New Front Page         
NMJ Search              
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
The Fifth Column       
Culture Wars             
Editorials                  
Analysis                   
Archive                     
NMJ Radio                 
NMJ TV                    
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google
About Dr. Walid Phares
Dr. Walid Phares is the Director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy and the author of the War of Ideas. Dr. Phares was one of the architects of UNSCR 1559. He is also a Professor of Middle East Studies at Florida Atlantic University and a contributing expert to FOX News. Dr. Phares teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University. He serves as the secretary general of the Transatlantic Parliamentary Group on Counter Terrorism. Professor Phares’ is the author of two critical books on the Islamofascist threat to Western Civilization, "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West” and "The War of Ideas: Jihadism Against Democracy." Dr. Phares is a co-secretary general of the Trans Atlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism.
Social Bookmarking
Bookmark and Share
Past Articles
Al Qaeda Has the Initiative in Attacking US National Security
Abdulmutallab's Act of War
Christmas is Not Negotiable
WH Must Wake Up to Rise In Homegrown Terror
Taliban's Counter Strategy Is Based on Declared...
One Wall Falls, Another Rises
Fort Hood Massacre: Largest 'Terror Act' Since 9/11
Taliban's War on Pakistan: Lessons to Draw,...
Nobel Committee Pulls Oil Plug on Democracy
Jihad like Yoga?
Warning: The Jihadists are Mushrooming Inside US
Message to the UN: Defend Democracy Not Dictators
Bin Laden to US: 'Drop Israel, Let's Talk'
The War on '9-11'
Seven Years of War, One Year of Retreat
Jihad Against Children Must Trigger Global Response
Lockerbie: Compassion for Petrodollars?
Gaza: Big Jihad v. Little Jihad
Obama's Withdrawal from War with the Jihadis...
Is Petro Jihad Behind Western Abandoning of Iran's...
Early Assessment of the Elimination of Taliban...
Australia: Down Under Jihad?
Nigerian Taliban: Oil & Caliphate in Africa
North Carolina: Meet Taqiyya Jihad.
US Should Encourage Democracy in Africa...
Africa’s Terror Threat Real

Dr. Walid Phares
Al Qaeda Has the Initiative in Attacking US National Security
January 8, 2010

In 2001, one would-be shoe bomber forced millions of travelers to take off their shoes. In 2006, terrorists planned to bring down aircraft on transatlantic flights by smuggling liquid explosives onto planes. They were thwarted but they succeeded in preventing passengers from bringing liquids into airline terminals.

Lesson number one: In this terror war, the jihadists have the upper hand. They are the ones who choose to use a new weapon and they are also the ones who – by using simple logic -- have refrained from using the same terror weapons more than once. In fact, since September 2001, Al Qaeda’s Terrorists have avoided rushing into the cockpit of an airliner with box cutters. Does this mean we were successful in deterring the terrorists? Of course: as long as we can prevent them from using the 9/11 methods, they won't be naïve enough to repeat the same strategy.
So is the US winning the fight with Al Qaeda by using these specific measures? No, we are simply protecting our population until the war is won. But winning is not measured by surviving potential copycat attacks.

Instead, this confrontation will be won by striking at the mechanism that produces the jihadists. And on that level, no significant advances have been made either under the previous administration nor under the incumbent one. For, as President Obama admitted late last month after a near-terror attack on Northwest Flight 253, there is a "systemic failure" in our defense against the jihadi terrorists.

In my analysis, it has to do with the refusal by decision makers -- based on the opinion of their own experts -- to attack the factory that produces terrorists and instead to wait until the jihadists show up at our country's ports of entries.

In an imaged vision, the US has been fending off the Jihadi operations inside its own trenches and often behind its own lines of defense.
Preventing Al Qaeda’s zombies from killing our airline pilots and flight attendants by securing cabin doors with steel and installing machines to detect liquid, creams and potential explosives is like fighting an invading army inside our own trenches and neighborhoods with bayonets. If anything, it means that our strategists have no way to remotely detect this threat and they can't even decide what is and isn't a threat until it actually strikes us or is a few inches from us. It is a pretty ironic situation when the grand narrative of US official strategies is that we are fighting terrorists or extremists (pick your word, it has the same conclusion) in Waziristan, Afghanistan, and beyond, so that our defense perimeters are thousands of miles away.

So are we wrong to institute any of the security measures? No, we need to take all possible measures to secure the population, but we also need to take them in the framework of a grand strategy to defeat the threat. And in this regard we do not have one. The jihadists are monitoring our actions, our measures and I do assume also are comfortably spying on us and looking into the deepest of our security mechanisms. After the Nada Prouty and Nidal Hasan penetration cases no one can convince me that neither Hezbollah nor Al Qaeda haven’t deployed more agents throughout our national security apparatus. The enemy knows our defense strategy, and some would argue that they are already inside our walls. As we are learning -- constantly and dramatically -- the so-called "isolated extremists” are not that isolated and those believed to be "lone wolves" are in fact part of a much greater, well-camouflaged packs. The jihadists are way ahead of our security measures -- even though we need to apply them nevertheless.

In the wake of the Abdulmutalib terror act the Obama administration announced that any traveler flying into the United States from foreign countries will receive tightened random screening, and all passengers from "terrorism-prone countries" will be patted down and have their carry-on baggage searched before boarding U.S.-bound flights. The list includes Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria as well as those traveling from Nigeria, Pakistan and Yemen. But here is the problem: In the jihadi war room, this was duly noted. Thus, the next human missiles will be selected from the "other” countries, and there are many countries where combat Salafis are indoctrinated and readied: Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and Indonesia to name a few, by the way all U.S. allies. Even better, the jihadi strategists could task recruits with German, British, French as well as Australian and Canadian passports to wreck havoc in our cities. The past year has shown us that the jihadis can also emerge from North Carolina, Illinois, New York and other states all across the land. Most likely the "emirs” of Al Qaeda will recommend dumping the use of powder to blow up planes, and soon another Zawahiri tape will rail at us for spending millions on a path they won't use for a while.

As we move to implement our mammoth security measures, the swift men of jihadism are already mapping out the endlessly open areas of our underbellies. In strategic terms we’re not even going anywhere near that direction, it is a dead end. The Al Qaeda jihadists will keep coming, each time from a different direction, background, with a new tactic. And they will surprise us. Unfortunately, that is the price of a national security policy that identifies terrorism as a "manmade disaster” and jihadism as form of yoga.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review