Jihad is Their Way

Part of the solution in dealing with a problem is recognizing you have a problem in the first place. In few places in our society is this more apparent than in our nation's military and how it deals with terrorists in its ranks. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Security Committee noted during a special joint House-Senate hearing, "The Department of Defense considers the U.S. homeland the most dangerous place for a G.I. outside of foreign war zones––and the top threat they face here is from violent Islamic extremists." [Washington Times, 12/7/11]  Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee pointed out that the Congressional Research Service had identified 54 homegrown terrorist plots and attacks since 9/11 and, of those, 33 were directed against the U.S. military. Bottom line: serving in the military has become dangerous duty, indeed . . . and not just abroad.

In my previous post, I reminded readers of the dangers of political correctness in a counterterrorism context. The current administration––and the defense department, specifically––refer to the Fort Hood rampage as "workplace violence." The Oklahoma City bombing wasn't terrorism, but rather a "criminal" act. Nor is such naivete and political expediency confined to the current administration. Author Paul Sperry, in his book on muslim spies and subversives, points to the number of traitors who have infiltrated the U.S. military to undermine it and even kill their fellow soldiers, as was perhaps the case in the Fort Hood massacre. The Muslim-sensitivity training program mandated by FBI director Mueller after 9/11, criticized by agents and civilians alike, warned against referring to even the most serious terrorist threats against America as being "Islamic." "He [Mueller] typically describes terrorism in generic terms, such as 'international terrorism'"and is reluctant to use Islamic and terrorism in the same sentence. President Bush, similarly, struck a deal with Muslim-rights groups to avoid describing terrorism as "Islamic." [Infiltration, Paul Sperry, Nelson Current (2005)]

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey makes a distinction between "Islamism" and the religion of Islam itself, tracing Islamism's roots to the 1920s, when the Muslim Brotherhood was established. The movement came to out shores "at the latest in the 1980s," when a couple of FBI agents spotted a group of men taking target practice and acting suspicious in Calverton, Long Island. "They [the agents] were accused of what we now call racial profiling, and they backed off." Shortly thereafter, Meir Kahane was assassinated in a Manhattan hotel. Years later, the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, and plots to blow up other New York landmarks were uncovered, as was a plot to assassinate Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak when he visited the UN. All were treated as a series of crimes, not terrorism. And while the policy makers dream about democratic movements in the Middle East, Mukasey argues, the Muslim Brotherhod's credo is "succinct and chilling: Allah is our goal, the Prophet Muhammad is our leader, the Qu'ran is our constitution, jihad is our way, and death in the way of Allah is our promised end." ["Executive Power in Wartime," Michael Mukasey, Imprimus, October 2011]

Not all terrorism is Islamic-based, of course. We've got left-wing anarchists, right-wing, white separatists, anti-government radicals and other potentially dangerous groups. But only by recognizing the problem, defining its characteristics and concentrating our resources in a proper manner, can terrorism be defused––as much as we're physically and technically able to do so.

As a footnote, last week, on the third anniversary of the Fort Hood shootings, 148 victims and family members sued for compensation in the attack, alleging negligence by the government, claiming that the defense department is avoiding legal and financial responsibility for the killings by referring to them as "workplace violence," rather than a terrorist attack. The victims assert that the military knew for years before the shootings that Major Nidal Hassan was a "fanatic Islamic extremist who supported jihad, suicide attacks and violence" and failed to act. [Fort Hood Shooting Victims Sue Government," Huffington Post, 11/5/12]


http://www.richardholcroft.com

Unbiased Look at the War on Terror

This is the first in what I hope will be regular looks at the ongoing war on terror. In these weekly postings, I plan to examine: pertinent news reports about terrorist threats from mainstream and alternative sources; items of interest concerning national security and the various constitutional problems presented; advancements in science and technology as they pertain to counterterrorism; and periodic analysis of the most currently active and dangerous terrorist organizations operating within our borders.

My intention is that coverage and discussion of these topics will be informative, interesting and objective, although inevitably there will be instances where I express my opinion in the interests of covering the subject. As those who have read Patriot's Blood can attest (http://www.richardholcroft.com), my protagonist doesn't hesitate to criticize government agencies where criticism is due, nor will I. The threat to our safety and way of life is entirely too serious for mealy-mouthed discourse or "politically correctness."

Of particular interest to me this week is the apparent lack of concern Americans currently have toward potential attacks. A Gallup poll conducted late last year––roughly a month prior to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11––showed that only 38 percent of Americans believe terrorist acts are very or somewhat likely to occur in the coming weeks, down from 62 percent conducted earlier that year after Osama Bin Laden was killed. Women, adults 35 and older, and Republicans were more likely to believe an attack could happen, than were men, young adults and Democrats. Women 50 and older were the most concerned; men age 18 to 49 the least.

Even more worrisome is the lack of attention––or at least public recognition–– of the terrorist problem by our president and current administration. Two months ago, in his speech to the UN General Assembly, the president never once used the word "terrorism." Nor did the White House want to admit the murder of our ambassador in Libya was a terrorist attack, until the facts became known (which occurred in very short order). In other cases of this type, involving attacks on American property and citizens, intel is often mixed, contradictory and unintelligible, and it takes a while for intelligence agencies to sort it all out before action can be taken. That clearly wasn't the situation here. 

"The problem with using the word 'terrorist' is that it creates tension," Mary Kate Cary suggests, writing in U.S. News and World Report. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/10/11/barack-obama-tiptoes-around-the-threat-of-terrorism_print.html ) "Not only does it acknowledge that there are extremist elements in the Arab world, but it reminds everyone that the United States is vulnerable to attack. The White House doesn't like either of those."

Given the proximity to the election and the closeness of the race, I'll leave it to the voters to decide for themselves who is the best candidate. It also goes without saying, domestic terrorism can be as big a threat as al Qaeda and other radical Muslim groups. But it is imperative we heed the general threat of terror in our country. We've made mistakes before after we'd received ample warnings (e.g., the two World Trade Center attacks, Oklahoma City in 1995; Fort Hood in 2009, to name just a few). We sure as hell don't want to make them again.


http://www.richardholcroft.com