« Taking A Closer Look At The Very Liberal Barack Hussein Obama | Main | The Theatre Of Cruelty - A Book Review of 'Blood & Rage: a Cultural History of Terrorism' »

March 2, 2008

What 'Fading Jihadists'?

Topics: War on Terror

In David Ignatius's column today, "The Fading Jihadists," Ignatius shrills the findings of Marc Sageman, a former CIA officer - now forensic psychiatrist - who argues that the terrorist threat is exaggerated. (Sound familiar? Think Democratic Party!). However, in his piece titled "Fading Jihadists?" - Max Boot, a senior fellow in national-security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World," stands that ridiculous idea on its ear:

Even if the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq, wouldn't jihadists still have been motivated to step up their attacks because of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan? That is of course unknowable, but it is a matter of public record that Al Qaeda has devoted considerable effort to fighting us in Iraq and that they have been losing for the past year. However if we were to drawn down prematurely, as Sageman apparently suggests, the result might be that Al Qaeda could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Wouldn't this galvanize the terrorists just as their supposed victory over the Soviet Union did in the 1980's?

As for the nature of the terrorist threat today, I am surprised to see Sageman deprecate jihadist capabilities when we know that Al Qaeda has established a new stronghold in the frontier regions of Pakistan. From there it is waging war not only on the government in Kabul but also on the one in Islamabad. Meanwhile its adherents continue to plot attacks across the world; a Pakistani-based terror cell was recently uncovered in Spain apparently in the process of planning suicide bombings across Europe. Is this really what a fading threat looks like?

Moreover, while it's easy to deprecate today's terrorists compared to some of their predecessors (they don't make 'em like Zarqawi any more!), all it takes is one nut with a nuke to completely change the calculus. What are the odds of that happening? Hard to say. But certainly the growing turmoil in the nuclear-armed state of Pakistan along with the Islamic State of Iran's continuing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons cannot make anyone particularly sanguine on this front. Effective terrorism does not require marshaling millions of people and billions of dollars; an attack like 9/11 can be carried out by a few dozen people and few tens of thousand of dollars. For all we know there may be another such plot under way right now. If such an attack comes to fruition--and it will, sooner or later--statistics on the incidence of terrorism will prove cold comfort.

Read the rest ...

Posted by Abdul at March 2, 2008 9:13 PM

Articles Related to War on Terror:

• What 'Fading Jihadists'? - Mar 02, 2008