The Nature of This Beast Part I

by Charles

Von and Norm Geras formed an effective tag team in outlining the nature of our enemy and the barbaric lengths they will go, and it got me to thinking about the nature of this beast, i.e., the war.  In the Times of London, Paul Wilkinson--Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St Andrews University--gave a fair description of what we're up against:

It astonishes me that there are still so many commentators who seem oblivious to the key facts about the al-Qaeda network. They do not realise that it is not simply like any other terrorist group: it is in a league of its own for ruthlessness and cruelty. Some have even tried to write the obituary of the al-Qaeda network, but it has adapted and morphed since 2001.

The al-Qaeda network is the only terrorist organisation which has both the motivation and the capability to carry out coordinated mass casualty attacks of this kind. This is a major difference between the al-Qaeda network and traditional terrorist groups. The latter, as Brian Jenkins so aptly put it, wanted “a lot of people watching rather than a lot of people dead”.

Al-Qaeda has the most widely dispersed network in the history of modern terrorism. It still has global reach, with a presence in an estimated 65 countries. Its decentralised network makes it particularly hard to suppress: it is a true hydra.

Moreover, unlike more traditional groups, it is actively pursuing materials and expertise to make unconventional weapons, such as chemical devices and radioactive isotopes to create radiological dispersal devices. They were experimenting with chemical weapons in their bases in Afghanistan under the shelter of the Taleban regime, and several al-Qaeda plots to use dirty bombs have been thwarted.

(Pig lard update below the fold)

Wilkinson offers some additional observations:

But in order to suppress it we need to be willing to sustain our efforts over many years, even decades if necessary. It should also be borne in mind that if we deflect our energies to try to intervene in other conflicts we may overstretch our resources and weaken our ability to suppress al-Qaeda. So we must remain focused on the main threat.

The title We can beat the Al-Qaeda Hydra conflicts with the content, since Wilkinson's goal is to "suppress it", not beat it.  Suppression may be the best we can do, but I think our ultimate objective must be to decisively obliterate al Qaeda.  Personally, I don't think it's helpful that he would set the bar this low.  Wilkinson's oblique reference to Iraq as a deflection of our energies may have been applicable in March 2003, but not today.  Iraq is now the main front in this terrorist war, and today's slaughter is but the latest example.  With terrorist forces in Afghanistan depleted and on the run, Iraq is presently the number one destination where terrorists go to die.

Wilkinson's solutions are similar to that of many experts, growing a "genuine multinational" coalition to combat the threat, applying a multi-pronged strategy and strengthening counter-proliferation measures to prevent acquisition of WMDs.  All well and good.  I also stand behind this:

Nor should we neglect employing the education system, religious and community leaders, and the mass media in a battle of ideas to reveal the true face of terrorism and to deter impatient, angry young Muslims from joining its ranks. It is disappointing to discover that the US Government spends a mere 0.3 per cent of its total defence budget on public information and the battle of ideas. We have already forgotten that this was one of the most effective of all our assets in the West in winning the Cold War.

We need to do a better job on the propaganda front of this war because the ideology that encourages its adherents to strap on bombs and yell "Allahu Akhbar!" before blowing themselves up (and as many as possible around them) must be defeated, every bit as much as those who belong to these heretical sects.  I would also recommend burying these suicide terrorists in caskets filled with pig lard, a resting place that is only too good for them.  They defile Islam with these acts.

Update:  Many commenters reacted strongly to the suggestion that dead suicide terrorists' be laid to rest on a layer of bacon grease.  It's a controversial proposal to be sure, and it would most likely be shot down legislatively; however, I think it's worthy of discussion and should at least be put on the table.  Israel is contemplating a similar idea involving terrorists and the other white meat:

Israeli police are considering using bags of pig lard in buses and other places to deter Muslim suicide bombers, Maariv reported today. The proposal received the Jerusalem rabbinate's approval.

The police's suggestion is based on the fact that strict Muslim tradition holds that any Muslim who comes in contact with a pig before dying will be denied access to heaven.

Previously, Minister without portfolio Gideon Ezra (Likud) and others suggested burying the corpses of suicide bombers wrapped in pigskin as a deterrent. The proposal never got serious consideration in Israel, with opponents suggesting that it would only serve to encourage suicide bombers, egged on by clerics stating that Jews were defiling Islamic burial rites.

Russian security forces reportedly buried Chechen terrorists in pigskin last year in attempts to end their suicide bombing attacks.

Burial in lard-filled caskets should apply only to suicide terrorists.  Several have pointed out that this is corpse desecration, but is it really?  What is more depraved than strapping bombs to your person and purposely taking out as many civilians as possible around you?  The act itself is a desecration of Islamic law (and any other civilized law for that matter).  How can you desecrate someone who has already desecrated himself?  Why should a suicidal mass murderer deserve a burial that is one iota more honorable than being dressed in a pigskin suit?  By what right or privilege should such a person merit even the slightest sliver of endorsement or recognition from Muslim clerics?  Why would a Muslim cleric even want to do so?

Just because a fella yells "Allahu Akhar!" before detonation doesn't mean that person is a good Muslim, or even a Muslim for that matter.  As far as I'm concerned, that person is a heretic, because let's face it.  If mass murder by suicide is not heretical under Islamic tradition or law, then we don't really have a War Against Terror on our hands, but a War Against Islam.  Frankly, I don't want to go there, because I believe that there are millions upon millions of Muslims who are truly tolerant of other religions and peoples, and who desire peaceful coexistence with the western world.  I prefer to believe that most Muslims are in the tolerant and peaceful category, but the Muslim Village is infected with Islamist cancer (more on that in a later post).

Several have pointed out that such a lard-ladeling initiative would anger the Muslim community.  Perhaps it will, but I suggest that their anger is misplaced.  Their ire should be placed on the militant radical extremists who are enmeshed in their own community, at the clerics who preach hate and jihad, and at the ones who poison the minds of young Muslim men such as the ones whom trevino wrote about.

The point of this idea is to deter.  If the idea of sleeping with the pigses stops one suicide terrorist attacker from slaughtering a dozen or two people, is it possible that it may be worth it?

Comments

[2shoes]

I see that, once again, you cite yourself.

Condi's brave words are all very heartwarming....but how do they deviate particularily from past Secretary of States, of whatever stripe? Ex. Her request of the Pakistan government to intervene in the case of a gang-rape victim is not without (many many) precedents. And I only had to Google for 20 seconds before I found this:

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on Monday Washington was gravely concerned about the health and safety of Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The European Union also expressed alarm over Myanmar's political situation
and urged the government to enter into a dialogue with the opposition and
hold democratic elections.

Albright made Myanmar the central topic at an Asian security conference,
telling reporters at an afternoon briefing that the United States deplored
the military government's refusal to let Suu Kyi travel freely in the
country over the past three days.

``We believe freedom of movement is fundamental and its denial can only
increase the already dangerous state of tension in Burma (Myanmar) and we
are gravely concerned about the health and safety of Aung San Suu Kyi and
will hold the Burmese authorities directly responsible for ensuring her
health and welfare,'' she said.

Albright spoke as Suu Kyi spent a fourth day in her car at a southwestern
village to protest against moves to stop her from meeting members of her
political party. Authorities stopped the opposition leader at the spot on
Friday.

Earlier Albright told a plenary session of the conference that Myanmar faced
a growing danger of social explosion.

With the foreign minister of Myanmar sitting in the same conference hall,
Albright said in an earlier speech: ``With each passing day the likelihood
of a social breakdown -- or explosion -- that would undermine regional
stability grows higher; the likelihood that a future government will be able
to tackle Burma's problems becomes smaller.

``This is a moment of truth and of urgency for Burma and for all of us
concerned about its fate.''

Condi hasn't shattered the mold. And, as radish points out, there are all those other things the United States does, in action not just word.

I would end this with a little "Maybe it's you who isn't paying attention" quip. You know, hold up the mirror to you. But I know you do pay attention....you just don't care. One day - one day - you'll get that internship at the NRO.

[radish]

I see 2shoes beat me to the punch, but Charles, please... while most of the things you list are commendable, none of them are significant policy decisions, none of them are commitments*, and the only one that has any impact outside of diplomatic maneuvering is the possibility that Mai will be allowed to travel. I'm sorry, but sending Zoellick to a yearly trade conference instead of attending herself is just so much horsetrading. Furthermore I would refer you to the IHT article on this subject, which suggests, not unreasonably, that Rangoon probably doesn't give a sh*t whether Condi attends, and might even prefer the less squeamish Zoellick.

Leaning on Musharraf? Great. Not exactly risky, but it sends the right message. Iran? Talk talk talk. Egypt? Talk talk talk. Saud? Talk talk talk -- which is to say a reasonable effort to help Al-Domaini, Al-Faleh and Al-Hamid, only they're still in jail and their families are still broke. Iraq? Man, I'm not even sure what the big deal is there -- "please recognize this government as legitimate" seems to be the extent of her involvement. And as for women's suffrage, I dimly recall a lot of people being up in arms about that issue during Gulf War I. Considering that Condi couldn't even get three dissidents out of jail what makes you think she has leverage that Jim Baker (or Madeline Albright for that matter) didn't? Or are you perhaps suggesting that Democracy in Saudi was a non-priority for Jim Baker?

So yeah, commendable. Totally insufficient, laboriously cherry-picked, and of little or no interest to the audience to whom I was actually referring, but definitely commendable.

* difference between involvment and commitment: when you have bacon and eggs for breakfast, the chicken is "involved" and the pig is "committed."

[Anarch]

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on Monday Washington was gravely concerned about the health and safety of Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

I would just like to note for the record that I've been as close to Aung San Suu Kyi (well, her house; I think she was there at the time) as possible for any foreigner without clearance. Go me!

[2shoes]

Nice, but did you eat the curried grasshoppers on a stick?

[Anarch]

Alas, no. We were told not to eat the street-vendors' food because we weren't going to be there long enough. My dad and I did have a couple of nice curries at a local dive, though.

[dutchmarbel]

Another observation about the 'burry them with pigs' idea: most religious folks I know here would be very upset because you would deny their God to have the final judgement.

[McDuff]

Mblockquote>This is why one of my primary thrusts here is for the advance of freedom. The solution is free markets, free societies, free speech, free press, free religious expression, respect for civil liberties and political rights. The combination of virulent ideology and a lack of freedom in those countries is a root cause of terrorism, not poverty.

Very nice words, although I note again that you're summing up with "poverty is not the problem" when my actual contention was "trade and economics is a major and yet overlooked part of the solution". I know I'm a liberal, but we do care about economics even after the famine victims have been given Bob Geldof Brand Porridge, y'know?

Now, given all those nice words: how, exactly, do we "spread freedom" in Saudi Arabia? What mechanisms do we use in the propaganda war? How do we disrupt the House of Saud and Wahhabbism's hold on the politics of Saudi Arabia?

Can you come up with a plan, and by this I don't mean a plan to "spread freedom" but an actual honest to goodness "we should go and do this and then do this" plan that doesn't involve turning Saudi Arabia from a second world into a first world country?

Platitudes are dead simple, but making these things happen is complicated, slow and tedious. I've seen lots of Forthright And Strong stances of ideology on the right -- we should Hate Terror and Spread Democracy and Promote Freedom and all the rest of it -- but these all come down to the same actions: do something with this big ol' army of ours.

Well, assuming your army is tied up in Iraq for the next 18 months at least, and that we need to act now to reform Saudi Arabia, what the hell do you suggest?

[McDuff]

Also, please pretend that I didn't screw up those tags. The first paragraph is Charles' quote, everything else is me.

[attriti0n]

Re- Pig fat burials.

How could you be so retarded to post such an idea AFTER the London bombings ?

So would the pig fat burial for the muslims have come before or after the bombmaker turned out to be a biochemist on holiday ?

Before or after the dead muslims turned out to be such unlikely suspects that police are now questioning whether or not they knew they were going to die ?

Before or after the official story changed from finding C4 residue which the suspects couldn't have made to homemade explosives which they could ?

Perhaps thats too narrow an example so let's see how well it works in the most common theatre for suicide bombings. Iraq.

You think in the 97% Islamic nation of Iraq theyre doing DNA matches on every 50+ bombing to differentiate between the 1 dead Muslim terrorist and the dozens of dead Muslim citizens ? Use your fucking heads.

I was just thinking today, the Middle East really isn't pissed off enough right now, some cunt really needs to do something utterly abhorrent to them AFTER they die as a result of a foreign policy they didn't ask for.

Like maybe we could put an end to the violence in the US over the pro-lif/choice debate once and for all if we started performing Voodoo curses on aborted fetuses. Yeah that sounds like a winner.

As for taking tips from Israel on the war on terror, well when do we start shooting unarmed civilians and reporters for fun ?

Because I will champion the honour of a suicide bomber any day over a uniformed soldier sniping a schoolkid on the street through the head like its a fucking sport.

You don't need a radical idea as much as you need uncensored media. Seriously, you want to take anti-terrorism tips from the country who's Prime Ministers have a history of running false-flag terrorist attacks against the UK and US and fingering Arabs?

A country who actually funds terrorist groups to attack its own citizens?

Setting up Gulags in the 60s to fight Communism would have been just as bright as this.