September 12, 2004

WHY DO THEY NEVER LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE:

JIHAD IN CHAOS: The extremist ideology is in collapse. (Mansoor Ijaz, September 10, 2004, National Review)

On this third anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have much more to be thankful for than some of our political leaders would have us believe. Islamist terrorism's global scourge has been unable to launch anything more than verbal tirades at America. And while the jihadists have won successes in lesser form — the train bombings in Spain that unseated a government, hostage-taking dramas in Iraq that forced minor players from the global antiterror team, and Iran's successful effort to sow divisiveness in the West about its nuclear ambitions while harboring much of al Qaeda's senior leadership — the fact remains that they have not been able to execute a spectacular strike in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Osama bin Laden's global vision — of jihadists crawling from the cracks in every enemy state to strike out at infidels with weapons of mass destruction — is drowning in a swamp of confusion among senior jihadists debating who to attack next, how to do it, and for whose benefit. In short, global jihad has turned on itself, and is being destroyed from within — one botched and more wretched attack at a time.

This is largely a function of the sacrifices made by our fallen heroes — the men and women of the U.S. armed forces, and their Coalition colleagues — in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their courage and valor in conflict zones has battered the very thesis — that the enemy is too corrupt of mind, too decadent in spirit, and too weak of body to sustain the battle to victory — on which bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, have sent thousands of "martyrs" to their deaths.

Zawahiri's appearance on al Jazeera this week to once again threaten the U.S. was particularly poignant, since it was the Egyptian physician who, in his infinite wisdom, wrote in 2001 prior to the September 11 attacks that if the "jihadist vanguard" improperly executed its plans to spread Islam's words by force, the movement would become isolated and separated from the Muslim masses. He was right, and is now desperately trying to rekindle the unified spirit al Qaeda had achieved prior to the 9/11 attacks.


Pearl Harbor is an especially good parallel for 9-11 because, while deadly to Americans for a day, they were disastrous for their perpetrators in the long run.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 12, 2004 3:27 PM
Comments

True, but I think you mean far more disastrous for their perpetrators in the long run.

Posted by: PapayaSF at September 12, 2004 3:52 PM

As long as they keep the pressure on, which they can do cheaply, big attacks are not necessary to their strategy.

It costs us much more to defend than it costs them to attack -- so far. We could change the equation, but only if we stop appeasing Islam.

There are excellent discussions of this in all the studies of maritime commerce by Mahan, Richmond, Corbett, Roskill etc. It's exactly the same.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 12, 2004 6:02 PM

Cost? We're spending nothing in historical terms even as we change their regimes. Bring Mahan back and tell him we're defending the homeland and waging global war for 4% of GDP and he'd have sense enough to know time had passed him by.

Posted by: oj at September 12, 2004 6:13 PM

Cost Harry? Look around you. See the wealth that pours out of this country. This land is richer than is conceivable. Go to a lake and count the boats and estimate their worth. Go to a mall parking lot and estimate the worth in automobiles; the value of the goods in that mall. How can these jihadist movements hope to overpower this nation, so long as the will to win is there?

Posted by: Mikey at September 13, 2004 2:33 PM

4% compounded works out to an immense sum, if you take the long view, as Orrin always commends us to do, and which Islam is required by faith to do.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 13, 2004 3:52 PM

Harry:

It's not interest compounding. It's the percentage of the budget we spend. It's negligible.

Posted by: oj at September 13, 2004 4:03 PM

Don't be inconsistent, Orrin.

If failure to thrive in Japan is blamed on low reinvestment -- your position, I believe -- then diverted reinvestment, on the order of 4%/annum ought to have the same effect on us.

Money is fungible.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 13, 2004 9:25 PM

Dealing with Muslim terrorists won't claim 4% of US GDP forever. Maybe another decade.
Of course, then you've got China, or some other up and coming baddie...

However, the bulk of the Pentagon's appropriations go to salaries and benefits, not weapons or munitions.
In the future, with more robotic or uncrewed vehicles/weapons systems, we'll save a bundle on personnel costs.

Posted by: Michael "Starship Trooper" Herdegen at September 14, 2004 1:51 AM
« THIS DOES SEEM UNUSUAL: | Main | ACT PRESIDENTIAL? HOW ABOUT ACTING HUMAN: »