Still Not Tired

[Richard]

Well worth reading.

Still Not Tired
Thomas Freidman, NYT, 4 Oct 2009

He didn’t want to wear earplugs. Apparently, he wanted to enjoy the blast.

That is what The Dallas Morning News reported about Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, the 19-year-old Jordanian accused of trying to blow up a downtown Dallas skyscraper. He was caught by an F.B.I. sting operation that culminated in his arrest nearly two weeks ago — after Smadi parked a 2001 Ford Explorer Sport Trac, supplied by the F.B.I., in the garage of a Dallas office tower.

“Inside the S.U.V. was a fake bomb, designed to appear similar to one used by Timothy McVeigh in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing,” The News wrote. “Authorities say Smadi thought he could detonate it with a cellphone. After parking the vehicle, he got into another vehicle with one of the agents, and they drove several blocks away. An agent offered Smadi earplugs, but he declined, ‘indicating that he wanted to hear the blast,’ authorities said. He then dialed the phone, thinking it would trigger the bomb. ... Instead, the agents took him into custody.”

If that doesn’t send a little shiver down your spine, how about this one? BBC.com reported that “it has emerged that an Al Qaeda bomber who died last month while trying to blow up a Saudi prince in Jeddah had hidden the explosives inside his body.” He reportedly inserted the bomb and detonator in his rectum to elude metal detectors. My God.

Or how about this? Two weeks ago in Denver, the F.B.I. arrested Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year-old Afghan immigrant, and indicted him on charges of planning to set off a bomb made of the same home-brewed explosives used in the 2005 London transit bombings. He allegedly learned how to do so on a training visit to Pakistan. The Times reported that Zazi “had bought some bomb ingredients in beauty supply stores, the authorities said, after viewing instructions on his laptop on how to build such a bomb. When an employee of the Beauty Supply Warehouse asked about the volume of materials he was buying, he remembered Mr. Zazi answering, ‘I have a lot of girlfriends.’ ”

These incidents are worth reflecting on. They tell us some important things. First, we may be tired of this “war on terrorism,” but the bad guys are not. They are getting even more “creative.”

Second, in this war on terrorism, there is no “good war” or “bad war.” There is one war with many fronts, including Europe and our own backyard, requiring many different tactics. It is a war within Islam, between an often too-silent Muslim mainstream and a violent, motivated, often nihilistic jihadist minority. Theirs is a war over how and whether Islam should embrace modernity. It is a war fueled by humiliation — humiliation particularly among young Muslim males who sense that their faith community has fallen behind others, in terms of both economic opportunity and military clout. This humiliation has spawned various jihadists cults, including Al Qaeda, which believe they have the God-given right to kill infidels, their own secular leaders and less pious Muslims to purify Islam and Islamic lands and thereby restore Muslim grandeur.

Third, the newest and maybe most active front in this war is not Afghanistan, but the “virtual Afghanistan” — the loose network of thousands of jihadist Web sites, mosques and prayer groups that recruit, inspire and train young Muslims to kill without any formal orders from Al Qaeda. The young man in Dallas came to F.B.I. attention after espousing war on the U.S. on jihadist Web sites.

Fourth, in the short run, winning this war requires effective police/intelligence action, to kill or capture the jihadists. I call that “the war on terrorists.” In the long run, though, winning requires partnering with Arab and Muslim societies to help them build thriving countries, integrated with the world economy, where young people don’t grow up in a soil poisoned by religious extremists and choked by petro-dictators so they can never realize their aspirations. I call this “the war on terrorism.” It takes a long time.

Our operation in Afghanistan after 9/11 was, for me, only about “the war on terrorists.” It was about getting bin Laden. Iraq was “the war on terrorism” — trying to build a decent, pluralistic, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. Despite all we’ve paid, the outcome in Iraq remains uncertain. But it was at least encouraging to see last week’s decision by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to run in the next election with a nonsectarian, multireligious coalition — a rare thing in the Arab world.

So, what President Obama is actually considering in Afghanistan is shifting from a “war on terrorists” there to a “war on terrorism,” including nation-building. I still have serious doubts that we have a real Afghan government partner for that. But if Mr. Obama decides to send more troops, the most important thing is not the number. It is his commitment to see it through. If he seems ambivalent, no one there will stand with us and we’ll have no chance. If he seems committed, maybe — maybe — we’ll find enough allies. Remember, the bad guys are totally committed — and they are not tired.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/op...dman.html?_r=1

[kgoerz]

Interesting Article.

Our operation in Afghanistan after 9/11 was, for me, only about “the war on terrorists.” It was about getting bin Laden. Iraq was “the war on terrorism” — trying to build a decent, pluralistic, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. Despite all we’ve paid, the outcome in Iraq remains uncertain. But it was at least encouraging to see last week’s decision by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to run in the next election with a nonsectarian, multireligious coalition — a rare thing in the Arab world.

IMO, both these Wars serve their purpose best by killing the enemy. Nothing complicated about it. As long as we are killing them, thats how long it should go on. As for nation building. Maybe Iraq has a chance to have a left leaning Government. Thats the best we can hope for. Astan! it will never happen. Those people never experienced the Age of enlightenment. They will forever be in the Dark Ages.

Third, the newest and maybe most active front in this war is not Afghanistan, but the “virtual Afghanistan” — the loose network of thousands of jihadist Web sites, mosques and prayer groups that recruit, inspire and train young Muslims to kill without any formal orders from Al Qaeda. The young man in Dallas came to F.B.I. attention after espousing war on the U.S. on jihadist Web sites.

Let the Military take care of killing the Enemy overseas. The US as a society needs to stand up and fight the Enemy on the Home Front. We won't be wondering how the next Group of Attackers were issued Visas. Because they will have been born here. Put up all the Fences you want. They enemy is already here.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

Put up all the Fences you want. They enemy is already here.

As unsettling as it may be, this is undoubtedly true.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Thanks Richard. I agree with Friedman's assessment of the threat's determination.

I do not necessarily agree with his assessment of the silent Muslim majority.
Just because they are silent, doesn't mean they support the United States or even the broader concept of modernity.

Does their silence indicate silent opposition?

Or does it indicate silent support of the violent, motivated, often nihilistic jihadist minority?

[Richard]

Does their silence indicate silent opposition? Or does it indicate silent support of the violent, motivated, often nihilistic jihadist minority?

I think that will turn out to be the $64,000 question.

Richard

[Books]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

Those people never experienced the Age of enlightenment. They will forever be in the Dark Ages.

Kgoerz,

I agree that A-Stan hasn't seen the age of enlightenment, but I would also argue that Iraq and the rest of Islamic societies haven't either.

What they have, is Islam (Dark Ages) meshed with Modernity and the industrial trappings that went with it (guns, bombs). They skipped out on the injection of humanism from the Renaissance onward that pulled Western Civ from said Dark Ages and made things like liberal democracies viable. It is their 10th century mindset combined with 21st century weaponry that makes them dangerous.


Warrior-Mentor,

I read a book a while back that described "religious moderates as failed fundamentalists." The silent masses of Muslims are just that. . . feeling bad that they don't have the balls to strap that vest on themselves.

v/r

Books