YORAM ETTINGER: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 A DECADE OF LESSONS
September 11, 2001 – A Decade of Lessons
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=417
September 11, 2001 constituted a horrific awakening from the post-Cold War
delusions of “Peace Dividends” and a “New World Order” to the reality of a
“New World Disorder” and a worldwide surge of Islamic terrorism.
The 9/11 reality has exposed Islamic terrorism as a clear, present and
lethal danger to the Free World, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict,
Israel’s existence, US pressure on Israel, US generous foreign aid to Moslem
countries and US military support of Moslem national aspirations in
Afghanistan (against a Moscow-backed regime), in Bosnia and in Kosovo
(against Serbia). Autocratic Islamic regimes consider Western-style
religious, political, educational and economic liberties fatal threats.
Islamic terrorists consider Western democracies infidel societies and
geo-political obstacles to be subjugated via terrorism and “Holy Wars”
(Jihad), as has been the practice of Islam – confronting “infidels” and
“apostates’ – since the seventh century.
The trauma of 9/11 has raised awareness to Islamic terrorism as a threat to
the US mainland. The threat is intensified by the proliferation of
Hezbollah and Hamas presence in Central and South America, as well as US
sleeper cells. The US National Drug Intelligence Center reports that Hamas
and Hezbollah collaborate with Mexican drug cartels, furnishing them weapons
and distributing drugs in Europe and the Middle East. Muslim terrorists –
many of whom are supported financially by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and
the UAE – operate along the tri- border area of Brazil, Paraguay and
Argentina.
9/11 demonstrated that indecisiveness emboldens terrorists. Thus, the April
1993 attempt on the life of President Bush evoked a timid response: the
launch of a cruise missile to Baghdad. The murder of 24 US soldiers, in
Saudi Arabia – in November 1995 and in June1996 – did not trigger any
military response. 257 people were murdered in August 1998 by Islamic
terrorists, who blew up the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The US
retaliated by launching cruise missiles on insignificant targets in Sudan
and Afghanistan. 17 American sailors aboard the USS Cole were murdered in
Aden in October 2001. The US responded by killing one of the terrorists. The
meek US response to the systematic escalation of Islamic terrorism
reaffirmed an Islamic perception of a US in retreat, dramatically energizing
terrorists all the way to 9/11.
9/11 highlighted the vulnerability of the US to terrorism. It shifted the
US from retaliation – to preemption – mode. For instance, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, which have been supplemented by the pursuit of Islamic
terrorists in their safe havens in Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines and
Algeria. At the same time, the anti-US and the pro-Islamic track record of
the UN, and the rogue nature of many of its members, preclude an effective
global war on terrorism. Therefore, counter-terrorism has been confined to
an upgraded cooperation between the US and a few of its Free World allies,
such as Israel, Britain, Canada, Australia and France.
In order to avert another 9/11, The Obama Administration has introduced it
own approach to counterterrorism. According to President Obama, Islam
promotes peace and not terrorism, and there is no global Islamic terrorism.
He legitimized the Muslim Brotherhood – the mentor of Hamas – during his May
2009 speech in Cairo. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper,
stated that “the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular, eschewing violence.”
Obama’s Advisor on Counterterrorism, John Brennan, insisted that “there is
no Jihadist terrorism, because Jihad is a process which purifies the soul.”
Attorney General Eric Holder, and his deputy James Cole, contended that the
US ought to pursue a criminal justice approach to – rather than launch war
on -terrorism. And, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, avoids
the word “terror,” preferring the term “man-caused disaster” thus
intensifying the case of moral ambiguity
However, moral ambiguity and oversimplification yield operational ambiguity,
while moral clarity is essential to achieving operational clarity – a
prerequisite to avoiding a repeat of 9/11.
Comments are closed.
