Terrorism: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities And Threats

Another captivating article by Policy Review The Terror to Come.

Here's the money shot:

More likely the terrorist impetus will decline as a result of setbacks. Fanaticism, as history shows, is not easy to transfer from one generation to the next; attacks will continue, and some will be crowned with success (perhaps spectacular success), but many will not. When Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, many terrorists thought that this was the answer to their prayers, but theirs was a false hope. The trust put today in that new invincible weapon, namely suicide terrorism, may in the end be equally misplaced. Even the use of weapons of mass destruction might not be the terrorist panacea some believe it will be. Perhaps their effect will be less deadly than anticipated; perhaps it will be so destructive as to be considered counterproductive. Statistics show that in the terrorist attacks over the past decade, considerably more Muslims were killed than infidels. Since terrorists do not operate in a vacuum, this is bound to lead to dissent among their followers and even among the fanatical preachers.

Waves of terror. Generational terror. The irrational furor of some points in the arab-israeli conflict seem to come and go in waves. The late 70's seemed quieter, as did the 90's and the late 50's to early 60's. And these waves of more peaceful times were immediately preceeded by horrid losses on the arab side. I guess the idea is that when we have a break in the overall violence, our "salafi" burnout, we put that lull to good use making sure we can seal deals so that when the time comes to batten down the hatches, we can feel..if not safe, than safer. I think Clinton had the same idea in the early nineties...The palestinians had suffered another loss and Clinton saw an opportunity. This opportunity is coming around again.

The last of the Palestinian suicide bombers are making their way around the security fence, but that won't last. A lull will set in and a chance to make a peace settlement will draw close and Sharon will be one of the few with the street cred in Israel to make a peace with the devil. Arafat could have been that guy in 2000 but he blew it.

The article also goes on at length about the possibility of nuclear bombs being used in terrorist attack and a coming police state-type crackdown. Small, independent groups of terrorists, the article states, will always be around...maybe for our lives anyways.

Previously in Policy Review (and to some extent this issue) there was a discussion of nation states and their responsibility in the event of a horrid attack. Bush himself (and many of the hawks) have denounced fanaticism, secular or otherwise as the overall enemy. Yes, iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but they are the type of state that encourages extremism, the mistreatmenet its own citizens and while employing statist policies to oppress their own people. But what's next after Iraq? And does the US have the credibility or just sheer chutzpah to go after another state (ie: syria, iran) after the next attack? Will there be an emphasis on proving who is responsible for a nuclear attack on the US?

PS: Side note..they just found out that Syria was using chemical weapons on citizens in Darfur....hmm, I wonder why the Arab Bloc is not condemning the attacks on the Black West Sudanese. Does the press mention that this is a racial and religious war they are fighting in Sudan?