Ah, just smell that Spring air. The Arab Spring, that is. What a glorious example of oppressed peoples rising against tyrannical governments in order to achieve freedom. Why, it's just like 1776 all over again and- wait, what's that? All of the countries that have seen real changes (Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya) are adopting hardcore Sharia as the basis for their new governments? But... but Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular." Okay, some people like Glenn Beck pointed out the dangers of the Arab Spring from the very beginning, but that guy is "really angry" (Business Insider), "delusional" (David Brooks), engaging in "hysteria" and brings to mind "Robert Welch and the John Birch Society" (William Kristol). Plenty of these useful idiots on both the Right and Left have been trying to put their words into the mouths of the revolutionaries (after all, it's not like any of these commentators actually understand Arabic) in order to advance their own agendas. The academic Left sees it as an end to "imperialism" or "neo-colonialism" or whatever other "ism" has earned their ire (simply because they've been told it's bad) and the revolutionary Left sees both a collection of kindred spirits and a means to further destabilize things. Meanwhile those on the Right who support the revolutionaries see the Arab Spring as a fulfillment of the Bush-era idea that Islamism will be halted by spreading democracy in the region. Oops.
While tensions have been high for years, it was the revolution in Tunisia that really kicked off the landslide. Dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (try saying that three times fast), who had not really faced any well-organized opposition up until that point, was overwhelmed by the sudden uprisings. In a stunning turn of events, Ben Ali resigned and fled to Saudi Arabia less than a month after the riots began. The international media rejoiced. The plucky underdogs had defeated the oppressive regime, and they had done it quickly enough that the viewing public had not grown bored with it. Of course, in all the excitement no one bothered asking, "How did these uprising spring up so fast, and who was coordinating them?" Well, now we have at least some idea. The Islamist party Ennahda, which was banned by Ben Ali, won the election and took control of the government. While the media has portrayed Ennahda as "moderate" (at least they didn't say "largely secular"), the group was founded according to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb (one of the major theorists of modern Islamism) and has been tied to a series of terrorists attacks. The Tunisian group still maintains close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and have also reached out to Turkey's AK party (see "Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey" for more on them). Ennahda has made the imposition of Sharia one of its top priorities. Rachid Ghannouchi, Ennahda's founder and leader, defended the move. "Sharia is not something that is strange or alien to our societies... For example, in Britain we have Islamic finance and Islamic banking, and Islamic family law can be applied for marriage and divorce."
In other words: Sharia Law- Coming Soon To A City Near You!
Egypt was the next domino to topple. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in Egypt and has engaged in acts of assassination and terror against the government for the better part of a century. Now they have formed an official political party for the first time since 1954, known as the Freedom and Justice Party, and are poised to make big gains in parliamentary elections. Meanwhile, Egypt's Coptic Christian population has suffered tremendous persecution since Mubarak was deposed (to be fair, it wasn't exactly sunshine and lollipops while Mubarak was in power). One event on October 9th, which would see the worst violence since Mubarak's fall from power, involved a massive mob that attacked a group of Christians who were protesting for better conditions in central Cairo. Rather than prevent the Muslim mob from beating, stabbing, and shooting the Christians, the security forces either stood by to watch or actively joined in the fray, including one incident in which a security van smashed into a crowd of Copts. When the dust settled, over twenty-five people were dead and hundreds more injured. To make matters worse, the military (the same ones that failed to stop the violence) have used the massacre as a tool to further strengthen their grip on the country.
While Ben Ali and Mubarak agreed with Shakespeare's Falstaff that "The better part of valor is discretion," Libya's Moammar Ghaddafi decided to stay and fight the revolutionaries that threatened to overthrow him. It worked in the short-term. Ghaddafi stayed in power much longer than Ben Ali or Mubarak had. But in the end, thanks in no small part to military intervention by NATO, Ghaddafi ended up with a bullet in the head. I've already written a post on this subject. However, it is worth repeating that the same people who very likely executed their prisoner in cold blood and are suspected to be responsible for mass graves have taken control of the government. At least Ghaddafi waited until he was in charge before committing war crimes. Some experts believe that Libya could be the next Afghanistan, run by a radical Taliban-style government and a safe haven for Islamic terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Already the National Transitional Council under Mustafa Abdul-Jalil has declared that they will follow a more strict interpretation of Islamic law than many Western analysts predicted (go figure). Included in the new decrees were orders to reverse the ban on polygamy (Muslim men can have up to four wives under Sharia) and to forbid banks from charging interest in accordance with Sharia regulations.
We face an interesting dilemma when looking at the Arab world: every leader is tyrant on some level and as (mostly) freedom-loving people we despise tyrants. However, the current attitude of "We should support any movement to topple these dictators" is incredibly nihilistic. There are many in the West who say, "Who cares that Sharia is taking hold of these countries? That's what they want." The problem is that whenever a democracy votes itself into a dictatorship, it doesn't simply return to a democracy during the next election cycle. The German people elected Hitler, but it wasn't like the Nazis just said, "Okay, well we've been a totalitarian nightmare, but our term is up so we're going to go home." What happens if the people decide they don't want to be governed by Sharia any more? It has been so entrenched in the system that it would take another revolution, and a much bloodier one at that, to simply give people the option. And for those of you who still don't give a flying crap about the people in the Middle East (which probably aren't a lot if you've come to this blog), consider that these radical regimes are sitting on significant natural resources as well as critical supply choke points like the Suez Canal.
So now we know what "democracy" looks like: women in burkas, polygamy, virulent anti-Semitism and brutal apostasy laws. It doesn't appear as much like 1776 as it does 776.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Dictator Is Dead. Long Live the Dictator.
I apologize for my failure to post the last couple of weeks. A combination of distractions and computer malfunctions are to blame, but I will do my best to make up for lost time. Stay tuned over the coming week for more posts, but until then here's something to whet your appetite.
It has been a couple of months since Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi became the former Libyan dictator. Now he has officially become the late Moammar Ghaddafi after a chaotic gun battle in his hometown of Sirte resulted in a fatal wound to the head. The interesting part about this story is that Ghaddafi was captured alive and in relatively good condition before being killed "in the crossfire." I've heard a couple of theories from people skeptical of the official story regarding how a healthy captive became a decidedly unhealthy corpse. There are those who think Ghaddafi was killed by his own side in order to save them the embarrassment of being seen as following a criminal (if he was brought to trial). I think that a complete lack of discipline is to blame, either on the side of the insurgents (or new rulers, I guess) or on the side of Ghaddafi loyalists. But it would not surprise me for one second to find out that orders had come down from the very top of what passes for a chain of command among the Libyan revolutionaries that Ghaddafi was to be executed on the spot.
Ultimately finding who is to blame is not important. The die has been cast, and it is too late to turn back. Ghaddafi's death changed the game for the so-called Arab Spring, which until that point had seen the relatively peaceful transfer of power. This could be an important threshold and, unfortunately, we could see an upswing in violence in the remaining revolutions in the Arab world. After all, the revolutionaries will notice that violence took down Ghaddafi, so they must be wondering why it couldn't take down the government of Syria or Yemen?
An interesting question that I have is, "Okay, what is going to happen to the NATO forces deployed to Libya?" Political leaders around the world have been giving speeches about how the Libyans have now achieved their freedom. That makes for lovely little sound bites, but already the country appears to be devolving along regional and ethnic lines. If that happens we could see a significant upswing in violence as disparate groups fight for territory, resources, and influence rather than work together to properly run Libya's government. In such a case there are really two possible outcomes: the new government is too weak to keep the country from collapse or the new government will crack down on any troublemakers to preempt any civil unrest. Remember, the revolutionaries have not won a contest proving that they are more capable caretakers of Libya than Ghaddafi was. They have simply shown that they are willing and able to use violence to achieve their goals. Is there an actual depth to their abilities, or are they a one-trick pony? Look at the celebrations in Libya because Ghaddafi is dead. Not necessarily that they are free, but that their enemy is no longer living. That is a bit chilling when you think about it. When faced with the challenge of running a troubled nation, the gut reaction of the revolutionaries will be the use of force. And the one who can use that force best will naturally rise to the top. That is not to say they are doomed to a dictatorship, merely that the odds lie heavily stacked against them.
Something has seemed off about the Libyan revolution from the very beginning. I do not think that even a man like Ghaddafi deserved to die like he did, but ultimately it was inevitable. While the world cheers (including some of those who cried foul about bin Laden and al-Awlaki), Libya faces a difficult future. I know that there are many Libyans who sincerely seek a peaceful, stable government without oppression. But will they stand by and watch silently as the new government picks up where Ghaddafi left off as long as they are now the ones with power, or will they continue to stand against anyone who would rule by fear and intimidation? More importantly, how will the new government interact with the extreme Islamist elements at work in North Africa and within their own movement? Would they embrace the idea of a Caliphate with open arms or truly stand for independence?
One final thought: Obama made the announcement to the Libyan people that, "You have won your revolution." If Libya collapses into anarchy, and especially if there is a cry for renewed NATO operations, will we hear the media drone on and on about how mistaken Obama's speech was like they did to George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln? Then again, it was the same media that ignored the fact that Bush's speech was actually about how much harder things were going to be in Iraq, so perhaps we shouldn't expect too much from them.
It has been a couple of months since Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi became the former Libyan dictator. Now he has officially become the late Moammar Ghaddafi after a chaotic gun battle in his hometown of Sirte resulted in a fatal wound to the head. The interesting part about this story is that Ghaddafi was captured alive and in relatively good condition before being killed "in the crossfire." I've heard a couple of theories from people skeptical of the official story regarding how a healthy captive became a decidedly unhealthy corpse. There are those who think Ghaddafi was killed by his own side in order to save them the embarrassment of being seen as following a criminal (if he was brought to trial). I think that a complete lack of discipline is to blame, either on the side of the insurgents (or new rulers, I guess) or on the side of Ghaddafi loyalists. But it would not surprise me for one second to find out that orders had come down from the very top of what passes for a chain of command among the Libyan revolutionaries that Ghaddafi was to be executed on the spot.
Ultimately finding who is to blame is not important. The die has been cast, and it is too late to turn back. Ghaddafi's death changed the game for the so-called Arab Spring, which until that point had seen the relatively peaceful transfer of power. This could be an important threshold and, unfortunately, we could see an upswing in violence in the remaining revolutions in the Arab world. After all, the revolutionaries will notice that violence took down Ghaddafi, so they must be wondering why it couldn't take down the government of Syria or Yemen?
An interesting question that I have is, "Okay, what is going to happen to the NATO forces deployed to Libya?" Political leaders around the world have been giving speeches about how the Libyans have now achieved their freedom. That makes for lovely little sound bites, but already the country appears to be devolving along regional and ethnic lines. If that happens we could see a significant upswing in violence as disparate groups fight for territory, resources, and influence rather than work together to properly run Libya's government. In such a case there are really two possible outcomes: the new government is too weak to keep the country from collapse or the new government will crack down on any troublemakers to preempt any civil unrest. Remember, the revolutionaries have not won a contest proving that they are more capable caretakers of Libya than Ghaddafi was. They have simply shown that they are willing and able to use violence to achieve their goals. Is there an actual depth to their abilities, or are they a one-trick pony? Look at the celebrations in Libya because Ghaddafi is dead. Not necessarily that they are free, but that their enemy is no longer living. That is a bit chilling when you think about it. When faced with the challenge of running a troubled nation, the gut reaction of the revolutionaries will be the use of force. And the one who can use that force best will naturally rise to the top. That is not to say they are doomed to a dictatorship, merely that the odds lie heavily stacked against them.
Something has seemed off about the Libyan revolution from the very beginning. I do not think that even a man like Ghaddafi deserved to die like he did, but ultimately it was inevitable. While the world cheers (including some of those who cried foul about bin Laden and al-Awlaki), Libya faces a difficult future. I know that there are many Libyans who sincerely seek a peaceful, stable government without oppression. But will they stand by and watch silently as the new government picks up where Ghaddafi left off as long as they are now the ones with power, or will they continue to stand against anyone who would rule by fear and intimidation? More importantly, how will the new government interact with the extreme Islamist elements at work in North Africa and within their own movement? Would they embrace the idea of a Caliphate with open arms or truly stand for independence?
One final thought: Obama made the announcement to the Libyan people that, "You have won your revolution." If Libya collapses into anarchy, and especially if there is a cry for renewed NATO operations, will we hear the media drone on and on about how mistaken Obama's speech was like they did to George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln? Then again, it was the same media that ignored the fact that Bush's speech was actually about how much harder things were going to be in Iraq, so perhaps we shouldn't expect too much from them.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Palestine? What Palestine?
In recent weeks, one of the leading stories around the world has been the Palestinian push for official statehood by the United Nations. Of course, while the world continues to beg the Israelis to "pursue peace" they conveniently overlook the terrorist acts of the Palestinians. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most high-profile struggle in the modern world. For generations, world leaders have sought to make their mark on history by resolving the issue. But, time and time again, those same leaders have proven a complete lack of understanding of the reality of the situation. The truth of the matter is simple: Palestinians do not have a "right" to a sovereign state, even if Israel returned to the 1967 borders. A bold statement? Perhaps it seems so, but only because the ability to tell even simple truths has been so lacking among the media and political figures who have controlled the debate for decades. Let's examine some of the reasons I can make that statement.
1. Who are the Palestinians?
The history of the Middle East is a complex and sweeping epic that would (and has) taken entire libraries to fully catalogue, but in the interest of brevity I'm going to keep things simple and relatively recent. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 at the end of World War I, the British took possession of a chunk of real estate in the Middle East. They named this territory "Palestine," which comes from the name the Roman Empire gave to the region: "Palaestina." The British wanted to help create a homeland for the Jewish people, but they decided to divide the territory between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs were to receive the British Mandate lands east of the Jordan River, an area referred to as Transjordan, while the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would be used to help create a Jewish homeland. The Transjordan became the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946 while the term "Palestine" would be used to refer to the rest of the British-held territory. It was from these lands that the Zionists would attempt to make a Jewish state, but the division of the land was not finished yet. Not by a long shot.
2. Why didn't the Arabs get a sovereign state alongside Israel?
The short answer is: they did. Or at least, that was the original plan. In November of 1947 the United Nations adopted the Partition Plan to further divide "Palestine" into two distinct states: one for Arabs and another for Jews. For those of you keeping score at home, that is two times that the British "Palestine" got narrowed down in order to give Arabs land so they would accept a Jewish state in their midst. And so, after the Partition Plan everyone shook hands and went home with nothing but love and peace in their hearts. Right? Eh, not so much. In fact, before the ink was dry a war had erupted between the Jews and Arabs (including an army of foreign fighters from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and even members of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt. Boy, none of those places are causing trouble right now). Despite fighting a numerically superior foe with significant foreign support, the Jews managed to achieve significant victories. In 1948 the British, who had grown tired of getting caught in the cross-fire, decided to pack up and head home for good. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was officially created as a sovereign nation. The very next day what had been a not-so-civil war became a massive international conflict with the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia invaded the newly created Israel, hoping to eliminate it before it truly had a chance to begin. Naturally, the Israelis looked around at the massive waves of Arabs swarming towards them, yawned, and started to obliterate all comers. The Israeli fighting forces were so effective that they not only survived (obviously) but they captured significant portions of the lands set aside for the Arabs by the 1947 UN Partition Plan. When a ceasefire was declared in 1949, the remaining Arab lands of the Partition Plan were gobbled up by other Arab countries. The West Bank was seized by the Kingdom of Jordan. Meanwhile, the All-Palestine Government was set up in Gaza City by the Arab League, but it was not recognized by any non-Arab country. In reality, the Egyptians ruled the Gaza Strip completely, though they never officially annexed the land. While the Jordanians offered the people of the West Bank citizenship, no such offers were made by the Egyptians who kept the people of the Gaza Strip in refugee communities that relied heavily on the UN. When someone tells you how horrible the Israeli "occupation" is, bring up the Egyptian-run Gaza Strip or even the not-as-brutal Jordanian annexation.
3. If Israel returned to the 1967 borders, who would claim the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
President Obama made quite a stir when he said that the Israelis should expect a return to 1967 borders "with mutually agreed swaps" as part of peace negotiations. But think about it. During the Six Day War Gaza and the West Bank were not part of some Palestinian territory that got bulldozed in the fighting. Gaza was Egyptian territory while the West Bank was held by the Kingdom of Jordan. So, if we were to return to 1967 borders those lands should be returned to the country that owned them before their capture. If a Palestinian homeland is such a big deal, why are the Israelis the only ones expected to give away land? Where were the desperate pleas for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank while those areas were turned into hellholes by the Palestinians' so called "allies" prior to 1967? The answer to that one is easy: prior to the Six Day War, it was believed in the Muslim world that a united Arab army would easily sweep the Jews into the sea and then the Arab world could truly unite and become a world power in their own right (maybe even restore a Caliphate). Only it didn't happen that way. Twice. So Arabs like Yassar Arafat decided to change tactics and began twisting history to tell a tragic tale of stolen lands and trampled rights that played right into the revolutionary mood sweeping across the world in the late '60s and into the '70s, particularly in America, hoping to turn the world's opinion against Israel. After that, it was simple inertia. Decades of propaganda have turned the story of Israel's stand against a sea of totalitarian enemies into a story of Israeli hatred and oppression. It is time we changed that. The tale of Israel is one of miracles, triumph, and hope in a dark world. What greater inspiration is there?
Of course this only scratches the surface of the true history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. I hope that this will be a beginning for you to seek out more of Israel's amazing true history. I have several links I will post at the bottom so you can continue to learn. I will close with a final observation. One of the Arab claims since the failed war of 1948 was that the United Nations had no right to create the state of Israel (which is an oversimplification in itself). Why, then, would the Palestinians go to the United Nations and seek a similar process? Using their own logic, would that Palestinian state not be illegal, as well? Round and round the circular logic goes; when it makes sense, no one knows.
Links-
Who Are The Palestinians? (video)
The Truth About The West Bank (video)
The Truth About The Peace Process (video)
Debunking The Palestinian Lie (video)
31 Opportunities for Statehood Squandered in Favor of Genocide
1. Who are the Palestinians?
The history of the Middle East is a complex and sweeping epic that would (and has) taken entire libraries to fully catalogue, but in the interest of brevity I'm going to keep things simple and relatively recent. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 at the end of World War I, the British took possession of a chunk of real estate in the Middle East. They named this territory "Palestine," which comes from the name the Roman Empire gave to the region: "Palaestina." The British wanted to help create a homeland for the Jewish people, but they decided to divide the territory between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs were to receive the British Mandate lands east of the Jordan River, an area referred to as Transjordan, while the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would be used to help create a Jewish homeland. The Transjordan became the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946 while the term "Palestine" would be used to refer to the rest of the British-held territory. It was from these lands that the Zionists would attempt to make a Jewish state, but the division of the land was not finished yet. Not by a long shot.
2. Why didn't the Arabs get a sovereign state alongside Israel?
The short answer is: they did. Or at least, that was the original plan. In November of 1947 the United Nations adopted the Partition Plan to further divide "Palestine" into two distinct states: one for Arabs and another for Jews. For those of you keeping score at home, that is two times that the British "Palestine" got narrowed down in order to give Arabs land so they would accept a Jewish state in their midst. And so, after the Partition Plan everyone shook hands and went home with nothing but love and peace in their hearts. Right? Eh, not so much. In fact, before the ink was dry a war had erupted between the Jews and Arabs (including an army of foreign fighters from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and even members of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt. Boy, none of those places are causing trouble right now). Despite fighting a numerically superior foe with significant foreign support, the Jews managed to achieve significant victories. In 1948 the British, who had grown tired of getting caught in the cross-fire, decided to pack up and head home for good. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was officially created as a sovereign nation. The very next day what had been a not-so-civil war became a massive international conflict with the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia invaded the newly created Israel, hoping to eliminate it before it truly had a chance to begin. Naturally, the Israelis looked around at the massive waves of Arabs swarming towards them, yawned, and started to obliterate all comers. The Israeli fighting forces were so effective that they not only survived (obviously) but they captured significant portions of the lands set aside for the Arabs by the 1947 UN Partition Plan. When a ceasefire was declared in 1949, the remaining Arab lands of the Partition Plan were gobbled up by other Arab countries. The West Bank was seized by the Kingdom of Jordan. Meanwhile, the All-Palestine Government was set up in Gaza City by the Arab League, but it was not recognized by any non-Arab country. In reality, the Egyptians ruled the Gaza Strip completely, though they never officially annexed the land. While the Jordanians offered the people of the West Bank citizenship, no such offers were made by the Egyptians who kept the people of the Gaza Strip in refugee communities that relied heavily on the UN. When someone tells you how horrible the Israeli "occupation" is, bring up the Egyptian-run Gaza Strip or even the not-as-brutal Jordanian annexation.
3. If Israel returned to the 1967 borders, who would claim the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
President Obama made quite a stir when he said that the Israelis should expect a return to 1967 borders "with mutually agreed swaps" as part of peace negotiations. But think about it. During the Six Day War Gaza and the West Bank were not part of some Palestinian territory that got bulldozed in the fighting. Gaza was Egyptian territory while the West Bank was held by the Kingdom of Jordan. So, if we were to return to 1967 borders those lands should be returned to the country that owned them before their capture. If a Palestinian homeland is such a big deal, why are the Israelis the only ones expected to give away land? Where were the desperate pleas for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank while those areas were turned into hellholes by the Palestinians' so called "allies" prior to 1967? The answer to that one is easy: prior to the Six Day War, it was believed in the Muslim world that a united Arab army would easily sweep the Jews into the sea and then the Arab world could truly unite and become a world power in their own right (maybe even restore a Caliphate). Only it didn't happen that way. Twice. So Arabs like Yassar Arafat decided to change tactics and began twisting history to tell a tragic tale of stolen lands and trampled rights that played right into the revolutionary mood sweeping across the world in the late '60s and into the '70s, particularly in America, hoping to turn the world's opinion against Israel. After that, it was simple inertia. Decades of propaganda have turned the story of Israel's stand against a sea of totalitarian enemies into a story of Israeli hatred and oppression. It is time we changed that. The tale of Israel is one of miracles, triumph, and hope in a dark world. What greater inspiration is there?
Of course this only scratches the surface of the true history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. I hope that this will be a beginning for you to seek out more of Israel's amazing true history. I have several links I will post at the bottom so you can continue to learn. I will close with a final observation. One of the Arab claims since the failed war of 1948 was that the United Nations had no right to create the state of Israel (which is an oversimplification in itself). Why, then, would the Palestinians go to the United Nations and seek a similar process? Using their own logic, would that Palestinian state not be illegal, as well? Round and round the circular logic goes; when it makes sense, no one knows.
Links-
Who Are The Palestinians? (video)
The Truth About The West Bank (video)
The Truth About The Peace Process (video)
Debunking The Palestinian Lie (video)
31 Opportunities for Statehood Squandered in Favor of Genocide
Monday, October 3, 2011
Slight Delay
Due to unforeseen circumstances, I will have to postpone today's post until Wednesday. I apologize for the delay and hopefully everything will be right on track in the near future.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Death of Anwar al-Awlaki
al-Qaeda is having a bad year. On May 1st al-Qaeda's founder and earliest financier Osama bin Laden met his well-deserved end by the hand of the elite SEAL Team Six. Now Anwar al-Awlaki, sometimes referred to as the "bin Laden of the Internet" for his use of 21st century electronic media to spread the jihadist message, has joined bin Laden in the great big harem in the sky. The CIA and United States Joint Special Operations Command wiped the influential terrorist off of the map with a drone strike in Yemen earlier today.
It can be argued that the death of the fiery cleric (a term which now applies quite literally to al-Awlaki) will have a greater operational impact on al-Qaeda than the death of bin Laden almost exactly six months ago. For those of you unaware of al-Awlaki's terrorist resume, he was an incredibly influential imam who was the spiritual mentor of many notorious terrorists. In 2000 al-Awlaki was preaching at a mosque in San Diego attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers. He was investigated by the FBI, but they quickly decided he had no relevant connections to terrorist groups. In early 2001 he moved to Falls Church, Virginia. There he would serve as the spiritual guide for Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, a third 9/11 hijacker. After praising the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki spent a brief stint in the UK before leaving for sunny south Yemen. In 2006 he spent eighteen months in prison on charges of conspiracy to kidnap an American military attache. But al-Awlaki really hit the big time between December 2008 and June 2009 when he exchanged a series of e-mails with Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan discussing the ethics of engaging in the jihad. Hasan, who attended al-Awlaki's mosque in Falls Church at the same time as 9/11 hijackers al-Hamzi and Hanjour, would go on a murderous rampage that would leave thirteen dead and thirty more injured. In December of 2009, about a month after Fort Hood, a Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (known more commonly as the "Underwear Bomber") tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner headed for Detroit. Intelligence later revealed that al-Awlaki was involved in the day-to-day operational side of that attack. Abdulmutallab was personally sponsored into a jihadist training camp by al-Awlaki, who then taught the Nigerian techniques for avoiding detection and the precise time to detonate the bomb for maximum casualties. Remember that if someone tries to tell you that al-Awlaki was just a cleric who never actually engaged in terrorism himself.
While al-Awlaki's death has been making the headlines, another important jihadist was killed by the drone strike. Samir Khan, also an American citizen, was the co-editor of al-Qaeda's web magazine "Inspire" before meeting his end courtesy of an American Hellfire missile. Anwar al-Awlaki made a name for himself utilizing the Internet as a recruiting tool for terrorists. His Salafist sermons inspired many zealous Muslims to head to the Middle East and become jihadists. With the release of "Inspire" al-Qaeda was able to give aspiring shaheed, or martyrs, worldwide a training tool that would update regularly. Wannabe terrorists would be able to learn how to execute advanced bombings and other attacks without having to actually go to Yemen or Pakistan (and thus leave a trail for American intelligence agencies). The actual success of "Inspire" is a topic of debate. But whatever way you look at it, the sharp increase in homegrown jihadist threats, such as the attempted bombing of Times Square in May 2010, shows that al-Qaeda hit upon a growing trend. Khan may not get the attention in the media, but he represented a danger to the United States and his work should not be ignored by anyone serious about national security.
Of course, there are those who have released statements condemning the attack. Ron Paul has come out against the strike, telling MSNBC, "I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems." He added, "But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad." To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" Ron Paul also came out against the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, saying the attack "absolutely was not necessary." The main concern in the al-Awlaki case seems to be the fact that the cleric is, or was, a citizen of the United States and thus, the argument goes, an assassination order would violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial. And I would agree... to a point. It would be incredibly dangerous to give the President or any government entity the authority to assassinate anyone it deems troublesome. But there are a couple of other points to be made. The Sixth Amendment pertains to criminal prosecutions, not attacks on strategic targets in a time of war. As far as al-Awlaki's citizenship is concerned, the US Code states that voluntarily serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the US is cause for loss of citizenship. Anwar al-Awlaki ran away from the United States to work more directly with al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, they are an organization that is certainly at war with the United States. Under that classification, he has engaged in an action that would cause the loss of citizenship. If he forgot to sign a couple of forms, it was because he was too busy inspiring and training people to murder his former countrymen. This type of warfare has no real precedent, and it is situations like this which will decide what actions the United States will be able to take in the future. Operating by the same hidebound traditions designed to fight a different kind of threat led to disaster on 9/11, and a failure to adapt to a savvy enemy will lead to continued defeat. The targeted assassination program should continue, but there should be severe limitations on who can be put onto it. There is no doubt, however, that the world is a better place without the "bin Laden of the Internet" or his cohorts in jihad.
Because there was no post last week, I will put up another post on Monday along with a new poll.
It can be argued that the death of the fiery cleric (a term which now applies quite literally to al-Awlaki) will have a greater operational impact on al-Qaeda than the death of bin Laden almost exactly six months ago. For those of you unaware of al-Awlaki's terrorist resume, he was an incredibly influential imam who was the spiritual mentor of many notorious terrorists. In 2000 al-Awlaki was preaching at a mosque in San Diego attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers. He was investigated by the FBI, but they quickly decided he had no relevant connections to terrorist groups. In early 2001 he moved to Falls Church, Virginia. There he would serve as the spiritual guide for Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, a third 9/11 hijacker. After praising the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki spent a brief stint in the UK before leaving for sunny south Yemen. In 2006 he spent eighteen months in prison on charges of conspiracy to kidnap an American military attache. But al-Awlaki really hit the big time between December 2008 and June 2009 when he exchanged a series of e-mails with Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan discussing the ethics of engaging in the jihad. Hasan, who attended al-Awlaki's mosque in Falls Church at the same time as 9/11 hijackers al-Hamzi and Hanjour, would go on a murderous rampage that would leave thirteen dead and thirty more injured. In December of 2009, about a month after Fort Hood, a Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (known more commonly as the "Underwear Bomber") tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner headed for Detroit. Intelligence later revealed that al-Awlaki was involved in the day-to-day operational side of that attack. Abdulmutallab was personally sponsored into a jihadist training camp by al-Awlaki, who then taught the Nigerian techniques for avoiding detection and the precise time to detonate the bomb for maximum casualties. Remember that if someone tries to tell you that al-Awlaki was just a cleric who never actually engaged in terrorism himself.
While al-Awlaki's death has been making the headlines, another important jihadist was killed by the drone strike. Samir Khan, also an American citizen, was the co-editor of al-Qaeda's web magazine "Inspire" before meeting his end courtesy of an American Hellfire missile. Anwar al-Awlaki made a name for himself utilizing the Internet as a recruiting tool for terrorists. His Salafist sermons inspired many zealous Muslims to head to the Middle East and become jihadists. With the release of "Inspire" al-Qaeda was able to give aspiring shaheed, or martyrs, worldwide a training tool that would update regularly. Wannabe terrorists would be able to learn how to execute advanced bombings and other attacks without having to actually go to Yemen or Pakistan (and thus leave a trail for American intelligence agencies). The actual success of "Inspire" is a topic of debate. But whatever way you look at it, the sharp increase in homegrown jihadist threats, such as the attempted bombing of Times Square in May 2010, shows that al-Qaeda hit upon a growing trend. Khan may not get the attention in the media, but he represented a danger to the United States and his work should not be ignored by anyone serious about national security.
Of course, there are those who have released statements condemning the attack. Ron Paul has come out against the strike, telling MSNBC, "I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems." He added, "But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad." To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" Ron Paul also came out against the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, saying the attack "absolutely was not necessary." The main concern in the al-Awlaki case seems to be the fact that the cleric is, or was, a citizen of the United States and thus, the argument goes, an assassination order would violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial. And I would agree... to a point. It would be incredibly dangerous to give the President or any government entity the authority to assassinate anyone it deems troublesome. But there are a couple of other points to be made. The Sixth Amendment pertains to criminal prosecutions, not attacks on strategic targets in a time of war. As far as al-Awlaki's citizenship is concerned, the US Code states that voluntarily serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the US is cause for loss of citizenship. Anwar al-Awlaki ran away from the United States to work more directly with al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, they are an organization that is certainly at war with the United States. Under that classification, he has engaged in an action that would cause the loss of citizenship. If he forgot to sign a couple of forms, it was because he was too busy inspiring and training people to murder his former countrymen. This type of warfare has no real precedent, and it is situations like this which will decide what actions the United States will be able to take in the future. Operating by the same hidebound traditions designed to fight a different kind of threat led to disaster on 9/11, and a failure to adapt to a savvy enemy will lead to continued defeat. The targeted assassination program should continue, but there should be severe limitations on who can be put onto it. There is no doubt, however, that the world is a better place without the "bin Laden of the Internet" or his cohorts in jihad.
Because there was no post last week, I will put up another post on Monday along with a new poll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)