Posted on 09/05/2007 11:56:17 AM PDT by Froufrou
In a new report released Wednesday afternoon, a security expert said jihadist terrorism currently poses a larger threat than it did before 9/11.
"Measured by the number of terrorist incidents, the jihadist threat is more significant now than it was prior to September 11, 2001," said Bernard Finel, a senior fellow with the liberal-leaning American Security Project. "It is, most notably, significantly worse even than in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when the American response focused on al Qaeda's infrastructure in Afghanistan."
He called the jihadist terrorists a "vibrant and dynamic movement that has a great deal of strength even to this day. There are more attacks, so certainly they are more effective or more violent."
"In short, the war in Iraq has not noticeably reduced the numbers of jihadists outside of Iraq; rather it has created many more fighters to join the movement," he said. "This finding fundamentally undermines the Bush administration's claim that we are 'fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here.'
"It's been a growing threat for the last couple of decades. The trends were already bad going into the late '90s, and I think we just haven't taken sufficient steps to overturn and to change the trend lines since 9/11," Finel told Cybercast News Service.
Finel also argued that the United States should not focus on Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. The Bush administration's action to reduce state-sponsored terror and gain international cooperation in that effort has worked well, he said.
However, there is a "new kind of threat," one not "based around states," Finel said. "It's really a threat based around an ideology, a movement, and transnational groups. Until we take steps to deal with that kind of a challenge, we're always going to be behind the eight ball."
Finel noted that, instead, U.S. foreign policy should focus on "changing hearts and minds" in the Muslim world.
"On one hand we want people to reject terrorism in the abstract, on the other hand there are a series of beliefs which tend to justify the jihadist movement, just like terrorism -most notably that the United States is supporting these oppressive regimes in the region and that the United States is sort of this aggressive power which is out to attack and harm Islam," he said.
"That's not what American foreign policy is all about," said Finel, "but nonetheless it's a belief that has a lot of credibility in the Muslim world."
But President George W. Bush has often contended that Iraq is central to the war on terror. "The fight in Iraq has a direct impact on the safety of Americans here at home," Bush said in a speech last week.
"We have seen what violent extremists will do when American forces are actively engaged in Iraq, and we can envision what they would do if they were emboldened by American forces in retreat," he said.
"For all those who ask whether the fight in Iraq is worth it, imagine an Iraq where militia groups backed by Iran control large parts of the country, and al Qaeda has established sanctuaries to safely plot future attacks on targets all over the world, including the U.S. Homeland," said Bush, "and they could use billions of dollars in oil revenues to buy weapons and pursue their deadly ambitions."
He added that the most "important and immediate way" to counter terrorist groups is to "win the fight in Iraq."
A victory by "violent extremists" in the Middle East and the region there "could imperil the world," Bush added.
"This administration has really prioritized the issue of international cooperation and ... winning the Iraq War as the central front in the war on terror," said Finel. "They have done some things which are contributory to success in the war on terror. But, that said, it's a question of priorities and what trade-off you're willing to accept.
"I just don't see how you puncture the movement with anything you do in Iraq," he said.
Just nuke them already.
Piles of nasty body bags change hearts and minds.
Who is Bernard Final?
I don’t know how you make this measurement. If you measure it retroactively, then there is no way it can be greater than pre-911 because it was 100% then.
If you measure it as we viewed it before 911, then of course it’s greater, because no one gave terrorism a second thought in those days.
Greg Craig, Tony Zinni, John Kerry, Armitage, what would you expect them to say?
Couldn’t the same be said about the Germans, Japanese, N. Koreans, etc just after those conflicts began and the US got involved?
Finel noted that, instead, U.S. foreign policy should focus on “changing hearts and minds” in the Muslim world.
Hmmmmmmm. Easier said than done.
We have to come from a positipn of strength, not weakness.
How to do change the hearts and minds of people who think it noble to DIE while killing you? You must kill them BEFORE they have a chance to kill you. If we wait around and TRY to change their hears and minds, we will be killed, our society destroyed and our country taken over.
Some people just don’t understand the nature of our enemy.
HEY FINEL!!!,
what is a infidel in koranic foreign policy?
And most of the blame can be shared with the kind of people who you break bread with each day!
Pish tosh. This article is just the usual left wing nonsense.
Killing terrorists demoralizes those who would join the movement. Appeasing them increases morale among would be joiners.
As Sun Tzu put it: "If your enemy is angry, irritate him."
There was a 1993 WTC bombing, and then some embassy bombings, and then the USS Cole and then the 9-11 attacks.
What’s happened to US territories since then?
“Changing hearts and minds” is just a joke.
To do that, we’d first have to understand why we’re so hated. I don’t think a jihadist could even say why. They’re so brainwashed they don’t know how to think anymore.
This is a totally flawed argument on Finel's part.
Islamic terrorism has been growing continuously since the 70's. He can have no knowledge as to how much MORE we might have been facing had we not gone into Iraq.
To argue that our presence in Iraq caused more terrorism is unprovable, terrorism was increasing anyway.
It’s had a way of bringing the jihadists out into the light.
Just like the “12 cartoons” didn’t cause rioters to radicalize, it gave them an EXCUSE to riot.
>> Terrorist Threat Greater Than Before 9-11, Says Expert
One expert? One lousy expert? Not even plural “experts”?
As an attorney, having dealt with “expert” witnesses ... I assure you that you can find an “expert” that will say virtually ANYTHING.
Excuse me if I don’t rush out to purchase a gas mask.
H
Will always be so. The trick is to get people to more or less live and let live anyway and we will all get rich.
Number of terrorist attacks on US soil since we invaded Iraq: 0.
Crawl back in your hole, Bernie Finel.
I know you’re right. These people wouldn’t cut us any slack. I had breakfast next to a table with 10 men, four of whom were obviously Arabic-speaking. It was very hard to choke down my food, I was so nervous.
Even as a tried to not eavesdrop, my ears were straining to hear everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.