the idea of holding civilian trials for 9/11 terrorists. Hamas will likely take control of the government in Lebanon, right under the noses of the United Nations "peace-keeping" forces. Christians will continue to be persecuted and killed in the Middle East. Al Qaeda will still maintain an operational control center in North Waziristan. Mosques and madrassas preaching jihadism, many of them funded by Saudi Arabia, will still be open for business in America and Europe. And the beat goes on, while scant few in the West keep tabs on a movement gathering strength and confidence, with just enough violence thrown in to "stay in shape" for something far greater down the road.
How long will the West continue to countenance such a "nuisance?"
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR Contributor Arnold Ahlert's column, by clicking here.
© 2010, Arnold Ahlert |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||||
