Kill Anwar al-Awlaki

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of Anwar al-Awlaki on grounds that it would reveal state secrets. Better grounds for dismissal would be that the suit is utterly ridiculous, and a blatant attempt to assist a known enemy of the United States. 

The way terrorist rights supporters talk about the case, whining about targeting an American citizen, you'd think al-Awlaki was living quietly in small-town USA, when he was suddenly marked for death by the evil U.S. government. In reality, he resides in Yemen, has voluntarily associated himself with Al Qaeda, and has been actively promoting terrorism against the United States. He's a major propagandist for the radical Islamist movement. Here is his Wikipedia page. 

By his own actions al-Awlaki has rejected his U.S. citizenship, declared himself an enemy of America, and has joined enemies with whom we are actively at war.  It's ridiculous to pretend that we have to extend to a traitor who is currently fighting against us the same rights as any other citizen. By choosing to go abroad and promote terrorism against the U.S., al-Awalki made himself a legitimate target. The justice department spokesman has it exactly right.

"If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."

As he also points out, terrorist rights supporters are

asking "a court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action - all on behalf of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization."

Throw out the case. Kill Anwar al-Awlaki.

Thoughts on the Anniversary of 9/11

It's now fashionable in some circles to downplay what happened on 9/11/01, and to pretend that the U.S. overreacted. We hear that terrorists aren't really that great of a threat, and that the dangers of radical Islam are overblown. Pointing out various aspects of the threat is dismissed as "fearmongering." Many actually want to extend U.S. constitutional rights to known terrorists, and treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter, as if they were nothing more than common criminals. These attitudes are all too common, among people who have basically forgotten 9/11 for all intents and purposes.

On 9/11 a mere 19 people killed 3000 in the heart of our largest city, doing massive economic damage, and actually shut down the entire U.S. air transport system. Just one personal example of the kind of disruption this caused... My wife's niece (from Texas), who had the bad luck to be in Manhattan on business that day, could not get home for days. She managed to exit the city after sharing a hotel room with a stranger, but then could not get home. Flights were grounded, and no rental cars were available. After several days she finally got a rental car by paying an exorbitant rate, and drove from New Jersey to Texas to get home. That situation was probably replicated for business travellers across the country.

Again, the death and destruction of 9/11 was inflicted by only 19 terrorists. They employed no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, just some hijacked commercial airliners. Despite our post-attack security measures, as an open society the U.S. is highly vulnerable to terrorism. Most of those who minimize the threat are blissfully ignorant, or willfully blind, about the impact of an attack that does utilize weapons of massive destruction. A terrorist strike with even crude, low-yield nuclear weapons would make 9/11 look like a minor incident in comparison.

The threat of terrorism, driven by radical Islam, is still out there, and it is real. On the anniversary of 9/11 it is worth pointing that out, since there are many who would rather pretend that it barely exists. In many ways it is remarkable that there hasn't been another major attack on the U.S., a tribute to our war efforts. For all its mistakes and incompetence in many areas, the Bush administration did succeed in preventing another attack. With all the Bush-bashing that takes place even now (sometimes even by me), that's another thing worth remembering.

A New War Against Radical Islam - Part IV

This is the continuation of a multi-part post, Part III, Part II, Part I.  Also, see Intro.

Along with covert action in the form of assassinations and sabotage, the U.S. should also do a much better job of using propaganda as a weapon, to create dissension among our enemies, and disrupt radical Islamic recruiting efforts. I believe one possible way to do this is to strike at them through their own religion. Throughout many countries, even within some of our so-called allies, there are extremist Islamic clerics preaching hatred of the U.S., hatred of Jews, jihad against the West in general, and encouraging/justifying the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians.  

What if there were other Islamic clerics preaching that those who supported terrorism were traitors to Islam, were poisoning and damaging the religion, and should themselves be killed? The U.S. should recruit Islamic clerics to spread that sort of message, in order to foment conflict within Islamic communities where terrorist recruiting takes place. The more they are killing each other, the less time they would have to be plotting and planning terrorist actions against the U.S. Prospects for this sort of action could be recruited through various means, such as bribery and blackmail. And their calls for the killing of terrorist supporters could be reinforced with some well-timed and selected assassinations, carried out by the assassin teams I mentioned in Part I.

Most of the terrorism we face is justified by a radical interpretation of Islam. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to find ways to use their own religion against them. There are numerous Islamic clerics out there, many with no real voice or power. We could doubtless find some who would be willing to serve our purposes for the right price, or who could be persuaded by other means.

A New War Against Radical Islam - Part III

This is the continuation of a multi-part post, Part II, Part I.  Also, see Intro.

The U.S. needs to increase its ability to engage in covert warfare against Islamic terror supporting states. It's not necessary or practical to invade, conquer and occupy every state that undertakes hostilities toward the U.S. or supports Islamic terrorism. We already have major military commitments that will probably continue for the foreseeable future. Launching a large military operation, particularly a preventative or preemptive war, is a serious diplomatic and political problem. After the experience of the Iraq War, the public is highly skeptical about such ventures, and there is likely to be massive international opposition to any such efforts.

But countries which are openly hostile to the U.S., help kill our soldiers, interfere with our operations, and undermine our allies should not be allowed to act with impunity, just because we aren't in a position to go to war against them. There are other ways to make them pay a severe price for their actions, and I'm not talking about largely useless economic sanctions. Along with the assassins, we should establish teams of saboteurs, which the CIA could recruit from people with the necessary skills, such as ex-special forces operators and members of private military corporations.

If we aren't in a position to respond overtly to hostile acts, these saboteurs could exact retribution covertly by destroying or damaging military targets and vital infrastructure. Direct hostility toward the U.S. might be less attractive when bombs start exploding in your military barracks, power plants mysterious shut down, bridges collapse, border posts are destroyed, mines start appearing on military routes, and so forth. I hope we are already doing some of this, but if so, it's one of our few well-guarded secrets.

"Language of Faith" Wins Wars?

There's an article up at Pajamas Media by Elisabeth Scalia entitled "Winning This War Requires Language of Faith."  The war in question is the fight against radical Islamic terrorism.  Her thesis is that 

As the West evolves into a post-faith society — disdainful of religion and confident in the primacy of reason alone — it is rendering itself ineffective and mute. Mute against an enemy that, for better or worse, communicates solely in the language of the supernatural and belief.

According to Scalia

Silencing the language of faith in public discourse and policy weakens the West’s ability to engage and defeat an enemy entirely motivated by relentless theology. By failing to speak in the same language, it has no weapons for victory, short of destroying whole cities.

I find her argument weak, lacking in specifics, and unconvincing -- it is little more than a call for "faith," as if engaging in magical thinking will somehow help us defeat terrorism.  It is built on a series of strawmen.  Scalia condemns various unrealistic approaches to dealing with radical Islam, such as appeasement and diplomacy.  But what do they have to do with faith? There are plenty of non-religious people, such as myself, who agree on these points.  Does she think that only the religious can understand that radical Islam cannot be reasoned with or accommodated? She appears to be confusing part of the secular left with all secular individuals.  Do prominent atheists Christopher Hitchens & Sam Harris have any difficulty understanding the threat of radical Islam? 

Scalia claims that "We should consider that Islamic terrorism may not be defeatable, except on its own terms, on the battlefield of the supernatural."  What is that supposed to mean?  We need to rely on our God(s) to beat theirs? She never spells out how the "language of faith" should be used, or what it will accomplish.  The article is so vague on these points that she could be calling for anything from mild propaganda to a crusade.  When you write an article that advocates relying on faith as a strategy for fighting radical Islam, you have no standing to criticize anyone else for taking an unrealistic approach.

 

Quick Early Reflections on Mumbai

According to the Washington Post, the situation in Mumbai is finally under control.  Once again, this attack demonstrated how much damage a small, motivated group of terrorists can inflict.  Could this type of attack happen in the U.S.?  Unfortunately, yes.   A large country with an open society such as the U.S. is particularly vulnerable.  We'd like to think that our police & counterterrorism forces would be more effective in a similar situation, but that's doubtful.  An attack inside luxury hotels gives terrorists a large number of potential victims, and numerous opportunities to take hostages.  In addition, travelers and workers in those type of hotels are unlikely to be armed, and have little means of resistance.  The presence of so many innocent civilians in the buildings greatly impedes the counterterror response -- as seen in Mumbai.  The Indian forces couldn't just blast their way into the hotels, so instead you had a siege situation that lasted three days -- all caused by only 15 terrorists, according to latest reports.

It's fashionable in some circles to downplay the threat of terrorism, particularly of the radical Islamic variety.  Mumbai is yet another reminder that the threat is real.  People who recognize it and want to take action against it aren't "fearmongering," engaging in the "politics of fear,"  or whatever other ridiculous jargon is often used to dismiss them.