Posted on 10/25/2001 6:29:02 PM PDT by Starmaker
The strategic, political and moral problems with a "war on terrorism" begin in its fuzzy rhetoric. Several writers and even high-ranking government officials (usually in the Department of Defense) have noted that "the point of a coalition [against terrorism] should be, ‘can it achieve the right purpose´ not ‘can you get a lot of members.´" The Big-Tent, politically correct State Department approach to the war has invited numerous terror-supporting or sympathizing States into our camp.
But that is about to change as top officials in the political-intelligence establishment have confirmed numerous reports that Iraq and Sudan are and have been deeply involved with the planning and execution of Osama Bin Laden´s "world Islamic jihad against crusaders and Jews."
On October 4, this writer was one of the first to discuss reports that senior Iraqi intelligence officials had consulted with Mohammed Atta, pilot-hijacker of one of the WTC attack-planes. Atta met with Farouk Hijazi, Iraqi secret service Director and collaborator with Bin Laden. The contacts were mediated by Hassan al-Tourabi, Dictator of Sudan and slave master supreme. Saddam´s VP, Taha Ramadan consults with Bin Laden´s second-in-command, the Egyptian, Aiman al Zawahri. Saddam´s son, Uday has been supervising the training of several hundred al Qaeda guerrillas since 1998.
The regime of Saddam Hussein is also the source of the bio-terror jihad against the West. It has been noted that to manufacture large quantities of anthrax in dispersible form requires technology unavailable in Afghanistan ("Iraq behind US anthrax outbreaks," London Sunday Observer, 10-14). Rihab Taha, "Dr. Germ," a British trained biologist has been directing Saddam´s biological weapons program for more than a decade. By 1995, she boasted of having produced thousands of gallons of anthrax and botulism, tested Nazi-style on human guinea pigs. Her husband, Amir Rashid Ubaydi, is Iraqi oil minister. He coordinates scheduling with the UN-inspections team which indicates how delusional is that approach to containing Saddam Hussein´s regime (New York Post, 10-22-01). Taha and Ubaydi perfectly illustrate the integration of economics, diplomacy, oil and terrorism in the Islamic world. They also illustrate how misguided are European, American and Israeli attempts to assist Ara and Islamic states, hoping that they will choose prosperity over jihad. They never have and never will unless Islam radically transforms itself.
Notwithstanding the politically correct rhetoric of America´s Executive branch (the State Department being the worst offender), some Muslims have exposed Islam´s ingrained cultural predilection toward terrorism. "From Egypt to Malaysia," writes Zlauddin Sardar, "there is aversion to seeing terrorism as a Muslim problem and a Muslim responsibility. Within the Muslim world, terrorist violence is endemic" (The Observer, 10-21-01). Sardar explains an additional problem with the ostensibly anti-terror "coalition." It is not only that it gives aid and comfort to terrorist sponsors and fellow travelers, but that "it provides even liberal Muslims with a substitute for self-examination, of the need to address home-grown problems." Islamic terror is endemic because, "there is no place to express dissent in the Muslim world," perhaps because Islam stresses submission and conquest. "All thought is outlawed and brute suppression is the norm… The Islamic prescription for justice and peace consists of blindly following narrow pieties and slavishly submitting to obscurantists." Or submitting to socialist dictators like Saddam or Bashir Asad of Syria who exploit and inflame Muslim intolerance for their own hegemonic purposes.
Yes, the problem is Islam, a creed of imperial conquest and world dominion. "The only Egyptian scholar who condemns the September 11 assaults is isolated," writes Arabic scholar, Daniel Pipes, who long has labored to distinguish between ‘mainstream´ Islam and "Islamism." Pipes increasingly describes the distinction is tenuous. "In Pakistan, Bin Laden´s face sells tee shirts. In Nigeria he has achieved iconic status. Banners proclaim, ‘Bin Laden is Islam.´ Muslims in France chant his name while stoning ‘infidels.´ Palestinians declare him, "the most righteous man in the world; the greatest man, our messiah.´ Indonesians see him as ‘a fighter for justice´" ("Muslims love Bin Laden," New York Post, 10-22-01).
The most striking anomaly in the Bush administration´s war on terror continues to be its isolation of Israel. Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated that "Israel will not be Czechoslovakia in 1938," alluding to the Munich Pact wherein Britain and France sold out the Czechs to appease Hitler. After the deal that stripped the Czechs of their strategic mountain defenses, British PM Neville Chamberlain fatuously proclaimed, "peace in our time." A few months later, Hitler grabbed the rest of the Czech State, then proceeded to invade Poland and launch WW II. So Sharon´s comment was a reasonable and pertinent reminder of the dangers of appeasing tyrants and betraying allies. Yet the State Department termed his remark, "unacceptable" and President Bush called it, "extreme." The inference, learned by the Arab-Islamic world for eight decades, is that the big powers want a weak and pliable Israel and that murdering Jews toward that end will receive diplomatic and military rewards.
The duplicity grows worse every day. Even as America seeks Bin Laden and his lieutenants, "dead or alive," the State Department continues to condemn Israel for going after the terrorist leaders who direct the murder of Israelis civilians, even Cabinet Ministers like Rehavam Ze-evi, murdered October 17 in Jerusalem.
But the criticism and diplomatic isolation of America´s only true ally between Italy and Japan may be largely a State Department phenomenon and otherwise a feint from the real action about to begin. This is not to discount the dangerous long-term effects of State Department rhetoric or intentions. ‘Words mean things´ and the diplomatic and moral equivalence State long has posited between Israel and Arafat and his thugs has kept the Middle East seething since 1967. Before that, the British Foreign Ministry played the same game, beginning in the spring of 1920 when its response to Arab mass murders of Jews was to ban Jewish immigration and begin to partition the lands meant to re-establish the "Jewish National Home."
But whether continuing State Department hostility toward Israel is a feint or reflects its institutional biases, facts on the ground suggest that phase two of the war against terror has already begun. Though officials like Philip Reeker denounce the redeployment of the IDF in Arafat´s terrorist fiefdom, the deployment has the approval of President Bush, VP Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. The immobilization of Arafat´s militias complements preparations to evict Hezbullah from southern Lebanon. This hoary terrorist group, funded and supplied by Iran and harbored by Syria has massed its Iranian missiles on Israel´s northern border. But plans are in place to resurrect the Lebanese Christian army and, in cooperation with Israel, methodically clean the terrorists from southern Lebanon. If Syria doesn´t acquiesce, Damascus may find itself in the sights of the coalition, not in its hen house.
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey recently detailed Iraqi connections to Bin Laden and reviewed Clinton Administration failures to track the problem. Though he concerned himself largely with inertia in the intelligence services, Woolsey posed the central issue. "Is a large coalition that does not move against a State that is at war with us better for us than a small coalition that moves effectively" (Wall Street Journal 10-18-01). Unadvertised and even denied, "a small coalition" is addressing the problem. Airspace in Israel and Jordan has been closed to domestic traffic for three days while C-130´s deliver anti-missile batteries and other equipment. The Israeli army is on high alert on the Lebanese border and poised to decapitate Arafat if he interferes. Top officials have confirmed information that convicts Saddam (to paraphrase William Buckley´s recent essay) as an integral player in both the hijackings and bio-terrorism. The stage has been set.
The War against Terror may be about to become real, to become a war against terror-States. It may be too much to expect the President to ask for and Congress to pass a Declaration of War, but let us keep moving in the right direction to repair the errors of the Clinton era.
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.