Is the War on Terror Over?

realclearpolitics.com ^ | April 26, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[neverdem]

Do we still need to fight a war on terror?

The answer seems to be no for an increasing number in the West who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11.

The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight against radical Islam.

An influential book making the rounds - "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them" - argues that the threat from al-Qaida is vastly exaggerated.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror - not the jihadists themselves.

Even onetime neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998 called for the preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein, believes "war" is the "wrong metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists.

Others point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the resources of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the Soviet Union.

This thinking may seem understandable given the ineffectiveness of al-Qaida to kill many Americans after 9/11. Or it may also reflect hopes that if we only leave Iraq, radical Islam will wither away. But it is dead wrong for a number of reasons.

First, Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested periodically in both Europe and the United States. Just last week a leaked British report detailed al-Qaida's plans for future "large-scale" operations. We shouldn't be blamed for being alarmist when our alarmism has resulted in our safety at home for the past five years...

[Just another Joe]

But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform - or we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.

He does get down to brass tacks, doesn't he?

[Valin]

Maybe you should start with Colonel Douglas Burpee USMC

http://www.nysun.com/article/31393

His call sign is “Hadji,” meaning “one who has made a pilgrimage to Mecca.”

“It’s a pilot thing,” explains Colonel Douglas Burpee, the highest ranking Muslim officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. Now in his 23rd year of military service, Colonel Burpee recently returned from flying helicopters in Afghanistan.

“Everyone knows I’m a Muslim. When I fly, attached to my dog tags, I wear a pendant with a passage from the Koran,” he says. “I try to set a good example based upon what I believe.... I can be a soldier and a Muslim at the same time. I have no problem with that.”
(snip)

You go tell him to get out of the country, if you’re lucky he’ll just laugh at you for being silly.

You’re doing a great job of helping OBL..I’m sure he’s say keep up the good work.

[NonValueAdded]

Nailed it, did I? :) Thanks much, FRiend, and thank you for keeping us informed via your ping lists.

[kellynla]

“maybe” you should quit bothering me...
gezzzzzzzz

[MizSterious]

Radigan’s Raiders pinglist. If you want on or off, let me know via Freepmail.

[Valin]

Re your Freepmail
Here you go
If you don’t want to be bothered by disturbing facts, that might intrude into your simple world...fine.
The fact is what we are seeing in the GWOT (and GOD I hate that name) is a civil war inside Islam and we are collateral damage, and are now forced to take action. Comments like your’s are (to say the least) not helpful to America.

[Sergio]

Excellent turn of the phrase.

[capitalist229]

The war on terror is not over until global warming is over.

Every political philosophy has its sacred cow.

BUMP

[The Pack Knight]

Its much more nuanced with communism after the fall of the USSR; outright communist parties maybe less popular, but socialist parties are quite strong. Plus Marxism mutated into multiculturalism, and folks-Marxism of that aggrieved and weak are always right.

It's an important point, but there does seem to be a difference this time, and this difference is also the reason that Islamism is every bit the threat communism and fascism were, despite the fact that it isn't directly supported by powerful states like the Third Reich or the USSR.

During the late 40s, there was a strong debate within the Truman Administration and within academia as to the nature of the communist threat. It was between one view, primarily of George C. Marshall and George Kennan, that the Soviet threat was mostly political in nature and centered in Europe. The opposing view, advocated by Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson, was that the Soviet Union was a global military threat. The latter view prevailed in the adoption of NSC 68 and was generally validated by the Korean War.

While Soviet-supported communist movements did pose a political threat in Europe, outside of a few countries like Italy and Greece it was little more than a nuisance, accomplishing little outside of the gradual socialization of European politics which led to the "Third Way" welfare state.

The main difference between the communist political threat and the Islamist political threat is, of course, the demographic and religious aspect of the Islamist threat. There were no mass migrations from Soviet-bloc countries to the West, and those who did migrate did so primarily to escape communism, and so did not bring that ideology with them. In contrast, the immigration to the West from Muslim countries has largely resulted in unassimilated populations with a strong Islamic self-identification. These populations seem far more prone to strong, violent, lifelong radicalization than did the leftist students and unionists that made up European communist movements.

The result is an internal political threat to the West that has the potential to be far more dangerous than were the fascists of the 30s and 40s or the communists of the Cold War era. The fact that the Islamist threat is of a different nature than the fascist and communist threats are should not be taken to mean that it is of a lesser nature. That Brzezinski fails to understand this explains quite a bit of what happened in the 70s.

[Tolik]

One of the differences that makes Islamic threat more dangerous is in economic goals. Communists were too rush to claim that socialist system of the USSR (they did not call it internally communist, but socialist) is ultimately going to be more productive than capitalism. Khrushchev even declared that “the current generation is going to live during communism”. This is a very concrete, verifiable claim. Plus, it was not a peripheral claim, but one of the cornerstones of the believe system.

Big mistake! Obviously, the promises were in no rush to materialize. When iron curtain got rusty and information leaked in, everybody got a whiff that something ain’t quite right. You can exploit enthusiasm for a brighter future and ask for sacrifices now in the name of this brighter future only for so long. People became cynical and religion of communism went downhill. Open dissent was still very dangerous, but true believers became rarity, everybody just continued playing the game.

Back to the Islamism. No such foolish claims, no promises of any better conditions now — only in after-life. And this claim is very hard to disprove. So they don’t mind death, just to get some infidels with them. Many on the West poo-poo oil threat. But for the Jihad, Inc. it is nothing to completely destroy oil fields anywhere they can - what do they care if their own people will starve, the West will go down in economic catastrophe, and its all that matters.

[dervish]

” This inability to tie a state to its support for terrorism is our greatest obstacle in this war - and our enemies’ greatest advantage.”

Only if our government allows the MSM to control the course of the war.

[dervish]

“Contrary to what the West appears to believe, the destructive energy of Islamist actions is directed mainly against Muslims. This is not a tactical error, not a case of “collateral damage”. In Algeria alone, Islamist terror has cost the lives of at least 50,000 fellow Algerians.”

That is the doing of the creator of modern terror warfare Frantz Fanon (”The Wretched of the Earth”). His theories of absolute violence has guided the Islamist terrorists.

There are few moderates who speak out, and even fewer who actually are moderates. Osama was right about one thing and in that he knew the umma - they will follow the strong horse. This is a culture to whom kindness and mercy are weakness.

[rmlew]

I have no problem with Patriotic Muslims who do not want to see the US become part of a Caliphate.
The problem is that not enogh patriotic Muslims have denounced the extremists who want us conquered.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Please consider this a personal invitation to join our project.

[Chickenhawk Warmonger]

I’m in!

[StarCMC]

Could I get on the infowarrior ping list please?

[tillacum]

Without the American oilmen, the arabs would not have known to bring in the wells. Now they have us wrapped around their little finger because we cannot build new refineries or bring in new wells because of the epa’s rules.

[tillacum]

please add me to the list. Thank you.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Cannoneer No. 4; intenseracer; 2ndDivisionVet; Lurker; roaddog727; MizSterious; Tainan; AliVeritas; Liberty Wins; Cannonette; FreedomPoster; Chani

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Blogospheric Resistance -- IO In Denied Battle Spaces