THE NEXT ATTACK The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right

There are two things about which this book’s authors are certain. The first is that the United States is going to be attacked in a more deadly way than the 11 September 2001 raids on New York and Washington. The second is that President George W Bush’s so-called war on terror has only made the terrorists stronger.

The two authors depict a bone chilling future in which America’s deadliest foes, the Islamist terrorists linked to Al Qaeda, will strike again and again, as the US behemoth wreathes in pain, unable to defend itself.

One might say: wow!, and wonder why the US administration is so oblivious of the threat that the two authors depict in such graphic terms?

However, you might then wonder what evidence there is that the US is losing the war on terror, and that Islamist radicals will hold the initiative in what looks like a clash of civilisations.

First, Muslim societies that were traditionally averse to violence on religious and ethical grounds are changing their culture to legtimise weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs, and now regard “holy war” as the only way to defend their faith. In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran's readiness to go to war to protect its nuclear programme is just one example.

Secondly, many moderate Muslims who had nothing to do with radical groups are now attracted by the bellicose discourse of the Jihadists. Professor Samuel Huntington’s claim that we are heading for a clash of civilisations is now echoed by many Muslim political and social leaders.

Thirdly, more and more freelance terrorist groups, that copy-cat Al Qaeda, are appearing in many countries, especially the Western democracies that do not know how to cope with such an enemy within. The terrorist attacks in Madrid and London are just two examples.

Finally, a number of local conflicts in the Muslim world have the potential to develop into broader wars involving other nations and some of the Muslim communities in Europe and North America.

The problem is that the authors offer no evidence to back those assertions. They talk of a “pervasive hatred of America” which is supposed to fuel terrorism in the Muslim world, as if this were sufficient to prove their thesis.

The present book by Benjamin and Simon is a sort of sequel to the one they published four years ago under the title of “The Age of Sacred Terror” in which they had shown how bureaucratic infighting and the failure of political leaders to appreciate the threat allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place.

Interestingly, the two authors served in President Bill Clinton’s administration as counter-terrorism experts. Thus part of the criticism for the failure to prevent 9/11 falls upon them. This new book is partly motivated by an effort to show that, when it comes to counter-terrorism, the Bush administration is as incompetent as the one headed by Clinton. One cannot help feel that Benjamin and Simon might have been motivated by a measure of partisan score settling.

That, of course, has always been the bane of American politics- at least since the early 1970s. Many American intellectuals and academics enjoy a stint with the government, as experts or officials. That stint then identifies them with one of the two parties that dominate American politics. And, from then on it is virtually impossible for them to discuss any issue without some element of partisanship.

Benjamin and Simon are no exceptions. They admit that Clinton was incompetent but insist that Bush is even more so.

In the sections of the book that deals with the supposed “next inevitable attack”, the authors offer little more than we have already seen in dozens of other anti-Bush books in the past three years.

First: Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq for reasons other than combating terrorism and, in the process, deceived the Congress and the American people by portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to American security.

Secondly, the whole Iraq project is a disaster. Iraq will never become a democracy because Arabs, for reasons never spelled out, prefer despotic regimes.

Benjamin and Simon claim that Iraq will become a black hole like Afghanistan under the Taliban, and thus a haven for Jihadist organisations seeking to overthrow all Muslim regimes before embarking on world conquest.

The authors blame President Bush for ignoring the advice not only of the State Department but also of the US military leaders who were reluctant to become involved in Iraq. Worse still, Bush gave the signal for war without adequate planning for the post-war period.

Those with a closer knowledge of Iraq, however, would know that Benjamin and Simon are wrong both in thinking that Iraqis are somehow genetically incapable of building a democracy, and in claiming that Iraq will either fall apart or become a haven for terrorists.

The authors would have done themselves a service had they taken time to read some of the histories of the Second World War, indeed of any war in history. Had they done so they would have realised that war never obeys the script written planners and bureaucrats. War is a messy business, always full of surprises, and never produces the exact results desired by armchair strategists. Since the authors offer absolutely no evidence to back their dim view of Iraqi prospects there is no need to go for fuller rebuttal here. The least that one can say is that the jury is still out on Iraq.

The most interesting part of the book deals with weaknesses in US defneces on the home front.

Here, the authors offer precise information and evidence on targets, obviously attractive to would-be terrorists, that have not been secured. The authors show that the creation of a new government department called Homeland Security and the re-organisation of US intelligence services under a new chief have done little to increase the nation’s ability to forestall terror attacks.

According to Benjamin and Simon the US machinery of state is a heavy structure with little flexibility facing a light, fast-moving enemy that can strike anywhere anytime.

According to Benjamin and Simon, a new administration, under a Democrat president, would do wonders. Benjamin and Simon might be invited to regain the positions they had held under Clinton. And then? Well, Clinton did not prevent either the 1993 attack against the World Trade Center or the 9/11 ones.

There can be no serious discussion of such a vital topic unless American scholars learn to set their partisan prejudices aside- something that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

I agree with the authors' debunking of Benjamin & Simon's screed but this sentence rankles:

However, you might then wonder what evidence there is that the US is losing the war on terror, and that Islamist radicals will hold the initiative in what looks like a clash of civilisations.

In order for there to be a clash, there must be at least two things in collision.

There is only one civilization.

The US Behemoth will writhe in pain, but the citizens will take away the authority of its leaders and take matters into their own hands.

The Fifth column and their enablers will be slaughtered.

The other alternative is that America will finally be provoked beyond all reason and begin to act like their enemies. It will not take long at all to eliminate the problem, once a terrible resolve is reached.

It could take casualties in the millions first, but it will happen.

"There is only one civilization."

Maybe an analagy of the Roman Empire and the barbaric European tribes is more apt. By comparison, those tribes weren't too civilized, but Rome was eventually overrun nevertheless by various Goths and Vandals.

The other alternative is that America will finally be provoked beyond all reason and begin to act like their enemies

This is exactly what the salafists want. They want America and the west to start throwing Musilms into camps..etc. The fact that we don't is the reason way we are winning and will defeat this enemy.

Indeed. The Islam world is barbaric, and hardly constitutes a civilization, but it is a collection of tribal cultures united by a hatred of everything and everyone else. We need to learn from the Roman example that we must not become too squeamish about applying the force at our disposal in defense of civilization.

****Benjamin and Simon are no exceptions. They admit that Clinton was incompetent but insist that Bush is even more so. ****

So both defending the country and not defending the country are "incompetent." Interesting.

There is no moderation in Islam - read the Koran - see if you can find "moderation."

We will lose because we will never use the power at our disposal.

Since most of our people are products of an educational system dominated by liberal/leftist ideology which seeks the downfall of the country, and at the mercy of a media which is dominated by a leftist agenda (a few talk show hosts to the contrary) - more than half the electorate doesn't feel the country needs defending.

Of even that the counry is worth defending.

"The other alternative is that America will finally be provoked beyond all reason and begin to act like their enemies. It will not take long at all to eliminate the problem, once a terrible resolve is reached."

It cannot be America. It has to be Western Civilization as a whole.

I do not believe that for one second the US response of taking the offensive action to the jihadists has made them stronger. This is just the handwringer's excuse to crawl into bed and suck their thumb while quivering under the covers.

We could just as easily say that Bush is responsible for the Left in the US getting stronger. Since the Left has aligned itself with the same goal of the jihadists (that being the defeat of the west), this is shockingly true.

The Left loves to praise the "Greatest Generation", yet the very attitude that made them so great is now the very thing they find so repugnant.

The Left seems willfully ignorant of the Jihadists demand, a demand they insist is rooted in Islam: we must convert, submit or die. I have already made my choice, as have many Americans. The Left quibbles. Maybe life under Islam won't be so bad. These are the 21st century's version of people that Lenin "useful idiots". Lenin made full use of all the idiots who aligned their goals with his, and when they no longer proved useful to him, he murdered and imprisoned the by the tens of millions.

The analysis missed the fact that a mass casualty attack will inevitiably be in a 'blue state'--partly because that's where population is concentrated geographically and partly because the Islamists loathe 'blue state' 'culture' with a virulence surpassing that of the mutual distaste between 'blue state' secular 'progressives' and protestant fundamentalists.

A million dead in NYC or LA will suddenly concentrate the mind of the surviving leftists on this fact--not the most lunatic, but enough of their hangers on that there will not be a left government in the US for a generation.

The Muslims have picked a fight with the English speaking world, and that history has shown, is a mistake. We are soft, charitable, fond of luxury and commerce and self-government until our backs are to the wall, then the Anglo-Saxon peoples get mean and cussed, and will fight like anything to get back to luxury and commerce and at the same time to spread the benefits self-government, commerce and luxuries to our defeated erstwhile foes.

It always takes a singular figure either political or military--a Churchill, an Elizabeth, a Wellington or a Patton--but we always fight back indominatably once our mind is made up and our collective will is set.

This is exactly what the salafists want. They want America and the west to start throwing Musilms into camps..etc. The fact that we don't is the reason way we are winning and will defeat this enemy.

They think they want it. Truth is, they never in their history have ever respected anyone who stops kicking them. They are known for making absolutist speeches while sending their lackies to die. They are like the apes posturing at the waterhole at the beginning of "2001". They bluff, threaten, and kill those who will not fight back, then run away squealing when defied. Even recent history is full of examples..."Mother Of All Battles".

Just lower primates, not fully human, and when treated as such, always quiet down.

They have just had a good coward pool in recent decades, like shooting fish in a barrel.

They want America and the west to start throwing Musilms into camps..etc.

The poster you were replying too assuredly wants to do more than that.

People generally won't come out and say it in so many words here (but they'll come close at times) but there's a significant population that fantasizes about mass global extermination of Muslims - these are the people that get frustrated by the lack of large scale terrorist attacks in the US that they conceive would allow for such an occurence.

I'm not sure I agree that the Roman Empire collapsed. Many of the Germans were assimilated, in fact most of the legions were German. Alaric sacked Rome, but by then the capital was in Ravenna. Also, Alaric was Christian (though Arian) and according to the History channel paid homage at the church and forbid his soldiers from sacking it.

I just think the picture of the fall in the west exaggerates things, it took several hundred years. Eventually, Roman culture, combined with Christian ethics, reasserted itself.

Rome was only the Western empire. The Eastern empire continued until the Moslems overran it. That fall was more sudden and permanent, thanks to Mohammedanism.

Yes there are parallels between then and now, distressing ones. But the distinction gives some reason for hope.

Well, there are elements of the Middle Eastern Islamic world who are pretty civilized too, notably Tehran, for instance. Also, I didn't assert that the Roman Empire collapsed, just that Rome was overrun. I guess I'm mainly trying to say that we underestimate Islam at our peril.

You are right though that the analogy between the Roman Empire and modern Western Civilization is not a perfect fit. Your points are well taken.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.