What I hear you saying is that if the jihadis don't currently have the 'wherewithal' to prosecute a fullblown war, then they should be regarded as equivalent to organized crime, a nuisance to be managed but not a serious threat. This I am afraid seriously underestimates the attractiveness of their ideology to millions. An op-ed by Saul Singer addresses this point:
Speaking of the Arab-Israeli conflict recently with The Jerusalem Post, Daniel Pipes expressed exasperation that Israelis do not think in terms of victory, but of conflict management. Israelis don't seem to understand that "in the end, one side will win and one side will lose," and that the Arab goal is the elimination of the Jewish state. There is a lot of truth in Pipes's observation, but not just for Israelis.
Reagan's revolution was to start thinking in terms of victory, not "detente" or "containment" - that era's form of conflict management. Post-9/11 Bush started off like Reagan, and still speaks of freedom's power to transform the world. But he is veering dangerously close to lapsing into conflict management, this time of militant Islam.
On June 8, a senior Iranian official said on Iranian TV: "The American empire is hovering between life and death. If America loses some of the countries it has subjugated and plundered, there will be chaos [there]... America seems so big, but in fact is like a paper tiger - even the slightest tremor could easily make it crumple and disappear" (translation by memri.org).
The jihadis are not confused about what victory means, whether against America or Israel. But they are not invincible; on the contrary, they are themselves a paper tiger. There is, in fact, only one way to lose against a force that is so weak, vulnerable and unappealing: for the West to fall into a strategy of "managing" rather than winning.
jpost.com |
