Notes & Comments
By Clifford D. May
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
April 13, 2004
INTENTIONS: The Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) released this weekend makes it clear that in early 2001 there were some people who understood that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States. Of course, there were some people who had known that for years. What clued them in? Perhaps it was bin Laden's "Declaration of War Against the Americans" -- published in 1996. And in 1997 and 1998 bin Laden stated publicly that his followers would "bring the fighting to America."
What is amazing is the extent to which the entire foreign policy Establishment refused to take terrorism seriously in this period. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out in a recent column that, pre-9/11, Foreign Affairs magazine, as well as other journals read by diplomats, scholars, journalists and government officials, contained few articles on the terrorist threat.
VALUES: <font size=4>Is there any other statesman as clear thinking and articulate as British Prime Minister Tony Blair?<font size=3> Read just a few lines that he published as an op-ed on Sunday:
"I have come firmly to believe the only ultimate security lies in our values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others; the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that prosperity on pointless feuding and war.
"But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11 September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists, to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis?
"Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on their own, that somehow we would be spared? If we withdraw from Iraq, they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows? But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us.
"It is not easy to persuade people of all this; to say that terrorism and unstable states with WMD are just two sides of the same coin; to tell people what they don't want to hear; that, in a world in which we in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern existence, we are in grave danger.
"There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it is happening now in Iraq."
IN RETROSPECT: It's not hard to grasp why neither President Clinton nor President Bush invaded Afghanistan in order to eliminate al Qaeda prior to 9/11. What is more puzzling is why no one - not Clinton, not Bush, not Richard Clarke, not the Secretaries of Transportation nor the heads of the Federal Aviation Administration - ever challenged the prevailing wisdom that the key to airline safety was ensuring that everyone on every plane - passengers, crew and captain alike - was equally vulnerable.
How clever would one need to have been to recommend that armed sky marshals be assigned to planes, or that some crew members should be trained and armed, or that pilots learn to put their aircraft into steep dives and sudden climbs to immobilize those who refuse to sit in their seats with their safety belts fastened? Or even more simply: Did no one suggest reinforcing cockpit doors and making it standard procedure that under no circumstances should those doors be opened for hijackers?
In short, why did no one in authority - e.g. the CIA, the FBI, the NSC -- make any imaginative attempt to think like a terrorist, so that someone else could think of a way to stop such terrorists?
ROCKY MOUNTAIN LOW: Last week, I attended the 56th annual Conference on World Affairs (CAW) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. I was on 7 different panels, including panels with such titles as "Global Response to Terrorism," "Islam and Democracy," "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," and "Civil Liberties in an Uncivil Time."
As noted, this conference is a long-standing tradition. Thousands of people come to the campus to hear discussion and debate. I don't know what it was like a half century or so ago, but this year it was a stunningly one-sided affair. Yes, there were a few conservatives and moderates on hand to provide a veneer of diversity. For example, I was pleased to participate on the panel discussing civil rights with Janet Breslin-Smith, a former top staffer to Democratic Senators Lloyd Bentson and Patrick Leahy. An intelligent and knowledgeable scholar (who now teaches at the National War College) she witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11. She understands the challenges faced by America and other democratic societies.
Most other panelists clearly did not. <font size=4>There was much talk of the "so-called War on Terrorism." Nazhi Richani, a professor at Kean University in New Jersey, said that it is not terrorism and jihadism that represent the greatest threat to the civilized world today but capitalism, colonialism and imperialism. He added that environmentalists, landless peasants, the urban poor, feminists, "and al Qaeda" have formed a coalition against this threat. I waited to hear him at least say he disapproved of al Qaeda's methods - but he did not do so.<font size=3>
Arianna Huffington gave the keynote address. With more humor than insight, she said: <font size=4>"I would love to fight the war on terrorism. When do we start? What does invading Iraq have to do with the war on terrorism?"<font size=3> She added that the war on terrorism should "start at home - domestic violence and gun violence are on the rise."
Outside the university's graceful halls, <font size=4>demonstrators handed out leaflets calling for "bringing our troops home." Another handout read: "No More Rich People; Capitalism is rigged to cheat you! Back to Marx."
The blame for almost any problem in the world was easy to identify: America, US imperialism, colonialism, unilateralism. And, of course, as has become fashionable, panelists and members of the audience alike derided Israel as a pariah and public enemy.
The lesson of all this? The truth needs champions.<font size=3> The FDD and allied groups have much work to do.
JUST DESSERTS: According to an April 9, 2004 AP dispatch, "two American Muslims were sentenced Friday to 20 and 15 years in prison, respectively, for their roles in support of a Virginia-based conspiracy to engage in holy war against nations deemed hostile to Islam, including the United States. The two men, Randall Todd Royer, 31, and Ibrahim al-Hamdi, 26, were among nine men who either pleaded guilty or were convicted of charges related to their participation in what prosecutors called a 'Virginia jihad network.'"
Mr. Royer, a former spokesman for the Muslim American Society, was an early -- and vicious -- critic of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
AP added that Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison for aiding and abetting use of a firearm in a crime of violence and aiding and abetting the carrying of an explosive during commission of a felony. As part of a plea agreement, he admitted helping other members of the conspiracy join a militant Pakistani group called Lashkar-e-Taiba in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks. Three of the men who received Royer's assistance said they intended to train with Lashkar so they could fight for the Taliban.
- CDM
defenddemocracy.org |
