We’re almost 7 years now from that terrible day in September of 2001 when a band of Islamic jihadist firebrands, supported by a shadowy but potent terror network based in the Middle East, managed to kill over 3,000 Americans and injure our financial and military infrastructure. And since then . . . . nothing. Not on domestic soil, anyway. So, are we doing something right? Or have we mostly been lucky?
That’s the big question, isn’t it . . . I’ve read a number of articles from reputable sources claiming that al Qaeda has been seriously wounded and that Bin Laden’s idea of a pan-Islamic assault on the west never caught fire amidst its intended audience. Arguably, there are too many Islamic emigrants living in Europe and North America who have learned to like the economic opportunities available here. They are millions of them, making money and sending it back to the relatives living in the poor and stagnant economies of Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, etc. So there may not be a very large pool of volunteers ready to fly to American and don TNT vests for suicide missions in crowded subways or shopping malls. The “Arab street” might be opting for a reasonable, moral interpretation of the Qur’an and Islamic history, over the hazy promise of black-eyed virgins in paradise and eventual glorious victory over the western infidels. And the US military has had recent success in talking the Sunnis in Iraq out of their al Qaeda sympathies.
At the same time, there is renewed evidence that the “social-mental infection” of modern jihadism remains potent within the Islamic world. I just read an interesting book review for a title that you may not find at your local Barnes and Noble; but this book is allegedly getting attention in places like Riyadh and Tunis and Karachi. It’s called “Governance in the Wilderness” (Edarat al-Wahsh), and was recently written by Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji, allegedly a high-level religious theoretician in al Qaeda. Bottom line, the Sheik says that its time for al Qaeda to renew its focus on making life hell (i.e., “wilderness”) for the USA and France and England. He admits that the jihadists probably cannot repeat the “glories” of September 11, but they can bring us to our knees by a long term campaign based on smaller incidents targeted at crowded public places, akin to what the Israelis have to put up with.
So instead of snuffing out 3,000 infidels in a day and then getting shut out by a high-tech “homeland security” response, the new al Qaeda campaign [according to this book] should be happy with getting 30 or so office employees or tourists or delayed travelers lined up at airports, on a more regular basis. Admittedly, Israel manages to thrive despite this kind of thing; but the Israelis are tough cookies, having a social / historical / religious narrative just as compelling as any Palestinian suicidalist has. Here in the USA, especially in the well-off “blue states”, we really don’t have anything so transcendent to latch on to if and when bloody warfare comes knocking at our doors. There would be a lot of social and economic disruption — which is not what we need as we currently struggle with home foreclosures and unemployment and unending increases in food and fuel prices. Under Abu-Bakar Naji’s plan, there would be no succor from the shopping malls, as President Bush prescribed in the days following Nine Eleven.
OK, that article appeared in the NY Post — a Rupert Murdoch rag. Admittedly, Abu-Bakar Naji had a 2005 book called Management of Barbarism and had a lot of other previous writings in the same vein; so another tome on hatred and vengeance by him isn’t really a surprise. But on the same day, the NY Times posted an article about our lack of progress in the Pakistani “north-west frontier”, where Osama Bin Laden is thought to be hiding. The Times believes that al Qaeda has reestablished a network of training camps there not unlike what it had in Afghanistan up until late 2001. Because of Pakistani politics, we can’t just go in there with our Delta units and take them out. We are monitoring and harassing them with our airborne Preditors (the pilotless aircraft equipped with cameras and missiles), but according to the Times, we don’t have enough to do real damage due to demands in Iraq.
So — are we safe again? Or is this the calm following the first thunderclap, the pause before the real storm begins? I like to play the role of the gloomy prophet and thus get in an occasional “told-ya-so” when one of my predictions turns out by chance to come true. But on this one, I’d be perfectly happy to look back five years from now and admit just how silly and off-base my worries were. So check with me in 2013; I look forward to saying ‘yea, I was all wrong’.
Jim,
Well, once again I come at your blog from a tangential position. What can I say? I have been struck by the fact that the news these last few days has mentioned the 3-year anniversary of the bombing in London (and then there was the bombing in Madrid–both were trains, if I recall correctly and killed too many people). And then on the anniversary of the London bombing came the Kabul bombing–of women and children mostly out shopping for supper. Boggles the mind. Makes me wonder if Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji’s ideas are not already in practice. And makes me wonder why these terrorists find a need to kill their own. What’s the psychology behind that?
As I read the review from the NYPost, it reminded me (in a way)of a book I just finished: The Garden of the Last Days by Dubus. Dubus’ book is a novel, true, but based on facts. In fact, I found myself recalling that I had read some of the very things he mentions about the 9/11 hijackers.
And I was struck by the fact (as I read Dubus’ book) that it seems the 9/11 hijackers’ motivation (when one gets right down to it) was SEX–as much as they will be able to get, whenever they want it–in the next world. I don’t know if Dubus meant to convey that impression, but it surely is there. (And then I happened to see a piece on marriages around the world. Only in the MidEast does it seem that during the marriage celebration is the bride ABSENT!! But I digress.)
As I read the review from the NYPost, I am struck that it seems that the psychology behind the leaders is a bid for power–“everybody has to do things the way I think they should be done”; the actual grunt work of suicide bombings is done by the “simple” people and the reward of sex, pure and simple. What is wrong with this picture!?!?
Then there was the NYTimes article: Again, dismay for the reader. The total lack of leadership among the US authorities, the complete tendency for those in charge to seek out and try to claim and maintain their own little reign of power–“I’m in charge here and refuse to give up my say over this or that.”
One can only think of the comment within the article itself: “Boys with toys.” And I wonder how much of that attitude has ruled the Bush administration. Certainly Bush seems to qualify for that category. A boy who happens to be commander-in-chief: “Wow, I get to order all these people around, whether or not I was or would be willing to do what I’m asking others to do.”
And then the deaths–the sad face that soon turns to a grin as soon as the ceremony is over. The wounded are simply forgotten–let the families take care of them. Think of the wounded of war–their wounds are serious enough for them; but then there is the effect on the family and those who must care for them…. The deaths and the wounded–the reverberations carry on throughout the families.
And underneath it all I find myself wondering just what is the basic psychological problem in all this. Surely, there can’t be any truly SERIOUS meaning behind the idea that the “hard feelings” go back some 900 years (give or take) to the crusades! What is it that drives these people who seem to want to kill, kill, kill–always others–the objects of the terrorist attacks and even the suicide bombers they enlist with promises of endless sex.
I find myself wondering if the main problem is not the fact that women have so little influence in these countries–where brides are not present at their own wedding ceremonies and celebrations! Something certainly is missing in the psyches of these men. Could it be that “half” of what makes up the human race is missing–the female influence?
And as to whether there will be chaos in the world or not: I can’t help but think that whoever wins the election in November may prove to be his own man and surprise us. Perhaps McClain would prove to be NOT another Bush. Obama, who seems inexperienced, might surprise us too with what he may do. (Kennedy was callow when he took office; bu
Comment by MCS — July 8, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Jim,
Well, once again I come at your blog from a tangential position. What can I say? I have been struck by the fact that the news these last few days has mentioned the 3-year anniversary of the bombing in London (and then there was the bombing in Madrid–both were trains, if I recall correctly and killed too many people). And then on the anniversary of the London bombing came the Kabul bombing–of women and children mostly out shopping for supper. Boggles the mind. Makes me wonder if Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji’s ideas are not already in practice. And makes me wonder why these terrorists find a need to kill their own. What’s the psychology behind that?
As I read the review from the NYPost, it reminded me (in a way)of a book I just finished: The Garden of the Last Days by Dubus. Dubus’ book is a novel, true, but based on facts. In fact, I found myself recalling that I had read some of the very things he mentions about the 9/11 hijackers.
And I was struck by the fact (as I read Dubus’ book) that it seems the 9/11 hijackers’ motivation (when one gets right down to it) was SEX–as much as they will be able to get, whenever they want it–in the next world. I don’t know if Dubus meant to convey that impression, but it surely is there. (And then I happened to see a piece on marriages around the world. Only in the MidEast does it seem that during the marriage celebration is the bride ABSENT!! But I digress.)
As I read the review from the NYPost, I am struck that it seems that the psychology behind the leaders is a bid for power–“everybody has to do things the way I think they should be done”; the actual grunt work of suicide bombings is done by the “simple” people and the reward of sex, pure and simple. What is wrong with this picture!?!?
Then there was the NYTimes article: Again, dismay for the reader. The total lack of leadership among the US authorities, the complete tendency for those in charge to seek out and try to claim and maintain their own little reign of power–“I’m in charge here and refuse to give up my say over this or that.”
One can only think of the comment within the article itself: “Boys with toys.” And I wonder how much of that attitude has ruled the Bush administration. Certainly Bush seems to qualify for that category. A boy who happens to be commander-in-chief: “Wow, I get to order all these people around, whether or not I was or would be willing to do what I’m asking others to do.”
And then the deaths–the sad face that soon turns to a grin as soon as the ceremony is over. The wounded are simply forgotten–let the families take care of them. Think of the wounded of war–their wounds are serious enough for them; but then there is the effect on the family and those who must care for them…. The deaths and the wounded–the reverberations carry on throughout the families.
And underneath it all I find myself wondering just what is the basic psychological problem in all this. Surely, there can’t be any truly SERIOUS meaning behind the idea that the “hard feelings” go back some 900 years (give or take) to the crusades! What is it that drives these people who seem to want to kill, kill, kill–always others–the objects of the terrorist attacks and even the suicide bombers they enlist with promises of endless sex.
I find myself wondering if the main problem is not the fact that women have so little influence in these countries–where brides are not present at their own wedding ceremonies and celebrations! Something certainly is missing in the psyches of these men. Could it be that “half” of what makes up the human race is missing–the female influence?
And as to whether there will be chaos in the world or not: I can’t help but think that whoever wins the election in November may prove to be his own man and surprise us. Perhaps McClain would prove to be NOT another Bush. Obama, who seems inexperienced, might surprise us too with what he may do. (Kennedy was callow when he took office; but the question is whether Obama may be another Kennedy.) I find myself wondering at this point. At last GWB (and the shadow Cheney) will no longer be in office.
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 8, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Jim,
Well, once again I come at your blog from a tangential position. What can I say? I have been struck by the fact that the news these last few days has mentioned the 3-year anniversary of the bombing in London (and then there was the bombing in Madrid–both were trains, if I recall correctly and killed too many people). And then on the anniversary of the London bombing came the Kabul bombing–of women and children mostly out shopping for supper. Boggles the mind. Makes me wonder if Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji’s ideas are not already in practice. And makes me wonder why these terrorists find a need to kill their own. What’s the psychology behind that?
As I read the review from the NYPost, it reminded me (in a way)of a book I just finished: The Garden of the Last Days by Dubus. Dubus’ book is a novel, true, but based on facts. In fact, I found myself recalling that I had read some of the very things he mentions about the 9/11 hijackers.
And I was struck by the fact (as I read Dubus’ book) that it seems the 9/11 hijackers’ motivation (when one gets right down to it) was SEX–as much as they will be able to get, whenever they want it–in the next world. I don’t know if Dubus meant to convey that impression, but it surely is there. (And then I happened to see a piece on marriages around the world. Only in the MidEast does it seem that during the marriage celebration is the bride ABSENT!! But I digress.)
As I read the review from the NYPost, I am struck that it seems that the psychology behind the leaders is a bid for power–“everybody has to do things the way I think they should be done”; the actual grunt work of suicide bombings is done by the “simple” people and the reward of sex, pure and simple. What is wrong with this picture!?!?
Then there was the NYTimes article: Again, dismay for the reader. The total lack of leadership among the US authorities, the complete tendency for those in charge to seek out and try to claim and maintain their own little reign of power–“I’m in charge here and refuse to give up my say over this or that.”
One can only think of the comment within the article itself: “Boys with toys.” And I wonder how much of that attitude has ruled the Bush administration. Certainly Bush seems to qualify for that category. A boy who happens to be commander-in-chief: “Wow, I get to order all these people around, whether or not I was or would be willing to do what I’m asking others to do.”
And then the deaths–the sad face that soon turns to a grin as soon as the ceremony is over. The wounded are simply forgotten–let the families take care of them. Think of the wounded of war–their wounds are serious enough for them; but then there is the effect on the family and those who must care for them…. The deaths and the wounded–the reverberations carry on throughout the families.
And underneath it all I find myself wondering just what is the basic psychological problem in all this. Surely, there can’t be any truly SERIOUS meaning behind the idea that the “hard feelings” go back some 900 years (give or take) to the crusades! What is it that drives these people who seem to want to kill, kill, kill–always others–the objects of the terrorist attacks and even the suicide bombers they enlist with promises of endless sex.
I find myself wondering if the main problem is not the fact that women have so little influence in these countries–where brides are not present at their own wedding ceremonies and celebrations! Something certainly is missing in the psyches of these men. Could it be that “half” of what makes up the human race is missing–the female influence?
And as to whether there will be chaos in the world or not: I can’t help but think that whoever wins the election in November may prove to be his own man and surprise us. Perhaps McClain would prove to be NOT another Bush. Obama, who seems inexperienced, might surprise us too with what he may do. (Kennedy was callow when he took office; bu
Comment by MCS — July 8, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Jim,
I don’t know what you have on the East Coast, but here in the Middle West–specifically Chicago–we might as well have a terrorist situation with all the gang-related–and other types of–shootings and deaths that have occurred since the beginning of this year 2008.
The media started counting early in January, got to 27 sometime in February and since have gone to counting murders, deaths, and shootings by the month, then the week, and now the media counts shootings and deaths by gang-related and other activities by the DAY. The other day the local news started out with no less than 5 shootings and deaths.
A person I know well who has traveled Chicago and its streets for many years has now reached the point where he has decided that simply taking city public transportation in the evenings is simply too dangerous; he refuses to move around in Chicago when it starts to get dark. When this individual takes such an attitude, things have really deteriorated in the City.
If Chicago doesn’t have terrorism, what does it have? So it seems to me that we may not need “outsiders” to terrorize whole cities.
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 8, 2008 @ 9:04 am
Jim,
I don’t know what you have on the East Coast, but here in the Middle West–specifically Chicago–we might as well have a terrorist situation with all the gang-related–and other types of–shootings and deaths that have occurred since the beginning of this year 2008.
The media started counting early in January, got to 27 sometime in February and since have gone to counting murders, deaths, and shootings by the month, then the week, and now the media counts shootings and deaths by gang-related and other activities by the DAY. The other day the local news started out with no less than 5 shootings and deaths.
A person I know well who has traveled Chicago and its streets for many years has now reached the point where he has decided that simply taking city public transportation in the evenings is simply too dangerous; he refuses to move around in Chicago when it starts to get dark. When this individual takes such an attitude, things have really deteriorated in the City.
If Chicago doesn’t have terrorism, what does it have? So it seems to me that we may not need “outsiders” to terrorize whole cities.
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 8, 2008 @ 9:04 am