Screwdrivered Security (a little long)

(Wes) wrote in message . com...
Jeffrey Voight wrote in message ...

[sorry about the attribution for the text below-- I snipped it out
inadvertently]

Jude wrote:
the nations that support them [terrorist groups and funders] and allow them to live
and organize and
train and plan in their lands put on a front of being our allies.
snip
I think Bush was close to the mark when he demanded that the other
nations cut terrorist funding, and demanded Saudi Arabia turn over its
terrorists and intelligence.

Then he went off on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and
destroyed all his credibility, both within and without.

I totally concur.
snip
And you're right, it was our supposed "allies" who were doing
the most to incite the terrorists, especially Saudi Arabia, by
spreading radical Wahhabism worldwide, teaching their *kids* to hate
Jews and Christians in their textbooks, and blaming their own failures
and corruption on the West.
snip
It wasn't
smart for the US to have posted the troops in Saudi Arabia like that
since 1991 (they were there just to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq
and could have been rotated to more peripheral nations), and the Iraqi
sanctions weren't working, but the main wellspring for terrorism was
Saudi Arabia's corrupt policy and deflection of culpability for their
own inadequacies in the position of a ruling government. Fortunately,
the Saudi officials are starting to cooperate now more intensively
snip

I should add that over the long term, the best bulwark against
terrorism originating in the Arab world is for the moderates-- esp. in
Saudi Arabia-- to gain some traction in the region's culture war, and
I don't view this to be as difficult a challenge as many portray it.
In spite of some bitter resentment in the region toward the US, the
predominant reactions in the Middle East (as well as everywhere else)
toward the 9/11 attacks, the Lockerbie bombing, the 1998 embassy
bombings, and the Bali bombing in 2002 were outright revulsion
directed at the perpetrators. Political conflict and even violent
clashes are a fact of life throughout the world, and attacks against
an invading army, a garrison, or occupying force have long been an
element of armed struggle; what made all the attacks above so vile was
that they were directed *specifically* at unarmed, noncombatant
civilians.

There is absolutely no moral, ethical, or political philosophy that
remotely condones such actions. Indeed, in the Muslim faith and
Quranic teachings, physical attacks are permitted in immediate
self-defense and against an armed opponent, but never, ever against
unarmed civilians (and no amount of sophistry can be used to ever
justify them). Violators of this precept are invariably bound for
eternal damnation in hell. (And somebody at the Onion "followed up"
on this idea: http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hi...surprised.html
See also http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/go...dont_kill.html
Genuine classics of journalism.) Although there were some asinine
cheerleaders of the September 11 atrocity, most were appalled, and
this is why so many in the region bought into that addle-headed
conspiracy theory that the 9/11 attacks were a Mossad plot or some
such nonsense; Sept. 11 and assaults like it are repugnant at an
intrinsic level, and people don't want to own up to them as being
committed by members of their culture. (Even in Syria, not exactly a
US friend, the locals were apparently greeting tourists with anti-al
Qaeda sentiments post-9/11-- even as they castigated US policy in many
areas.)

Besides their moral reprehensibility, 9/11 and similar attacks were
strategically stupid; being as indiscriminate as they were against
noncombatant targets, they probably killed many people who might have
been otherwise sympathetic to al-Qaeda's supposed anti-colonial cause
(chiefly removal of the US troops from Saudi Arabia and ending the
sanctions in Iraq), angered people so much that they unified and
galvanized opponents, and gave rise to harsh reactions to al-Qaeda
operatives and state supporters (chiefly the Taliban). Even in Iraq
right now, when news stations have those interviews with insurgents
attacking US and other Coalition troops, the guerrillas tend to be
pretty careful about drawing distinctions-- attacking armed convoys
and cooperating individuals in the country, but not directly targeting
civilians in any case. These are *hardened fighters* saying this.

Thus there's both a moral and strategic case for moderates throughout
the Middle East to make their voices heard, and they probably know
that having a Gandhi-like figure would do vastly more to further their
causes than 100 Osama bin Ladens. (Indeed, al-Qaeda has probably done
more damage to the region's aspirations than any other organization,
Muslim or otherwise.) So the best assistance for US counterterrorism
operations will ultimately be from within the Muslim world itself. We
can help out by escaping our oil dependence (photovoltaic solar panels
are a beautiful sight) and making sure to respect the wishes of the
people on the "Arab street," rather than kowtowing to corrupt and
oppressive officials. The intelligence war against al-Qaeda
operatives (big fish and little fish) is still crucial, and
apprehending Ayman al-Zawahiri, Saif al-Adel, Midhat Mursi, Sulaiman
Abu Ghaith, and other operations chiefs would gut what's left of
al-Qaeda. But it's ultimately a war of ideas, and hopefully the war
will be won by cooler heads within the Muslim world, for its own sake
and for everyone affected by the more fanatic elements therein.

Wes Ulm