War On Terror Important As Ever

National Review Online: Despite Critics' Ease, Islamic Terrorists Still Threaten The U.S.

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Victor Davis Hanson.

---

Do we still need to fight a war on terror?

The answer seems to be "no" for an increasing number in the West who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11.

The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight against radical Islam.

An influential book making the rounds — “Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them” — argues that the threat from al Qaeda is vastly exaggerated.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror — not the jihadists themselves.

Even onetime neoconservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998 called for the preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein, believes "war" is the "wrong metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists. Others point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the resources of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the Soviet Union.

This thinking may seem understandable given the ineffectiveness of al Qaeda to kill many Americans after 9/11. Or it may also reflect hopes that if we only leave Iraq, radical Islam will wither away. But it is dead wrong for a number of reasons.

First, Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested periodically in both Europe and the United States. Just last week, a leaked British report detailed al Qaeda's plans for future "large-scale" operations. We shouldn't be blamed for being alarmist when our alarmism has resulted in our safety at home for the past five years.

Second, have we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to kill 3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did Japan ever destroy 16 acres in Manhattan or hit the nerve center of the U.S. military? Even the Soviet Union couldn't inflict billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy in a single day.

Third, in some ways stateless terrorists can be more dangerous than past conventional threats. Autocrats in some Middle East countries allow indirect financial and psychological support for al Qaeda terrorists without leaving footprints of their intent. They must assume that a single terrorist strike could kill thousands of Americans without our ability to strike back at their capitals. This inability to tie a state to its support for terrorism is our greatest obstacle in this war — and our enemies' greatest advantage.

Fourth, jihadists have already scored successes in all sorts of ways beyond altering the very nature of air travel. Cartoonists now lampoon everyone and everything — except Muslims. The pope must weigh his words carefully. Otherwise, priests and nuns are attacked abroad. A single false Newsweek story about one flushed Koran led to riot and death.

The net result is that terrified millions in Western societies silently accept that for the first time in centuries they cannot talk or write honestly about what they think of Islam and the Koran.

Fifth, everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water plants depend on sophisticated computers and communications. And you don't need a missile to take them down. Two oceans no longer protect the United States — not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our borders are relatively wide open and dozens of ships dock and hundreds of flights arrive daily.

A germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas could cause as much mayhem and calamity as an armored division in Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered rational enemies who accepted the bleak laws of nuclear deterrence. But the jihadists claim that they welcome death if their martyrdom results in thousands of dead Americans.

Finally, radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich Middle East. Since 9/11, the price of oil has skyrocketed, transferring trillions of dollars from successful Western, Indian, and Chinese economies to unsuccessful Arab and Iranian autocracies.

Terrorists know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting control of Iraqi petroleum reserves — and they attempt both all the time — will alter the world economy. Even their mere threats give us psychological fits and their sponsors more cash.

This is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack convince some that the real danger has passed. And when we kill jihadists abroad, we are told it is peripheral to the war or only incites more terrorism.

But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform — or we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.

[oleander8]

Of course the War on Terror is important. But that war was not in IRAQ. We should have concentrated on AFGHANISTAN and finished that war. The incursion into IRAQ just swelled the army of the terrorists, and cost the US prestige and support.

[shingles1]

Josh Marshall:

Democrats should just hit right back on how President Bush has been helping Osama bin Laden for almost six years. Sounds harsh. But it%u2019s true. Consider the facts. President Bush had bin Laden trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora. But he let bin Laden get away because Bush wanted to focus on Saddam Hussein instead. The president and the White House tried to lie about this during the 2004 election. But since then the evidence has become overwhelming. President Bush decided to let bin Laden get away so he could get ready to attack Saddam Hussein. So pretty much anything bin Laden does from here on out is on President Bush. And how about Iraq? President Bush has screwed things up so badly that he%u2019s created a whole new generation of recruits for bin Laden. He%u2019s created a whole new army for bin Laden. Not by being tough but by being stupid. And by being too much of a coward to admit his mistakes once it was obvious that the occupation of Iraq was helping bin Laden specifically and the jihadist agenda in general.

After half a decade, the verdict is pretty clear: President Bush has been the biggest ally Osama bin Laden has. He%u2019s helped bin Laden at pretty much every turn %u2014 even if only by his own stupidity, incompetence and cowardice. And when the next big terrorist attack comes, we can thank President Bush for helping make it happen.

[talkingham]

Sure the so called war on terror is just as important as ever and just as laughable to Bush and his Saudi buddies. Curious how the interview tapes of the Saudi's he allowed to leave within hours 911 have "been lost." They were the only civilians allowed to fly and no telling what connections they had to 911. They were allowed to go scot free just like Bin Laden.

Bush and is Saudi buddies are laughing all the way to the oil bank. Between them and the Iraq war the price of gas has doubled during the last 6 years and shows no sign of ever retreating again be cause they know they can get away with it.

Bush has wrecked and lost the war on terror and wrecked the economy of anyone on a fixed income. I'm sure he really cares about the war on terror.

"Great job Brownie" after he allowed FEMA to allow New Orleans to be destroyed.

[adventurepa]

The common item in this piece for you who missed it is religion.
This is why any and all religions are dangerous.

If an alien came down and attacked earth, the differences we have would disappear overnight. We all would unite. Because we would all be in danger.

And didn't inhale maybe you should inhale.
If you were paying attention you would be very upset about the way our government is doing things.

[bluestardad]

The war in Iraq is not the War on Terror! No matter how many of these NEOCON RAGS preach this stuff it does not make it so.

[Razzl]

The first half of this contains a recitation of the facts that the country has arrived at but the neocons are not willing to acknowledge: that radical jihadism is really a small movement that got a lucky shot at us because we were inattentive but that has now mostly been cleaned up by police actions and doesn't require a permanent war footing to deal with. Al-Qaeda is effectively unable to recruit or organize now that states are monitoring their activities and arresting them. Americans aren't willing to permanently let go of our rights and liberties to shore up the overblown political program of a fringe of militarist academics.

If we accepted the neocon logic about the nature of this struggle then we would still be sending spies to neo-nazi rallies, tailing Russian emigrants assuming the resurgence of communist agitation, and infiltrating labor unions for crypto-wobblies. Every threat runs its course, deal with it.

And I can't resist pointing out by way of pricking Hanson's scatterbrained historical examples that while Nazi Germany didn't kill 3,000 Americans on our own soil, Tojo's Japan killed 2,800 at Pearl Harbor. That savage attack didn't seem to lead to a permanent struggle of civilizations that the neocon model says it should have...

[tejasdemo]

Enough already. There will always be terrorists. You can not get rid of them.

Enough with the terrorist BS all the *** time.

Somewhere today a child in the US is living in violence. Let's work on that for a change.

Jerks

[talkingham]

We already won the war in Iraq. Don't you neos remember Bush already decided that.

However, Bush and his crew of carpetbaggers like Wolfy who's now in trouble at the World Bank lost the peace.

So get it right. There is no end to this mess until one group of Iraqis trumps another amid the horrid squalor that we have visited upon these people in the name of Bush and his daddy.

We already won the war but lost the peace. Give it up, it's not worth hundreds of billions more or one more US soldier's life in my opinion.

Between dead and seriously wounded we are now approaching 30,000 casualties and the situation has only gotten worse because Bush and Rummy could not admit their failed small invasion force strategy was totally bogus to occupy a country the size of Iraq. I kinda think Bush planned on losing all along,just like he lost New Orleans.

[terrapin78]

IMO, the Bush War of Choice was lost when Rumsfeld said with a shrug of the shoulders "That's what free people do!". We never regained control after that moment.

Bush and the criminals who work for him (not US) took their eye off of the real War on Terror, Afghanistan.

Plain and simple- They fuqued up!

[i-tack]

ozilot,

There is no equitable peace plan in the middle east nor will there be. The primaries have determined this already. The Arabs won't let the Jews stay and the Jews aren't going to leave. No amount of effort and expense will change this.

9/11 is driven by our presence on Saudi soil primarily. Attacks in the U.S. started after our military enter Saudi to defend them against Saddam.

[katg21]

Enough with the terrorist BS all the *** time.

Somewhere today a child in the US is living in violence. Let's work on that for a change.

Jerks
Posted by tejasdemo at 04:29 PM : Apr 26, 2007

I agree with you, however, this has now become a political issue and the Dems want this war lost.

[ubrew12]

I guess Hanson didn't hear about how last summer over 100 counterterrorism experts were polled, and 80% agreed with the two following conclusions:
1. We are losing the War on terror
2. The Iraq War is why

These guys seem to think if you don't do things Bushs' way you must not think the war on terror is important. LOL.

[ajmarine1]

I can see the next time we are attacked, people will be saying, "If we hadn't invaded Iraq, this would never have happened.'

[i-tack]

AJMarine1,

There is always plenty of blame to go around. What separates those who cherish freedom from those who just use it, is what they do to protect it.

As much as I disagree with some positions on this blog, I do appreciate the opportunity to openly and freely express myself. A virtue that is essentially non-existent in the Arab world.

Regardless of how we got into Iraq, it should be all of our hopes that the price that is being paid result in freedom for a region of humans who deserve the opportunity to become who they WANT to become and NOT be judged by their birth religion or nationality.

[ajmarine1]

i-tack,

I find nothing to disagree with you on your post.

I'm just tried of all the negativity, name calling, hateful postings, and endless talking points on each side of the argument.

I am an Independent, I would hope that which ever side is controling the White House will have the best interests of the country at heart.

I also fear that if we leave Iraq before we finish what we have started, we will face a far greater danger in the future.

[ajmarine1]

I meant "tired"

[walt1944-2009]

I thought when all this started in 2002, our A#1 target was Osama Bin Laden. Isn't he the guy responsible for 9-11, killing 3,000 people, allowing Bush to shred the Constitution and giving us 6+ years of constant terrorist propoganda from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, and Coulter? Why is he still running around out there? Bush and all the Bushies keep talking about terrorists, but the #1 terrorist is still showing us the middle finger! Bush says he doesn't have time to think about him anymore, but what about the 3,000 families who lost people at the WTC; I guess they don't count!

[ajmarine1]

walt 1944,

"but the #1 terrorist is still showing us the middle finger"

I haven't seen Obama in about three years.

"Bush says he doesn't have time to think about him anymore."

When did he say that?

[nearl4511]

Ah yes. Another NRO article promoting war.

Never seem to tire of war mongering do they.....the American people are tired of it, however.

[Ju-suk.Han]

AFRICAN MESSAGE FOR ***-SOCIALISM(RELIGION)
1.GENIUS GANG IN ORIENT(SWAT)
2.PRIME MINISTER'SON,DAUGHTER(CIA)
3.LONG TIME LIVED IN ONE VILLAGE(FBI)
4.BACK TO MURDERED PARENT'PREVILLEGE(CROSS WORD)
5.tree IS HUMAN BUDDHA'teacher,murdered parent' do not argue with ,if the son is BUDDHA.(politic)
6.elder is not on the side of older(brother in ***-defficient is not parent'life protection
~son!?)

[harp1963]

Why is it that there are never any Iraqis involved in the terrorist attacks on the United States and we invaded their country, but on the same hand, most of the terrorist attacks against us in the last 20 years have been committed by Saudis, but they are our "friends?" I don't understand. Is their something our President isn't disclosing to us?

[thgdriver]

I could not comment on the story about the poll that most Americans back the DEMONCRATS.

So who is CBS calling?, Lonely housewives looking for someone to share a boring afternoon, welfare folks, out of work folks, folks too lazy to work in in the first place, retired folks, the list goes on and on.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[bigsk8fan]

War on Terror is important. Too bad our leader did everything he could to avoid real military combat in Vietnam. He flew combat sorties safely here in mainland USA.

W was responsible for 9/11 which occurred on his watch. Our leader, W, thinks he needs to attack every country in the world that disagrees with him over even trivial matters.

Neocons don't know who the real enemy is. So they attacked and invaded Iraq which had effectively kept Al Qaeda out. Now that Iraq is in W's hands, Al Qaeda blows up bombs every day there. And still W can't find any WMD's.

[omega39-2009]

How fortuitous for the defense contractors that something as nebulous as "the war on terror" was able to replace "the cold war".

[ubrew12]

Yeah. 50% increase in DOD budget in just 6 years (now $0.5 trillion/year). And by placing 'missile defense' on Russia's borders they hope no doubt to inflame ANOTHER cold war just as the public is beginning to realize just how overinflated the 'war' on terror really was. Fear Sells...

[samthetvcat]

Vic actually makes some valid points with his piece. He doesn't actually advocate staying the course in Iraq - he's just pointing out that no new attacks tends to leave us somewhat complacent.

I'd add too that because the war in Iraq is actually increasing the threat of terrorism according to intelligence reports of the past year a lot of us on the left have focused largely on the idea that if we withdraw from Iraq the threat of terrorism will decrease. And the way the political system works, Dems don't really have the incentive to go the extra mile to formulate a more thorough plan because they're probably going to win big in the next election. But perhaps in terms of our safety we really ought to be thinking more about what else can be done to keep us safe.

I'd like to see candidates like Obama give more thought about how they'll use the additional funds freed up if troops are redeployed out of Iraq to fight the war on terror . . . I guess some of those troops will go to Afghanistan. But is he going to try to foster a better working relationship with Iran and Syria? What are his ideas for brokering peace in the West Bank? Would he invest more $ than Bush in research for alternative fuels? What is his view on providing refugee status to displaced Iraqis? What does he think about women being allowed to wear hijabs (those veil thingies) to school versus the safety concern? etc etc

[plainjean]

Hey didntinhale: Did it ever occur to you that no matter how many jihadists you kill, no matter how many jihadists you imprisoned, no matter how many jihadist skulls you crush, YOU WILL NEVER KILL THE FANATICAL IDEOLOGY, THE IDEA THAT INSPIRES THESE FANATICS. As a country we must remain vigilant and ever on the guard for security breaches here at home. But five more years and 2,000 more American lives is not going to change Iraqi culture. What we are fighting about Bush's supersized ego because he nor you want to face the fact we cannot win now nor can we ever win this mismanaged, tragic war. The "mission accomplished" propaganda has faded to the reality of "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE."

[knyghtwolf]

How important is it to BE a good christian? How important is it that the word of god be spread across the globe? How important is it to any and all americans to be "free"? Next time you think of your own values and of what's important to you personally, think of any muslim try to put yourself in their place, THEIR VALUES ARE JUST AS REAL, JUST AS IMPORTANT, JUST AS STRONG, AND JUST AS ALIVE AS YOUR VALUES AS A CHRISTIAN. The world is no longer a live and let live place. Either by force or by cultural harrassment, someone, somewhere, wants YOU to think your entire life as they do their's, not because they can prove its the right way; it's because of INGRAINED CULTURAL BELIEFS, you are born Tabula Rasa, from that point on, you are owned by cultural persecutions that are at best, notions of uhproven and unsubstantiated grandeur that is used by unethetical and morally corrupt moral entrepreneurs. Thats the truth about it period, if you don't see through the control factor soon enough, you are nothing more than SHEEPEOPLE, ripe for ritual social slaughters.