Posted on 10/06/2007 7:03:58 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- More than six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, America is a country with more physical security to defend against terrorism. Much of that has been focused on preventing hijackings so that airplanes cannot be used as missiles as they were on Sept. 11. Most recently, Department of Homeland Security officials announced that remote-control toys may be subject to additional security screening because the government “is aware that remote control toys can be used to initiate devices used in terrorist attacks.”
Buildings have also been made more secure by erecting barricades, prohibiting parking and other access, deploying armed personnel, and instituting identity and vehicle checks. New York City has a much more visible police presence.
However, though such measures certainly make successful terrorist attacks harder, they are no guarantee. Baghdad, for instance, has more security than the average U.S. city, but that has not stopped the onslaught of terror attacks there. Increased security does not equal being safer from terrorism.
In fact, it is impossible to know exactly why the United States has not -- thankfully -- suffered another terrorist attack.
Part of the reason is undoubtedly geography. Given that the terrorist threat to the United States emanates from outside its borders, the country is fortunately bordered by friendly neighbors to the north and south and by vast oceans to the east and west -- making it more difficult for terrorists to transit from abroad.
The United States is also fortunate that American Muslims seem not to be as susceptible to radicalization and the violence espoused by radical Islam -- lessening the potential threat from any enemy within.
Another reason is that as a result of military operations in Afghanistan, al-Qaida's sanctuary has been displaced and it is likely not as operationally capable as it was on Sept. 11. But it could also be that al-Qaida has chosen not to attack the U.S. homeland again -- especially when America has provided a more convenient target in Iraq for jihadists to hone their tradecraft.
It is also important to understand that al-Qaida's (and by extension, radical Islam's) real target is the Muslim world.
War with America is not a goal in and of itself, but a means to an end: toppling regimes and furthering the cause of Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East and Asia. The United States became a target because of its support for those governments -- many of which are repressive, corrupt and illegitimate -- considered apostate by Osama bin Laden's standards.
Ultimately, if the United States wants to be safer, then its policymakers need to address the reasons why people choose to become terrorists and want to kill innocent Americans.
This requires understanding that the growing tide of anti-American Muslim hatred -- which is the basis for terror groups to draw Muslims to their ranks -- is fueled more by what we do, i.e. U.S. policies, than who we are.
In other words -- as the Sept. 11 Commission concluded and numerous polls conducted throughout the Islamic world show -- they do not hate the United States for its freedoms, way of life, culture, accomplishments or values.
But Muslims throughout the world believe they are victims of U.S. foreign policy. For example, they hear the rhetoric of the United States seeking to establish democracy in Iraq but see continued unqualified U.S. support for an autocratic and oppressive theocracy in neighboring Saudi Arabia.
How Muslims view the war in Iraq cannot be ignored either -- the United States attacked a Muslim country without military provocation, and the Bush administration's claims of weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida links were false.
In addition, the bipartisan saber rattling against Iran lends credence to the claim that the United States is engaged in a wider war against Islam rather than targeting the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.
With more than 1 billion Muslims in the world, the underlying reasons why so many of them have a growing hatred of the United States cannot continue to be ignored. If it is -- no matter how much security we erect -- the United States will never be safe.
--
(Charles V. Pena is an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project and author of "Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism" (Potomac Books).)
* "Baghdad, for instance, has more security than the average U.S. city, but that has not stopped the onslaught of terror attacks there. Increased security does not equal being safer from terrorism."
> I would say Baghdad has LESS security than the average US city, for if my neighbor had a mortar and was preparing to use it, I'd call the the police AND THEY'D COME.
* "In fact, it is impossible to know exactly why the United States has not -- thankfully -- suffered another terrorist attack."
> I am speechless. That is why I'm posting this--for smart aleck Freeper comments.
*"The United States is also fortunate that American Muslims seem not to be as susceptible to radicalization and the violence espoused by radical Islam -- lessening the potential threat from any enemy within."
> How many terrorist cells have we broken in the US? I can think of at least three: Buffalo, Dearborn, and Minnesota.
*"But it could also be that al-Qaida has chosen not to attack the U.S. homeland again -- especially when America has provided a more convenient target in Iraq for jihadists to hone their tradecraft."
> They've declared war on us. If they could hit us, they would.
*"This requires understanding that the growing tide of anti-American Muslim hatred -- which is the basis for terror groups to draw Muslims to their ranks -- is fueled more by what we do, i.e. U.S. policies, than who we are."
>An old canard. We were attacked throughout the 90's and in 2001 with an appeasement/ignoring policy.
There's more. Have at it.
Friendly neighbors to the south of our border? Where?
No it is not - Understand, nothing is more complex than avoiding the obvious - The obvious is we are taking the fight to them there (throughout the ME, HOA, SE Asia) 24/7, which has made it incredibly more difficult for them to attack us here -
The dirty little secret the MSM will not tout...is that it is AQ and their mimics who cannot fight effective two-front (multi-front) wars......We most certainly can, have been, and will continue to do so.
Since Sept 11th, 2001 our enemies have suffered one strategic defeat after another.....we have not suffered one. Two brutal regimes (and sponsors of terrorists) have been removed, 3/4 of AQ original leadership is captured or dead....Ditto that percentage of their less effective replacements....We have killed ten's of thousands of jihadists (real bad, ugly-souled people)....and we started the process of dragging the ME out of the dark ages....with the values of self-worth and freedoms taking root in both Iraq and Stan. These values will be our biggest allies in this WOT, for the long haul.
Thank you for a clear and succinct reply. Could I post it as a reply to this “analyst”?
Please list them with sources to document them. I say you are a liar. Prove me wrong.
When we declare war on "Islam", the world will know it full well. This isn't it.
-ccm
Salt Lake City Mall
Backpack at college stadium.
Muslims have carried out over 9700 attacks since 9/11. Try: "antimullah.com" and "the religionofpeace.com" to educate your apparently ignorant self.
Document your accusations. YOU are making the claims, prove them.
I say you are a liar. Prove me wrong
I gave you the places to start. If you are too lazy to look it up then continue your ignorance. No sweat off mine.
Still waiting. DOCUMENTED proof to back up this accusation. PROOF, not just mindless drivel spewed forth from a demented hate filled mind.
It has though. Many.
I have no idea when the next large attack will take place, but I have no doubt a large attack is being planned for both Europe and the United States. Although things have been relatively quiet, for a WAR, the enemy continues to infiltrate the United States and Europe. To stop this enemy cannot be done without brutal force, in the extreme, on our enemies. Regretfully too few understand, and too few are willing to exterminate our enemies. For not having exterminated our enemies, Europe and the United States will pay a high price, with our dead.
May I be wrong, but from the battlefield, as viewed, I do not have another opinion. May our Men and Women be sharp and lucky, for most of our defense of our Nation has been operated on sheer luck, because of politicians who think Europe's and the United States' citizens lives are expendable. btw....Amnesty, profiling grandpa and grandma, allowing an invasion, holding sleep-ins for defeat do not WIN a WAR. That is my humble opinion.
Become a conservative nation.
Ditto!
You are correct, +/- some.
The enemy had made long term plans.
None as devastating, none as large scale as 9/11, or the other attacks (U.S.S.Cole,Marine Barracks,OKCITY, etc).
That is the key to why we can’t pull out of Iraq.
We took the war to ‘them’. We forced them to concentrate their resources on protecting their own behinds.
If we remove our troops prematurely, then there will be a lot more “home games”, as the enemy can go “on the road”.
Israel has incurred losses due to terrorist attacks, but suicide bombs are one thing, large rockets are another.
To suffer NO new attacks, we would have to eliminate our enemy leadership.
Our enemy will attack. As long as we Defend, we may have casualties, but we won’t lose.
Only if we don’t defend (which is the Democratic Party Option) will we lose.
Most Americans would say we have had NO NEW attacks, based on the fact that the MSM doesn’t push info on these skirmishes.
Most believe that corruption in our govt is rampant and nothing is being done.
It isn’t true.
Much of the chaos you see in current US politics is the result of this cleansing from the bottom up.
The info is there. Here too.
Corrupt politicians, officeholders, CEO’s, GS heads, supervisors, at local,state, and federal levels being caught and prosecuted.
The war is on all sides, but the activity is highest where the game is being played.
"Most Americans would say we have had NO NEW attacks, based on the fact that the MSM doesn’t push info on these skirmishes."
This one does bother me because in strict definition we have been attacked. Two notable examples are Richard Reid and the Vienna Embassy. Just because they were unsuccessful doesn't mean they were not an attack. I also still believe that the Salt lake City mall shooting was a exercise where someone got a dupe to try it to see what the response would be.
Be vigilant.
No we don't. All we have to do is kill those who make that choice.
And only decorum and Jim's posting rules keep me from putting down what I really believe we should do.
But "understand them" ... NFW!!!!!
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.