American political discourse casts terrorists as hateful, bigoted, crazy automatons who are blinded by rage, have no reason, and no capacity for rational thought.
This is a myth. Not because terrorists aren't evil, hateful, bigoted, or immoral. But one can be all of those things and still be quite rational: hateful and intelligent are not mutually exclusive.
Now take a few premises. First, in status quo America, a small-scale (by which I mean, bombing a supermarket or shopping mall) would not be particularly difficult to pull off, logistically speaking. Israel has those sorts of attacks on it regularly, and we don't have a fraction of the security precautions erected that they do.
Second, take the standard Democratic refrain that the policies of the Bush administration (that would be continued by McCain or other Republicans) are actually beneficial to the cause of terrorists -- by keeping us bogged down in Iraq, fostering resentment and hatred towards the United States and serving as a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations. Assume that these terrorist organizations agree with this assessment.
Would not the intelligent terrorist launch a flurry of "small scale" attacks on America during an Obama administration? Doing so would seem to have at least one of two effects. First, for political reasons it would demand that Obama adopt a harsh response -- one that is closer to the Republican tactics that we believe aid and sustain terrorists than those he'd otherwise pursue. Second, it would discredit the Obama administration, making him an easy target for Republican campaign ads and thus making it more likely that the GOP will return to power -- which, again, would restore those anti-terrorism strategies that end up redounding to the benefit of al-Qaeda and like groups.
It is, I admit, a prospect that worries me. And assuming that the premises I put forth above are true (big ifs, I admit), it strikes me as a very difficult dynamic to check against.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your second premise is faulty.
But first and foremost you do not name who would be the most likely terrorist these days. It is of course Islamofascists. If you do not identify your enemy and know what motivates him then you will not be able to predict anything.
Now back to your premise.
You assume that Islamofascists "need" America in Iraq to foster resentment and hatred to serve as a recruitment tool to augment their ranks with new members. Their ideology has nothing to do with America specifically but with their Koranic injunction to conquer. Thus you have Islamofascists in Nigeria, Sudan, Thailand, and the Philippines to name just a few regions where recruitment goes on based solely on Koranic injunctions.
Thus they will attack us irrespective of who is in power or their policies. And they have been attacking us but the media has usually downplayed these attacks as, for example, a lone "crazed" assailant such as occurred in the shooting in the Seattle Jewish center.
[moron mode] Duh duh, we never get attacked over here because we're keeping all the terrorists occupied in Iraq. [/moron mode]
Actually, while it's a complete fallacy to assume that having troops in other countries prevents any attacks in this one, it may well be the case that groups determined to hit the US will go after embassies, troops, etc. as targets of opportunity. However, the fact that they might choose to hit these targets tells me that they shouldn't be dangled more than is necessary. The fact that they'll be attacked should never be a selling point, and the claims by some that it is are, quite frankly, retarded.
This brings me to a more direct response to your post. In fact, it's probably miles more difficult for a foreign terrorist group to plan and execute attacks within this country with the level of success that they can elsewhere. This is not to say they can never succeed, but there is a pretty fair chance of stopping them when you have an entire society that is against their efforts, who will report suspicious activity and fund professional police to investigate crimes. Contrast to Iraq, where something like half the population is in favor of killing US troops. (As far as Israel goes, I don't have any numbers, but obviously there is a big Palestinian population there, and I'm guessing that a sizable percentage of them approve of suicide bombings and the like; thus, the terrorists have built in support networks that don't exist here.)
Add to that the fact al Qaeda and the like are ultimately focused on the territory of the Caliphate it wants to establish (indeed, we might critique your OP as awfully America-centric when it comes to the motivations of a foreign group).
Oh, and it's your blog and your choice, but I'd be very inclined to delete non-responsive posts that just prattle on about "teh Islamofascists" if it were me. Sad thing about most major blogs/news sites is that they are overflowing with various unsightly malarkey in the comments that, to an intelligent reader, warns away from reading beyond the OP.
It's actually a Republican acquaintance who believes "teh Islamofascists" who made an interesting point to me when I was wondering at the lack of small-scale attacks in the U.S. I said the only thing I could remember was that lone gunman at the El-Al counter at LAX during the 2002 July 4 holidays. He said that in the U.S., we were unlikely to have anything bigger than the lone gunman type attack because we had Muslim communities that were very wary of attracting backlash from other Americans.
Keep in mind how many American Muslims/ Arabs and their institutions were attacked after 9/11 -- an attack coordinated and performed entirely by non-Americans, foreigners who had spent at most 2 years in the U.S., and had entered with the purpose of attack; they were not natives or immigrants who had been recruited.
Even if one believes that Muslim-Americans are antagonistic to the United States and would want to kill other Americans, rationally they would be too cautious to allow attacks to originate from their community. They know historically how the U.S. has reacted to a minority group perceived as a threat, and they know how individual Americans will go after anything identified as the "enemy" even if the official government line is not to do so. There might be lone gunmen types who will be nihilistic or indifferent to the fate of the Muslim-American community, but even bombing a shopping center requires knowledge, resources and assistance beyond what one person is likely capable of doing alone. Note how our home-grown, white terrorists perform their attacks: either as a lone gunman (like the guy at the UU church on Sunday) or with at least one assistant in order to launch a larger attack (like Oklahoma City, where McVeigh had three co-conspirators of whom we know and possible more we never found).
Therefore we're unlikely to see small-scale attacks in an Obama Administration, so long as that Administration maintains the same caution about allowing people into the country that the Bush Admin has since 9/11. We don't have much problem of an "enemy within"; we mostly have to ensure that enemies from without don't slip inside. This to me is a good rationale for "open" borders, in the sense of granting visas to people who are willing to give lots of information about themselves and who are seeking work in the U.S. Once the legitimate migrants are in the system, we can pretty much assume people who are trying to sneak through are up to no good and treat them, and co-conspirators who try to help them past the border, with extreme harshness.
Also, to the extent that lone gunmen are possibilities, we ought to reinforce regulation of gun and ammo sales and transfers, as well as requirements for keeping guns and ammo in the home.
Post a Comment