Opinion/Editorial/Analysis
International Terrorism; Where Do We Go From Here?By C. L. Staten, Executive Director, Emergency Response & Research Institute
Chicago, IL -- A variety of pundits, with varying degrees of understanding of issues relating to terrorism, have spoken out about recent U.S. military strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The observation most often made by critics is that the airstrikes were motivated by an attempt by U.S. President Bill Clinton to divert attention from an alleged scandal involving his personal life. Although of questionable authenticity, these rumors have been reinforced and amplified overseas by propagandists for several of America's leading adversaries and used to belittle America and her leadership of the free world.
Few commentators, either domestically or internationally, have adequately addressed the fact that United States has repeated been the victim of vicious terrorist attacks that have killed and maimed hundreds of our citizens and those of our allies. Even fewer ever heard of Osama bin Laden, his past actions, or other members of his murderous clan before the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the recent missile attacks in Afghanistan.
In other words, the "war on terrorism" started long ago. The United States has been the victim on several occasions and was apparently targeted to be struck again. It is just that many Americans and large portions of the press did not realize it. Governmental inconsistency of message, mixed signals, inaction at crucial junctures, and a lack of press coverage of this important issue in the past, may have led us to this confusion and the current torrent of critical press aimed at American retaliation for the bombings of American embassies in Africa.
The Thursday, 20 August, attack in Afghanistan was only America's response to repeated insults and the injuries and deaths of citizens of the United States. To use a familiar movie line, it should be viewed simply as a clear signal to Mr. bin Laden and others of his ilk that America is "mad as hell, and is not going to take this any more." The murderers somehow must get the message that they can not continue to undertake attacks on America with impunity and get away with it. As some critics charge, maybe the cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan were not tactically significant in destroying bin Laden's ability to carry out further attacks, but they were surely a symbolic message to him and his followers.
The Reality of "Islamaphobia"
Radical Moslems everywhere, but particularly in some more militant parts of Middle-East, seem to want to blame the strikes in Afghanistan on "Islamaphobia" and religious prejudice by the United States. And, Mr. bin Laden and his followers are certainly playing this "religion card" to his advantage. They seem unable to publicly accept THE FACT that there have been any number of terrorist acts carried out by violent splinter groups of Islamic fundamentalists, who publicly justify their actions by quoting selected excerpts from the Koran, and who issue illegitimate religious edicts called fatwas, that legitimize and encourage acts of violence against America and her allies.
Additionally, it should be noted that those that describe themselves as "Islamic Leaders," "Holy Warriors," and other associated terms have not only made these public threats of "jihad" against Americans, they have then allegedly carried out violent acts. And then finally, they have claimed responsibility for the atrocities -- maybe through surrogates or false names -- but they have clearly claimed responsibility. Therefore, one can not blame Americans for this undeniable chain of events that leads to criticism and calls for retaliation against Islamic extremists.
In response to these circumstances, it should be made clear to the world, by both the government and people of the United States, that the issue isn't "Islam - the religion"; it is "Islam - the vengeful force for world domination," as practiced only by a small segment of radicals, including Mr. bin Laden and his associates. Further, it should be made clear that the United States has no animosity or ill-will towards peaceful and civil Islamic nations and people, who are willing to cooperate in preventing terrorism and to assist in apprehending those that would carry out these acts of mass murder. Unfortunately, it would seem that all too many predominantly Islamic countries have given tacit approval, or offered sanctuary, monetary, and moral support to these extremists, who are purposefully causing and instigating divisiveness by and directed against Moslems.
There Can Be No More Somalias
What is needed in the United States is a long-term and firm commitment to combat terrorism. This effort can not be compromised by short-term political or foreign-relations "expediency" or an intermittent lack of resolve to confront our enemies, regardless of who or where they turn out to be. It also can not be compromised in favor of some sort of a pursuit of a legacy of "peace making" by politicians. Public relations ploys that may enhance domestic polls should have no part in this "war on terrorism," nor should the political agendas or unstated objectives of any partisan political party. This war will require a deep unbending commitment to terminating these murderers by whatever means necessary and making it clear that attacking the United States or her allies will result in swift and certain punishment of those committing these evil acts.
Certainly, one limited cruise missile strike on Afghanistan will have little or no overall affect on zealots like bin Laden and Company. ERRI's assessment would suggest that he and other sponsors of this transnational insurgency must be struck again and again, until they have been effectively neutralized or finally get the message that America is not the "impotent paper tiger," that they believe we are. They must conclude that they will undoubtedly suffer badly for each of their assaults on us.
An informed observer could suggest that the "bad guys" do not currently think so. Bin Laden has said publicly that he has been emboldened by a rapid 1993 American withdrawal from Somalia, allegedly caused by the deaths of several military peacekeepers, and in which bin Laden may have participated. More than one assessment suggests that Bin Laden believes that he can permanently drive the United States from the Mideast if he can cause enough casualties and mobilize enough fear in this country. That is bin Laden's stated objective -- he wants America to leave the Mideast. Of course, he knows that an American withdrawal of that region could quickly lead to the downfall of Israel and other friendly nations and enable a rapid spread of radical Islam throughout the area.
What Can We Do??
Americans need to realize that it will probably be necessary to "get our hands dirty" and actually commit Special Operations troops to the ground in order to directly confront, close with, and capture or kill these "shadow-warriors," who are now presenting an immediate threat to the security of the United States. Repeated military strikes, intelligence operations, paramilitary strikes, and covert operations will very probably be necessary to disrupt this emerging threat of "stateless terrorism." In doing so, we as a country, should realize that there can be military and law enforcement casualties and that there will continue to be public criticism of us by our enemies. Propaganda efforts will be mounted against us by allies of Mr. bin Laden and misinformation about American intent will flourish. Nevertheless, we can not let these potential liabilities prohibit us from a steadfast resolve to terminate the threat from bin Laden and the overall scourge of bloody terrorism.
Further, it would be our considered opinion that the United States should continue to undertake both covert and overt actions against portions of bin Laden's insurgent network and to try force him into a defensive posture. An on-going U.S. offensive could help to prevent him from engaging in additional attacks and place him in the tactical position of having to try to defend himself and his network. Bin Laden's advantage is in being able to engage in "hit and run" guerilla tactics and striking lightly defended American targets, his "Achilles' heel" is in having to constantly move and defend his operations.
All in all, America needs to display some of its tremendous strength and send a clear message that terrorism against American and her allies won't be tolerated -- Period. We should work diplomatically to prevent and discourage terrorism and the its underlying causes, but must be prepared to act unilaterally if multilateral initiatives aren't successful in protecting U.S. interests. Transnational terrorism and state-less warfare will undoubtedly influence the way we undertake our foreign policy in the coming decade. The time has come to address these matters in a forthright and unambiguous manner so that both friends and foes will understand the consequences of their actions. To do less will undoubtedly result in the further unnecessary injuries and deaths of Americans.
(Editorial note: The Emergency Response & Research Institute, its staff, and its director - Clark Staten, have been studying and reporting on Anti/Counter-Terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, transnational terrorism, and stateless warfare for more than twelve years. Staten is the Emergency Management Director for the International Association of Counter-Terrorism and Security Professionals (IACSP) and the author of the book "Emergency Response Guide to Terrorism." A number of articles concerning related topics are referenced and available for review on the EmergencyNet News page, which can be accessed at: http://www.emergency.com/ennday.htm) Additional comments, questions, or requests for information can be addressed to:
Emergency Response & Research Institute
6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312
Chicago, IL 60646
(773) 631-3774 - Voice/Messages
(773) 631-4703 - Facsimile
Webmaster@emergency.com - E-Mail