"The War Against Islamic Rerrorism Continues"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“The War Against Islamic Terrorism Continues”

November 5, 2010

Today marks the one year anniversary of the Fort Hood shooting. That along with explosive devices found in packages bound for Temples in Chicago are reminders that the war against Islamic terrorism continues. Early in his administration, President Obama, in his desire to be perceived by the world as the anti-Bush, favored the term “Overseas Contingency Operations” to the more direct, but less politically correct, “Global War on Islamic Terror”, the term favored by President Bush. In his inaugural, Mr. Obama did say “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” But he also added that our security depends on “…the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” The immediate response by the administration to Major Hasan’s rampage on November 5, 2009 was to deny that he might have been motivated by radical Islam.

President Obama has tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan, the “good war” in his words, as that is where Al Qaeda trained prior to the attack on 9/11. Yet the three recent attacks – one that succeeded and two that failed, not because of an alert Homeland Security Department but because of human error by the perpetrators – emanated from Yemen. The recently discovered packaged explosives also came from Yemen. Does that then suggest that invading Yemen would amount to another “good war”? There is no such thing as a “good war”. Wars may be “extensions of diplomacy by other means”, as Clausewitz wrote, but they indicate a failure of human discourse. They may be necessary, but they are never “good”.

Unfortunately the world has a small number of radicalized people whose hatred for others negates rational discourse. In every culture, including Islam, there are those who fit such a description. Leaders of groups such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah see nothing immoral in killing innocent civilians in advance of their cause. Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has identified other organizations such as Revolution Muslim and Islamic Thinkers Society that are moving from ideology to violent action. At this time, Islamic terrorists have sworn to destroy our way of life.

A year ago today, Major Nidal Malik Hasan walked into a medical building at Fort Hood, Texas carrying two weapons and 200 rounds of ammunition. He shot and killed thirteen soldiers and wounded thirty-two. On Christmas day, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who was trained in Yemen attempted, but failed, to ignite a bomb he was carrying in his underwear. He had boarded Northwest flight 253 in Nigeria and tried to blow up the plane on its approach into Detroit. And then, on May 1 of this year, a crude car bomb failed to detonate in Times Square. The would-be terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, panicked and fled the scene before taking the necessary steps to cause the bomb to explode. He was captured the next day trying to flee the country. Like his two predecessors, his ties were to Al Qaeda in Yemen. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, echoing the sentiments of Attorney General Eric Holder, said of that incident at the time: “We want to celebrate the success, rightly so, of what law enforcement was able to do.” Steven Hayes, writing in the Weekly Standard, corrected that perception: “success in the war on terror is not apprehending terrorists after their attacks fail. Success is preventing them from attempting the attack in the first place.”

In his speech to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush said “Americans should expect a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.” It would be a “multi-generational” war waged by terrorists who kill “not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life.” Mr. Bush also made it very clear that we were not at war with Muslims. “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.” Responding to the call, Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia volunteered their help. The balance of Mr. Bush’s Presidency was largely consumed with the war. Iraq was invaded in 2003 and Saddam Hussein was overthrown. In 2006, the President deployed the Surge, which succeeded in wrestling victory for the fledgling government in Iraq from what seemed certain defeat. However, the war strained relations with allies, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

With Al Qaeda dispersed but still alive and U.S. soldiers’ deaths mounting, the President’s popularity plummeted. Not surprisingly, long wars have never been popular with Americans. Despite attempts, there were no further successful terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland during the balance of Bush’s Presidency, a possibility that seemed remote in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Regardless, with Bush’s poll numbers at record lows as he left the White House, newly elected President Obama felt compelled to speak to the Muslim world, which he did in Cairo on June 9, 2009. His purpose was “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Nevertheless, not much has changed, in terms of relationships in the Middle East, in the subsequent seventeen months.

What makes this particular war so insidious is its uniqueness and unconventionality. Conventional warfare does not work. The enemy is not located in a single place. They are unseen, yet omnipresent. It is amorphous; it slips through defenses as mercury through one’s fingers. The enemy has patience; they can wait months or even years between attacks. They are not easily identifiable; their combatants wear no uniforms and can even hide under hijabs. They are merciless. They recruit people from every country, including the United States. They prey on the unsuspecting; civilians are their preferred targets.

We have been fortunate in that we have not been attacked since 9/11, but that does not mean we should let our defenses down. The passage of time has dimmed the fear we all felt on September 12, 2001 and that is a good thing, for we must go on with our lives. However, the innate decency, naïveté and generosity of Americans should not inhibit us from taking the offensive in ferreting out those who would do us harm.

Despite continued Islamic terrorists’ attempts, much of the West seems to have moved on toward what they perceive to be a post-war world rid of the elements that brought on 9/11. Gideon Rachman, a respected columnist with the Financial Times recently wrote a piece, “Obama may just be an interlude.” He questions the belief of conservatives in “American Exceptionalism”. Mr. Rachman liked the answer Mr. Obama provided Edward Luce of the Financial Times to a question about American exceptionalism in June 2009. When asked if he believes in it, Mr. Obama said he did, “just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” While I, too, believe in the truth of Mr. Obama’s clever response, Mr. Rachman’s fixation on Mr. Obama’s answer suggests myopia when it comes to the attitudes of conservatives. He doesn’t allow for the fluidity of attitudes, as people adapt to a fast-changing world. The United States remains the preeminent global superpower, but its significance shrinks as the East rises. That is obvious to all. However, America does remains unique in its composition of peoples from all nationalities, in its openness, in its geographic position, in its economy and political institutions. Does that it make it exceptional? Perhaps not, but it remains the favorite destination for those looking to emigrate for reasons of opportunity. Mr. Rachman should not fear a conservative becoming President. The country is bigger than any one man. His concerns, though, do suggest a belief he must have in exceptionalism, the exceptionalism of Mr. Obama.

The threat of Islamic terrorism persists. Americans must feel comfortable that their leaders in Washington will never relent in their pursuit of the enemy. President Bush was correct in identifying the enemy as Islamic terrorists and President Obama was correct in acknowledging the need to maintain relationships with the Muslim that are respectful, strong and trusting; for ultimately the eradication of Islamic terrorism will have to come from within the Muslim world.