Sunday, May 19, 2013

Why Is It Difficult For The West To Behave Rationally And Defend Itself Against Terrorism?

The Price of Blindness

by Jonathan Rosenblum
Jerusalem Post
May 3, 2013

In preparation for Yom Yerushalayim, I've just finished The Battle for Jerusalem: An Unintended Conquest by long-time Jerusalem Post reporter Abraham Rabinovich. (The book is an expanded e-book version of his 1972 classic.) Rabinovich interviewed over 300 combatants in the battle, and it shows. No one captures the experience of war from the fighters' perspective better than Rabinovich.

While reading The Battle for Jerusalem, it struck me that Israel's need to constantly defend itself against threats to its very existence from 1948 to the present, has prevented the most basic human instinct – the instinct for self-preservation – from atrophying here to the degree it has throughout the West.

Retiring Yale classicist Donald Kagan, 80, expressed concern in his valedictory interview with the Wall Street Journal's Matthew Kaminski that the delicate flower of democracy is threatened today. He laments the development of a culture that "makes it difficult for us [i.e., the West] to behave rationally when the rational thing is to be tough." He sums up the basic lesson of growing up in the tough Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn: "If you don't want trouble with someone be sure he has something to be scared of."

Kagan attributes the West's failure to absorb that lesson to culture and a lack of political leadership. Democracy, he argues, requires free, autonomous, and self-reliant population, and they are in increasingly short supply in an America of office workers and disability recipients.

Israelis, however, have been forced to be tough for wont of choice. And the experience of war has developed the qualities Kagan considers fundamental for democracy and the capacity for leadership.

In the bloody fighting in Jordanian trenches to take Ammunition Hill, the greatest casualties were absorbed by the platoon leaders, who took the lead position moving through the trenches and were thus most vulnerable to Jordanian fire. Fifty per cent of the junior officers were killed or wounded in the battle. (By contrast, the Jordanian officers were much more likely to flee the battle than their soldiers.) A country that of necessity must produce many such young men has a better chance of developing the toughness and clarity to confront reality as it is, not as we wish.

ELITE REACTIONS TO THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING provide another example of the Western failure to confront reality. Even after the radical Islamic associations of the brothers Tsarnaev were known, the media was still wondering 'Why?" Could it have been the difficulties of immigrant absorption or possible concussions suffered by Tamerlan in his Golden Gloves boxing career?

A Boston Globe headline would have been funny were in not illustrative of a dangerous cast of thought: "Islam might have had a secondary role in Boston attacks." Commentators had fun creating their own riffs – e.g., "Gravity may have played secondary role in fall;" "Anti-Semitisim may have played secondary role in Hitler's Final Solution."

Politicians and commentators point out ad nauseum that the vast majority of Muslims do not become terrorists, as proof that Islam had nothing to do with the bombing. That's like arguing cigarettes have nothing to do with lung cancer because not all smokers develop lung cancer. And try making the argument in the New York Times: An infinitesimal percentage of gun owners commit murder schoolchildren so it is ridiculous to impose new background checks for gun owners.

We cannot admit the truth: Islam possesses a power unique among all the world's religions today to fill its followers with the desire to murder innocents among non-believers. Most Muslims will never become terrorists. But jihadis of various stripes draw on a rich lode of canonical Islamic texts – the Koran and sayings of Mohammed (the hadith) for support.

It is frightening to contemplate that out of 1.3 million Muslims worldwide, there may be tens of millions susceptible to the lure of radical Islam. And it is a natural human tendency to avoid facing a frightening reality.

After the carnage of World War I, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain could not bring himself to contemplate the possibility that Hitler was preparing for war. He never read Mein Kampf, certainly not the sections in which Hitler talks about the role of deception. The British press went along happily, failing to report on Germany's military build-up. In a similar vein today, Western leaders and media steadfastly turn their eyes from what the radical Islamists say and their presence at the heart of over 90% of terrorist acts.

THE FEAR OF FACING REALITY is compounded by a lethal political correctness. Much of Europe has enacted "hate speech" laws indistinguishable from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's (OIC) efforts to make Muslim blasphemy laws part of international law. Even the suggestion of a link between Islam and terrorism can land one in jail.

Nor has the United States been immune. The Report of the 9/11 Commission is filled with references to "jihad," "Muslims," and "Islam." By contrast, the 2008 FBI Counter-Terrorism Lexicon contains no such references. Such references, we are told, might give credence to the notion that Islam sanctions terrorism, as if proliferating Islamist websites, with their prolific citation of Islamic sources, require such confirmation.

The government report on the Ft. Hood shootings, in which Maj. Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan, mowed down thirteen servicemen and civilians, while shouting Allahu Akbar, determined that it was a case of "workplace violence" and made no mention of his radical Islamic beliefs. "Religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor," the Report concluded. Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey opined that it would be even a greater tragedy than the murder of thirteen if the attack led to a reduction of Muslims in the service. Yet that pursuit of diversity kept Hasan in the army, after colleagues complained of his erratic behavior and espousal of radical beliefs. The FBI questioned him -- one of five cases in which Muslims questioned by the FBI subsequently participated in terror attacks.

In late 2011, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council threatened that the U.S. Muslim community would refrain from cooperation with counter-terrorism efforts unless "deep anti-Muslim sentiment" in training manuals was immediately addressed. In response, President Obama's then counter-terrorism advisor and now head of the CIA John Brennan ordered that all U.S. government counter-terrorism manuals be "purged" of any material that the undersigned Muslim organizations, many of them Muslim Brotherhood front groups, deemed unacceptable.

LESS THAN A WEEK before the Boston Massacre bombing, Clare Lopez, a former CIA operations officer and presently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, published a detailed report entitled "History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government." She relies heavily on two documents laying out the Muslim Brotherhood's plans for spreading Sharia law in America. The first is the Explanatory Memo uncovered by the FBI during the Holy Land Foundation Hamas-funding prosecution.

The Memo refers to the use of front-groups that will raise little concern, and lists 29 such groups in the United States, including the Muslim Student Association, with 600 chapters, the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). These groups are almost all treated by the U.S. government and the media as "moderate" and "mainstream" Muslim defense organizations, despite their links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The second document referred to by Lopez is "the Project" dated 1982 and uncovered by Swiss authorities in a 2001 raid on the villa of a suspected terrorist. It sets forth seven rules for front groups, including avoid open alliance with terrorists or expressions of support for terrorism; use deception to conceal the true goals of the organization; establish funding networks; create alliances with "progressive" organizations; influence Muslims living in the West to maintain a jihad mentality; and maintain hatred of Jews.

Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organizations have followed the game plan with remarkable discipline. By constantly raising the specter of Islamophobia, they have succeeded in stifling open discussion of the Islamic element behind terrorist threats to America. Lopez lists a number of figures with extensive connections to the Muslim Brotherhood who attained influential positions in the United States government and as presidential advisors, at least two of whom were subsequently convicted of terrorism related offenses.

WILLFUL BLINDNESS to what is known comes at a high cost. Alan Johnson prepared a lengthy government report while working in the United Kingdom's Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, based on interviews with young British Muslims who had been radicalized. In virtually every case, there was a skilled recruiter, who succeeded in aligning the target's life goals with a larger narrative involving a rigid, angry, politicized distortion of Islam. And that contact is rarely confined to just the Internet, but involves personal contact – e.g., in a mosque or at overseas training centers.

Even if the Tsarnaev brothers acted as "lone wolves," not in conjunction with any overseas terror organization, the older brother Tamerlan, almost certainly had terrorist training abroad. Reporter Judith Miller points out that virtually everything about Tamerlan would have earned him surveillance under the guidelines of the New York City Police Department anti-terror unit: his travel to Dagestan, a Russian Republic with an Islamist insurgency; the warning from the Russian government that he could be dangerous; his rapid behavior changes – adopting traditional Islamic clothing and growing a beard. Once under surveillance his Internet postings and even his purchase of a pressure cooker might have alerted authorities.

Yet the NYPD anti-terrorist surveillance program, which is credited with foiling 16 potential attacks, has been under constant assault by so-called "mainstream" Muslim defense organizations since the 2007 publication of its 2007 Report "Radicalization in the West: the Homegrown Threat." Last year Associated Press won a Pulitzer Prize for "exposing" the NYPD's surveillance program.

After Boston, any law enforcement agency that does not have a program in place based on the NYPD model is in dereliction of duty. Israelis would know that.

Read other articles by Jonathan Rosenblum at Jewish Media Resources

If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: and and and .
Post a Comment