Don't Look for the Terrorists

The Claremont Institute ^ | September 11, 2001 | Bruce Herschensohn

[jonefab]

[Editor's Note: In terms of size and scope, today's terrorist strikes in New York City and Washington are unprecedented in our nation's history. President Bush vowed that the United States "will hunt down and pursue those responsible for these cowardly actions." We certainly hope so, and we have every confidence that the Commander in Chief will defend American liberty at home and abroad. But this not the first time American lives have been lost at the hands of masked fanatics. Five years ago, agents of Osama Bin Ladin's terrorist organization attacked a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and injuring 60 others. Shortly after that, Claremont Insitute Distinguished Fellow Bruce Herschensohn wrote a commentary urging then-President Clinton to declare war on "the Nation of Terrorism." Although today's events are quite different in magnitude, the principle is the same. We reprint Herschensohn's original article here.]

President Clinton said that he will dispatch FBI agents to Saudi Arabia to help in the investigation into who committed the terrorist act, and he said he would "make sure that those responsible for this hideous act are brought to justice." That was seven months ago, last November 13, when a terrorist attack killed five Americans and injured 60 others in Saudi Arabia.

On June 25, 1996, after it was reported that another bomb blast killed 19 Americans and injured 105 more in Saudi Arabia, President Clinton said that he will dispatch FBI agents to Saudi Arabia to help in the investigation to find out who committed the terrorist act and he said "those who did it must be brought to justice."

Forget it.

The Saudis captured and beheaded four terrorists who might have been involved in last November's attack, but it resulted in little if any deterrence. If we are serious about stopping terrorism against Americans we must fight terrorism as we fight a war. When a hand-grenade lands in a foxhole in a battle, there is no attempt to find who threw it because it's irrelevant. The enemy must be attacked as a whole.

When President Franklin Roosevelt requested a declaration of war against the Empire of Japan, he did not say, "Yesterday we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and we are going to do everything possible to find out who those individual pilots, navigators, and bombardiers were, and bring them to justice." That would have been a guarantee that we would have lost the war. Those individuals were nothing more than tools of a larger enemy.

The larger enemy today is the Nation of Terrorism. It is irrelevant if an individual group responsible for a particular attack is called "The Movement for Islamic Change" or "The Tigers of the Gulf" or some other name. Upon which terrorist group should we retaliate? Any of them. President Clinton should call a Joint Session of the Congress to request a declaration of war against terrorism, and "that from this day forward, the United States of America will regard terrorism as a sovereign state-as a nation in itself. The Nation of Terrorism is a chain of bases, training camps, safe houses, and other facilities that dot portions of the map of the world, going into and out of other sovereign states. The non-contiguous configuration that the Nation of Terrorism has enjoyed has been a shield, since its citizens-by-choice have assumed that they would always be regarded as part of other sovereign states that surrounded them. That shield must be a thing of the past."

"I am not," the president should announce, "requesting a declaration of war against Iran or Iraq or Libya or Syria or Cuba or North Korea or Sudan, but against the bases of terrorism within those countries and other countries, as long as those governments permit such bases to exist within their borders.

"As Commander in Chief, I will see to it that if any American is terrorized-indeed, if one hair on the head of an American is touched in hostility-there will be an immediate retaliation by the Government of the United States of America. Our military will be directed to strike at an unannounced terrorist target we think appropriate within the archipelago of 'islands' that have been built and inhabited within the existing borders of other sovereign states.

"This will be a clear edict that we are no longer searching for individual terrorists alone when we can find them, but instead, we are at war against Terrorism and we have found it. We must recognize that the Nation of Terrorism has already declared war against the United States and our nation will not allow that to continue.

"If terrorists feel that our retaliatory policy puts them at risk of being targeted for individual acts of terrorism that they did not commit, there is only one option for their future safety: get out of the terrorism business.

"My fellow Americans, our policy of searching is done. A new policy of swift and sure and severe retaliation against the Nation of Terrorism will be in immediate effect after you in the Congress make such a formal declaration. Let that declaration be a warning, the only warning to be given, that the citizens of the United States are to be secure against violence on their person wherever they travel throughout the world."

Bruce Herschensohn is a Distinguished Fellow with the Claremont Institute.

[BurkeanCyclist]

I've been saying all day that we need to declare all international terrorists and their governmental supporters targets. Gerry Adams and his Sinn Fein colleagues should, for example, be on the list.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also find out who did this and single them and their government supporters out for special punishment.

[tallhappy]

"The enemy must be attacked as a whole."

Yes. More people need to come to grips with this.

This includes as well nations that aid, abet and harbor.

Included would be Cuba, N. Korea and China, nations one would not normally associate with Islamic terrorism.

There needs to be a massive paradigm shift.

[jonefab]

As Viet Nam vet, we really don't want a lot of politicians involved in this action. We need a clearly defined outcome to any military operation, when that is completed, we can claim victory with a clear position of strength.

[jonefab]

Included would be Cuba, N. Korea and China, nations one would not normally associate with Islamic terrorism.

China came out today with a sympathy card. A little ironic don't you think considering the abuses they perpeuate on their own people? At any rate, we need world support for any action taken!

[tallhappy]

I don't mean to imply we should attack China, but they need to decide which side they are by their actions.

If they continue to build Iraq's infrastructure and sell missile and nuke technology that could be used later against us, then they are on the other side.

I do think that US military needs to become very active again.

[jonefab]

Lets reserve judgment until we have some hindsite. We don't call the shots here, but we need to stay informed and let our senators and representitives know how we feel err I mean think. I haven't been too crazy with the Bush administration so far but this is a real test.

[Honorary Serb]

The enemy must be attacked as a whole.

That includes the UCK/KLA, Shiptar-run Kosovo, and the "Bosnian" muslim entity--all of which our mis-"leaders" have supported and propped up! But they are all PROVEN centers for terrorism, islamic subversion of at least Europe, and organized crime such as drug-running sex-slaving (the proceeds of which support terrorism)!!!

WE MUST ALSO SEND WAR REPARATIONS TO SERBIA, AND RESTORE SERBIA TO ITS TRADITIONAL STATUS AS OUR RESPECTED AND VALUED ALLY !!!

[Dick Bachert]

Did you happen to catch CNN’s Judy Woodruff interview Tom Clancy on the evening of 9/11?

Tom brought up the subject of the CLINTON decimation of the US HUMAN INTELLIGENCE capabilities – that going all the way back to Sun Tsu, SPIES are a necessary part of the information gathering process. He mentioned that if we’d had a few spies and spooks out there in this increasingly dangerous world, we MIGHT have gotten one of them close to the perpetrator and been able to interdict the MURDER of perhaps 15,000 Americans in the incredible tragedy we witnessed this morning.

I think it’s safe to say that Clancy knows a bit about the subjects on which he writes.

Tom then tagged CNN by name as one of the news agencies that greeted Clinton’s decimation of the intelligence community with approval, continuing to say that they COULD have spoken out TO OPPOSE HIM but failed to do so. Tom’s rather clear implication was that CNN played a role in today’s catastrophe.

Judy VISIBLY RECOILED – and quickly concluded the interview. Her expression made it clear that she was NOT happy with Tom.

Clancy was RIGHT ON THE MARK and until we DO beef up those assets, it’s gonna happen again – and probably sooner than later.

And do you suppose there is some sinister significance to the fact that this happened on 9-11 (911!)? Are these people THAT sick? Don’t bother responding as that was a rhetorical question.

Let’s all pray – and shed a tear or two -- for the lost firefighters, police officers, innocent citizens and their families. Until this is behind us, we must put aside as many of our partisan differences as our principles will allow.

And we must also pray that our precious Constitution does not become one of the first victims of this SICKENING and senseless act.

THE HORROR! THE H O R R O R!!!!!!!!!!