Dr. Richard
Falk, B.S., L.L.B., S.J.D., a Princeton professor and special envoy to the
United Nations, has thought deeply about America’s place in the world. And he has come to the conclusion that the
Boston Marathon bombings are our own fault. Dr. Falk thinks that America is
involved in a “global domination project” and we are reaping the anger that we
deserve. Of course, Dr. Falk also believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy perpetrated
by the Bush administration, a view shared by other such intellectuals as Zubeidat
Tsarnaev (the bombers’ mother) and TV host/comedian Rosy O’Donnell.
The truth, as is often the case, is far simpler: violent Islamic jihadists are at war with us. Disturbingly, a growing number of plots and attacks are originating from “homegrown,” or domestic, sources.
According to a Congressional Research Service report published on January 23, 2013, there had been sixty three violent jihadist plots since September 11, 2001, four of them successful. (We know those numbers now to be sixty four and five, respectively). The CRS study did include plots hatched on foreign soil if the conspirators were American citizens or legal immigrants. It did not include those planned or attempted by foreign nationals, whether on U.S. soil or not (such as British “shoe bomber” Richard Reid).
The study included another finding of note – that the pace of these plots and attacks has increased since 2009.
What are we to make of this? What shall we do?
First and foremost, we must be honest with ourselves and recognize our adversary. The administration, in a Harry Potter-like dodge of “he-who-must-not-be-named,” refuses to acknowledge that the enemy is violent Islamic jihadism. Case in point – the Army has classified the murder of 13 American troops and the wounding of 32 more by Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Politically correct contortions such as these strain our credulity, causing our government to lose credibility and, thereby, our trust.
Next, it goes without saying that Muslims at large are not the enemy. There are only a small proportion of Muslims who believe in the validity of violent jihad. And even these zealots are within their rights to hold this belief. It is the even tinier fraction of fighters who have crossed the line from thought to action, who are willing to visit unspeakable evil on innocents in the pursuit of their goals. These are the enemy, and we must name them and confront them.
Finally, we must not misjudge the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism. It is no less real than that emanating from foreign soil. The wonder of the Internet and social media has a dark side, and that is in the ease with which ideas can be communicated and reinforced. Hasan, the afore-mentioned Fort Hood attacker, traded many emails with his mentor, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. In one exchange, he asked al-Awalki “when [is] jihad appropriate, and [whether] is it permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack?” Hasan added, “I can’t wait to join you in the afterlife.”
Violent Islamic jihadism is like a virus – it jumps from mind to mind and is either embraced, amplified, or is rejected. It doesn’t infect all whom it encounters. An even smaller number of these, severely infected, are moved to action. To fight this epidemic, our best hopes lie in close relationships and cooperation with the Muslim community. They do not want to see the name of their great religion besmirched. Interfaith services and activities should be encouraged. Community policing, with proper sensitivity, is a must.
A final, important thought. While we must recognize that the inhuman evil perpetrated by the Tsarnaev brothers was a successful bombing attack, it was an abject failure as an act of terror. The people of Boston were not terrorized. Their shock and disbelief quickly morphed into cold, resolute anger: this shall not stand. It did not. And it will not.
The truth, as is often the case, is far simpler: violent Islamic jihadists are at war with us. Disturbingly, a growing number of plots and attacks are originating from “homegrown,” or domestic, sources.
According to a Congressional Research Service report published on January 23, 2013, there had been sixty three violent jihadist plots since September 11, 2001, four of them successful. (We know those numbers now to be sixty four and five, respectively). The CRS study did include plots hatched on foreign soil if the conspirators were American citizens or legal immigrants. It did not include those planned or attempted by foreign nationals, whether on U.S. soil or not (such as British “shoe bomber” Richard Reid).
The study included another finding of note – that the pace of these plots and attacks has increased since 2009.
What are we to make of this? What shall we do?
First and foremost, we must be honest with ourselves and recognize our adversary. The administration, in a Harry Potter-like dodge of “he-who-must-not-be-named,” refuses to acknowledge that the enemy is violent Islamic jihadism. Case in point – the Army has classified the murder of 13 American troops and the wounding of 32 more by Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Politically correct contortions such as these strain our credulity, causing our government to lose credibility and, thereby, our trust.
Next, it goes without saying that Muslims at large are not the enemy. There are only a small proportion of Muslims who believe in the validity of violent jihad. And even these zealots are within their rights to hold this belief. It is the even tinier fraction of fighters who have crossed the line from thought to action, who are willing to visit unspeakable evil on innocents in the pursuit of their goals. These are the enemy, and we must name them and confront them.
Finally, we must not misjudge the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism. It is no less real than that emanating from foreign soil. The wonder of the Internet and social media has a dark side, and that is in the ease with which ideas can be communicated and reinforced. Hasan, the afore-mentioned Fort Hood attacker, traded many emails with his mentor, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. In one exchange, he asked al-Awalki “when [is] jihad appropriate, and [whether] is it permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack?” Hasan added, “I can’t wait to join you in the afterlife.”
Violent Islamic jihadism is like a virus – it jumps from mind to mind and is either embraced, amplified, or is rejected. It doesn’t infect all whom it encounters. An even smaller number of these, severely infected, are moved to action. To fight this epidemic, our best hopes lie in close relationships and cooperation with the Muslim community. They do not want to see the name of their great religion besmirched. Interfaith services and activities should be encouraged. Community policing, with proper sensitivity, is a must.
A final, important thought. While we must recognize that the inhuman evil perpetrated by the Tsarnaev brothers was a successful bombing attack, it was an abject failure as an act of terror. The people of Boston were not terrorized. Their shock and disbelief quickly morphed into cold, resolute anger: this shall not stand. It did not. And it will not.
Thanks Irwin for an insightful article.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend who's pretty high up in the NYPD. We discussed their outreach efforts to Muslims, expecially the clerics. Off the record, he told me, they (the clerics) are completely uncooperative in a Sergeant Schultz sort of way: I know nothing! He said their not even trying to fool the cops. They know how we operate and what we can and cannot legally do. Well, I like my Constitutional rights and don't want to surrender them. And I am uncomfortable in ever increasing government surveillance. Some argue it's a necessary evil; a permenant feature of life.
Here's my problem: Check the FBI's Most Wanted List. The vast majority are of a particular religous group. No, not Anglicans, not Baptists, not Catholics, Hindus or Buddists. They are, come on, say it: Muslims. The Tsarnes's were Muslim immigrants. So, tell me why we allow Muslim immigrants to still come here? Why with high unemployment especially among the unskilled do we keep our borders open to them? Why in a maturing and increasing hi-tech economy that is increasingly unable to find jobs for a growing population do we continue to import people from countries like Egypt where survey after survey shows a very unfavorable view of America and its ways? Will someone please give me a sound reason?