The Big 9/11 Anniversary Question: Are We Safer?
Raymond Ibrahim of the Center for Security Policy writes that al Qaeda was just one of the many manifestations of the threat upon us -- including "stealth jihad" to overthrow Western civilization from within:
Even the Obama administration is inadvertently beginning to acknowledge the existential nature of the conflict (though of course without articulating it as such): it recently declared that lone wolf terrorists--jihadists who have no connection to al-Qaeda other than that they share the same Islamist-inspired worldview, people like the Fort Hood jihadist, the Christmas Day Bomber, the Shoe Bomber, ad infinitum--are a greater threat than al-Qaeda. That is, jihad metastasized.To better appreciate the "big picture," consider how at the turn of the 20th century, the Islamic world was rushing to emulate the victorious and confident West--best exemplified by the Ottoman empire itself, the preserver and enforcer of Islam, rejecting its Muslim past and trying to modernize. Today, 100 years later, the Muslim world has largely rejected secularism and is reclaiming its Islamic--including jihadist--heritage, lashing out in a manifold of ways.
Likewise, consider how many Islamist leaders, organizations, and terrorists have come and gone in the 20th century alone--many killed like bin Laden--only for Islam to grow more hostile towards the non-Muslim West than at any time in the modern era.
It is in this context that the overall significance of eliminating this or that terrorist or organization must be understood.
In short, we need to get beyond obsessing over names and faces--al-Qaeda and bin Laden, for example--and begin focusing on the ideas and motivations that create them--that is, if "we" encompasses more than this generation.
It's sometimes the little things -- like facial hair -- that say a lot. Ibrahim writes here about why Muslim men's beards matter:
Prior to Ramadan, Islamic leaders in Egypt called for a million men to grow their beards and show Egypt's adherence to Muhammad's commands. Popular and enthusiastic preachers such as Muhammad Hassan went as far as to pray for the day when 80 million Egyptians grew their beards (a figure that presumably includes women and children, as 80 million is the size of Egypt's entire population).Amr Adib, a popular talk show host on Cairo Today, mocked this call for a "million man beard" with his trademark sarcasm: "This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire, can never fight and quarrel, can never steal, and can never be dishonest!"
He and his Egyptian viewers know quite well that it is precisely those Muslims who most closely follow the minutia of Muhammad--the Salafists--that are most prone to violence and deceit, which were also advocated by the prophet. Towards the end of the program, Adib spoke seriously, ominously, saying this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather, "once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam."
While Egyptians instinctively understand how fealty to the Muslim beard evinces fealty, or at least acceptance, to all those other things Muhammad commanded, even in fuzzy Western op-eds, the connection sometimes peeks out.
...Yet if such Muslims meticulously follow the minor, "outer" things of Islam simply because their prophet made a few utterances concerning them in the hadith, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major, "inner" themes Muhammad constantly emphasized in the hadith--such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and, when capable, perpetual jihad?
A bit on stealth jihad here:
In a 1998, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad told the San Ramon Valley Herald, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Others point to a 1991 memo by the radical Muslim Brotherhood challenging American Islamic groups.The memorandum, presented as evidence during a terrorism trial last year, reads that these Muslim groups "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands" until Islam reigns supreme."
For radical Muslims, that means pushing an aggressive, pro-Islam agenda that's been increasingly successful in recent years: Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol in their possession. Public schools schedule prayer breaks to accommodate Muslim students. Pork is banned in the workplace - the list goes on.
Islam expert Robert Spencer says Americans have caved in to such demands far too often. His new book, The Stealth Jihad, describes the non-violent war being waged by radical Muslims against American society.
More: Ten years later, radical Islam is still a taboo topic. For those who'd like a very good quick primer on Islam:
See the discussion with Lenny here, beginning on about Sept 7th
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 12:18 AM
So obviously, nothing like the size and scope of 9/11 has happened in the U.S. since. The $64K question is: is that because our security has improved, or have we just been lucky?
I think the former. Five years ago, you could make an argument the other way. And certainly, luck has played a role, as in the case of the Customs agents who caught the would-be Seattle Space Needle bombers. However, after ten years, the probability of it being just luck closely approaches zero. We're doing something right.
But what? First question: to what extent have our Mideast adventures helped? I think they've helped. al-Queda is weakened today. I disagree with Christopher Hitchens, who said in his article last week that al-Q is on the ropes and an eventual Western victory is inevitable. I think it's still possible that we could lose. But we have made progress against that and similar organizations.
Another thing, though: our task has become clearer since the enemies of Western civilization have, after decades of concealment, outed themselves. One of the things that has most stunned people of my age is the return of anti-Semitism in the West. Like most people my age, I grew up believing that anti-Semitism had been thoroughly defeated in WWII and was gone from the face of the Earth forever. I now recognize that this was never the case; it's merely been laying in wait. But now the enemies of the West are feeling confident enough to show their faces. Anti-Semitism is one of the ways by which they identify themselves, and by which we may know them. Take advantage of this information.
Another thing that I think has changed, for at least a part of the population, is a new attitude of vigilance. We no longer assume that government can do everything for us, even in terms of security. People no longer ignore things and assume that it's someone else's problem. An attack using the same tactics as 9/11 will never happen again, because anyone who tries to hijack a plane in the U.S. will get their asses kicked by the other passengers. Admittedly, this new attitude of DIY national security has resulted in a certain number of false alarms and some paranoia. Call those out -- we must continue to guard our civil liberties -- but be patient. We're still learning this system.
Cousin Dave at September 11, 2011 8:47 AM
jihadists who have no connection to al-Qaeda other than that they share the same Islamist-inspired worldview, people like the Fort Hood jihadist, the Christmas Day Bomber, the Shoe Bomber
Except, of course, all these examples were in some form in contact and guided by al Qaeda.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 11, 2011 8:53 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/11/the_big_911_ann.html#comment-2471893">comment from Cousin DaveI talked to a reporter I know who covers security issues. Regarding this from Cousin Dave on whether there have been no new large-scale attacks:
is that because our security has improved, or have we just been lucky?
I think there has been a serious improvement in intelligence in the NYPD and some other NY-based law enforcement, which is shown in various plots they've uncovered and stopped, but per my friend, around the rest of the country, we've just been lucky.
Amy Alkon at September 11, 2011 9:19 AM
"Islam expert Robert Spencer says Americans have caved in to such demands far too often"
This is the key sentence. It always takes two - supremacist Muslims making outrageous demands, and craven, cowardly officials caving in to them. Saying "NO" instead would go a long way towards stopping stealth jihad in the West.
Martin at September 11, 2011 9:22 AM
20,000 Russian made surface to air missiles capable of bringing a plane down at 11,000 feet just fell into the hands of Libyan rebels. Safer? Not so much.
Eric at September 11, 2011 9:30 AM
> around the rest of the country, we've
> just been lucky.
That's one word for it.
Do you suppose, all in all, Bin Laden was pleased with how things worked out?
His mission in life was to disrupt the prim grownups at the dinner table by throwing his plate into the gravy boat... And it worked.
Thereafter, his global movement was a washout. Al Qaeda has been hampered in all operations, and is deeply crippled. No worldwide network of supporters rose up to join him. The impoverished of the planet, Muslim and otherwise, are no more hateful to the USA, nor any less adoring of her, than they would have been anyway.
It was the decade when he shoulda been bigger than Timberlake; He spent it in a third-world hovel watching pornography on an old television tube, with the stink of his own garbage fires wafting in from the courtyard.
There were probably a lot of 3rd-world millionaires —sons wealth sent from the West, like OBL— who'd have wanted to throw a hissyfit like he did. But they saw what happened to him... And then, as if just for the Hell of it, what happened to Saddam.
"Luck" ain't the right word.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 9:48 AM
This is what I was getting at in the thread linked above: OBL, and all his twisted little minions, are basically sexually frustrated little turd-men. Let's not pretend they have supernatural powers to wound and kill.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 10:04 AM
Safer?
From a few punk terrorists?
Who cares? They killed 3,000 on their best day ever. Since then we have lost about 300,000 Americans in auto accidents, and another 180,000 in gunshots.
Are we are peeing in our pants about a few terrorists?
Get some perspective. I know the defense-homeland security-VA-grifters lobby would like to set the bar at "no terrorist attacks ever." While martial music plays in the background.
The way the poverty whores would like to set the bar at "no one is ever poor, even if they are lazy or hare-brained."
"No child left behind."
These are fantastically expensive goals to obtain.
In truth, no matter how much money we throw at the "terrorist threat," anybody can walk across the border, buy guns at a gun show, and then attend a major sporting event and get the slaughter started. Having $14 billion aircraft carriers steam in circles around the Pacific does not stop hijackings.
I assume the terrorist threat is vastly, vastly, vastly overstated. You should too.
BOTU at September 11, 2011 12:13 PM
I think Ibrahim's concerns are way overblown. Radical Islam doesn't get much traction in Western countries, even among Muslim transplants. And it's been falling out of favor in Muslim countries, too. Most Muslims are not fanatics, and they don't want to blow up other people or get blown up themselves anymore than people elsewhere. And dressing in traditional conservative Muslim garb, however jarring it is for typical Westerners, does not make a Muslim a terrorist. The "Arab Spring" is a sign that what a lot of people in Islamic countries want is better government.
Iconoclast at September 11, 2011 1:19 PM
""Luck" ain't the right word."
Seconded.
The TSA isn't doing anything remotely effective at stopping terrorism on American soil. They are merely advancing a police state.
An enemy is either not here, or is being thwarted by another agency. It's not "luck", because there are literally thousands of venues for terrorist action in the USA, and only one rifleman is needed to start such a thing.
Radwaste at September 11, 2011 5:42 PM
BOTU said:
Re: "Safer?
From a few punk terrorists?
... Are we are peeing in our pants about a few terrorists?
Get some perspective. I know the defense-homeland security-VA-grifters lobby would like to set the bar at "no terrorist attacks ever." While martial music plays in the background."
A realist will concede that zero additional terrorist attacks is unattainable. But political combat between the parties these days tends to make the party in power nervous about its hold on power should one of these attacks occur, because the public may conclude it didn't do enough to protect it.
"I assume the terrorist threat is vastly, vastly, vastly overstated. You should too."
I don't quite agree. It's quite easy for a small group of people to cause mass destruction or disruption these days. For example, there's every reason to believe al-Qaeda would like to get hold of nuclear material, and if they did, it bring cause horrible consequences.
Americans tend to be critical towards their gov't regarding things they don't like. In reality, there is no playbook to refer to when governments try to figure out how to responds to threats like al-Qaeda. Inevitable there's a lot of trial & error involved. Borrowing from U.S. experience long before 9/11/2001, during the Truman Administration, the strategy to contain the Soviet Union/ Communist threat was devised. We now recognize it was a successful strategy. However, for the decision makers of that time - Truman, Acheson, Marshall, etc. - they had considerable trouble achieving clarity on how to respond and even determining just what was happening. So, I think by-and-large our country and most of its allies responded appropriately to 9/11/01.
Iconoclast at September 11, 2011 6:12 PM
Icon-
The Soviets had 3 million men in uniform, a blue water navy, and air force with supersonic bombers, satellites, a KGB, ICBMs, submarines and the ability to produce thousands of tanks, and dozens of warships every year, which they were.
The terrorist have several hundred misfits, and no military at all. Not one tank or plane.
We are spending more now than at the height of the Cold ware on "defense."
And we probably overspent then--one could argue they were going to collapse sooner or later, as they had a centrally planned economy and a nation of alcoholics.
I say we hire a Bain & Co. to devise reasonable security for our borders at 1 percent of GDP.
BOTU at September 11, 2011 8:23 PM
Maybe, but I don't want to be!
Safety is seriously overvalued. Safety at what price? The US has a fetish: Don't let your kid walk to school alone. Let the government protect you from serious pollutants, like dry grass. Life is just too precious - stay safe at any price.
Of course, we have new risks that we are not supposed to count:
a_random_guy at September 11, 2011 11:39 PM
Aside from the Islamophobia contained in the article and its attempt to promote prejudice and bigotry against one of the oldest faiths in the world (replace Muslim by Jew to see how anti-semitic the posting would become), I'd like to remind posters that there is no smoke without fire:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:
We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Denis Halliday, United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq from September 1, 1997, until 1998 where he resigned after 34 years of service:
"I was driven to resignation because I refused to continue to take Security Council orders, the same Security Council that had imposed and sustained genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. I did not want to be complicit. I wanted to be free to speak out publicly about this crime.
And above all, my innate sense of justice was and still is outraged by the violence that UN sanctions have brought upon, and continues to bring upon, the lives of children, families – the extended families, the loved ones of Iraq. There is no justification for killing the young people of Iraq, not the aged, not the sick, not the rich, not the poor."
Which country was the sole driver of sanctions against the people of Iraq? The US. In fact, Kuwait the victim of Iraq at some point protested the harshness of the sanctions but the US wouldn't back down from one of the most elaborate and brutal collective punishment policies in our modern times that kills hundreds of thousands of children.
When did Bin-Laden issue his fatwa against Americans? 1998.
I think people in America have no clue what their government is doing outside their borders, or how many lives it destroys with impunity. They blame everyone else except their own policies for which they don't want to take responsibility.
wakeup at September 16, 2011 1:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/11/the_big_911_ann.html#comment-2484931">comment from wakeup"Islamophobia"?
I'd have Jewish-ophobia if Jews had a text that was meant to be taken literally and unquestioningly, and which commanded that they convert or kill everyone who isn't Jewish.
The fact that it's one of the oldest faiths in the world isn't an argument. Barbarism is barbarism.
This religion calls for the slaughter of homosexuals. Imams have called for throwing gays off tall buildings and then if they live, stoning them.
Do you think we should be "tolerant" of such thinking or, rightly FEAR its spread. Thus, it isn't "phobia" to fear the spread of Islam but pretty prudent.
Amy Alkon at September 16, 2011 2:57 PM
Leave a comment