Tony Blair, British Prime Minister:
“September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again.”
Tag: national security
This is the third and final part of a series on national security run in the pages of The Federalist Patriot. This part can be found in today’s issue (PDF file), and is reprinted here with permission.
Yesterday’s Federalist Patriot (PDF file) contained part two of the series on U.S. National Security. Titled “Homeland Defense,” it discusses the steps taken since 9/11, including the Patriot Act, and looks forward. I’ve reprinted it below.
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., in today’s Political Diary:
Based on scanty headlines, today’s disruptions in London suggest somebody may be trying to demonstrate just how little it takes to shut down a modern city’s public transport network. Early reports indicate smoke bombs and the like, with few serious casualties. Who knows, but let’s riff anyway: Sooner or later, it was bound to develop that the target of Britain’s homegrown Muslim radicals isn’t British foreign policy or U.S. “imperialism.” The targets are British Muslims themselves and their peaceful relations with the rest of British society. The goal is to make all Muslims suspect in the eyes of their fellow Britons, to punish those Muslims who favor quiet assimilation, to make their lives impossible.
We’re talking about something quite different than the Osama bin Laden dream of mega attacks that unite the Muslim world in a showdown with Christendom. Today’s attacks seem more attuned to the Zarqawi playbook in Iraq — and, for that matter, Tamil tactics in Sri Lanka, IRA tactics in Northern Ireland, etc. Domestic terrorists are usually trying to drive a wedge of fear between one ethnic community and the larger society. Whatever the facts behind today’s incidents, British Muslims may have to get used to the idea that they are being deliberately placed in the line of fire by their radical fellow Muslims, with the hope of defeating their intent to live happily, successfully and peacefully amidst a larger, polyglot world. This is their fight too, and perhaps most of all.
It matters little that “the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists,” to quote a familiar Western mantra. It matters a great deal that most terrorists are Muslims. The sooner Western leaders and Western media begin stating what is obvious to most people; the quicker the real root cause can be dealt with.
The excuses given by Westerners and many Muslim clerics for terrorism are just that: excuses.
The Federalist Patriot started a three-part series in this past Friday’s Digest (PDF file) titled “U.S. National Security: Imminent Threats.” I feel it is worthy to reprint here (with permission). All emphasis has been added by yours truly.
Doug Giles poses the questions to so-called moderate Muslims that so many of us, perhaps afraid of being politically incorrect, are afraid to ask:
As a moderate Muslim, can we rest assured that you do not believe that warfare and terror are any way to establish your religion in people’s lives? Can we also be certain that those of us who do not believe and will not believe your particular take on divinity can feel completely safe around you and that we can confidently expect you to work with us to build our world into a better place without condemnation being breathed down upon our heads?
Christopher Orlet has a reminder on just who these detainees are, for the benefit of those in America with long-term memory issues.
These are the “victims” we have detained at Guantanamo Bay. Of course Americans who fell into the hands of Taliban and al Qaeda have never once complained about being cursed at or having their holy book desecrated. That’s because it’s hard to complain when you’ve had your throat slit and your head cut off.
The detainee’s biggest gripe remains the high temperatures. This from former Taliban foot soldiers who lived in rocky crags of the Afghani desert. Yes, the heat is awful on the Caribbean beach. That’s why Americans and Europeans spend millions of dollars annually to vacation there.
By all means we should shut down Guantanamo Bay. Then open a new camp at Point Barrow, Alaska, where there will be no more complaining about the hot ocean breezes, and no problems with prisoners throwing urine (because it will be frozen), and where we won’t need Pine-Sol since germs are inactive in subzero temperatures. As for chair tossing, Muslims would probably prefer Turkish carpets to steels chairs anyway. I know the MPs would.
Fortunately there is often a common sense solution to every problem.
Support, among Muslims, for suicide bombing against civilians has also faded. (Only Muslims were asked this question.) The percentage saying the practice is “never justified” jumped since March 2004 from 35 to 46 in Pakistan and from 38 to 79 in Morocco, and jumped since the summer of 2002 (the last time the question was asked in these countries) from 54 to 66 in Indonesia and from 12 to 33 in Lebanon. (The Turks held stable on the issue, with 66% saying suicide bombing is “never justified,” statistically identical to the 67% who gave that answer in March 2004.) Most interestingly, opposition to suicide bombings in Iraq specifically was higher, in several countries, than opposition to suicide bombing in general; 56% of Pakistanis and 41% of Lebanese oppose that “insurgent” tactic, along with 43% in Jordan, where only 11% oppose suicide bombing in general (and by “general,” obviously, they mean “Israel”).
Concern over the threat of Islamic extremism is widespread in several of these countries, with the percentage deeming the threat “very great” or “fairly great” at 47 in Turkey, 53 in Pakistan, 73 in Morocco, and 45 in Indonesia. Interestingly enough, respondents in different countries define “Islamic extremism” differently. In Lebanon, Jordan, and Morocco, the prevailing view is that Islamic extremism means “Using violence to get rid of non-Muslim influences in our country.” But to pluralities in Turkey and Indonesia, it means “advocating the legal imposition of strict Shari’ah on all Muslims.” The respondents in those two democracies, it seems, are less worried about their Muslim extremists killing people than they are about their getting elected — another point in democracy’s favor, I’d say.
As Mr. Tarbin says, it’s not all good news, but at least it’s trending in the right direction.
So what’s amazing isn’t the number of attacks we’ve lived through — it’s the lack of attacks. September, 2001. Bali, Indonesia, October 2002. Madrid, Spain, March 2004. Now London, July 2005. On average the terrorists seem able only to strike once a year. And note the death tolls: U.S., some 3,000. Bali, 202. Madrid, 191. London, about 50.
Now, if terrorists could strike more often, of course they would. If they could kill more people in each strike, of course they would. So it’s reasonable to conclude that, since so much time goes by between attacks and since fewer people are killed in each attack, our policies toward terrorism are working.
What are those policies? Well, fighting back, for one.