U.S. must rally the world to win the war on terror
Mortimer B. Zuckerman
New York Daily News
June 12, 2006
How great it is that the loathsome Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is no more. The hope is that this will reduce sectarian violence in Iraq. But we must remember that the odds in counterterrorism are wildly unbalanced: The authorities have to succeed each and every time while the terrorists must get lucky just once. Which is why the war on terrorism is like no conflict America has ever faced before.
It's not "scare talk" to imagine a nuclear explosion in an American city. Someone as wise and thoughtful as former Defense Secretary William Perry fears the odds are 50-50. A recent documentary, "Nuclear Jihad," showed how Pakistan's renegade scientist A.Q. Khan organized a nuclear Wal-Mart to sell weapons technology to anyone who could pay the price, including, quite possibly, several terrorist organizations.
The deep-rooted hate directed against the West is manifest in the wave of arrests of radical Muslims in London, Australia and, now, Canada. For the first time, we must think about defending against infiltrators from our friendly neighbor to the north.
And how have we improved our response capability to the terrorist threat? By a 40% cut in funds to protect the most obvious targets, New York and Washington. This is the latest lunacy from those wonderful folks at the Department of Homeland Security.
Commissions have met, investigations have been concluded and reports written, but little has changed to enhance public confidence. Despite 9/11, we still tend to take comfort in our relative geographic isolation behind two vast oceans. They are porous shields, however, with millions of uninspected shipping containers arriving in our ports.
On the other side of the Atlantic, thousands of radical Muslim terrorists have been training for years, largely undisturbed by European security services. These individuals are alienated, frustrated and uncertain of their prospects in a fast-changing world. They have absorbed totalitarian ideologies steeped in twisted versions of Islam.
They use the Internet for indoctrination and communication in a way that obviates the need for leaders, with chat rooms providing the illusion that their views are universally held. The Iranian drive to build a nuclear arsenal, Al Qaeda's bloody efforts to foment civil war in Iraq and the Hamas victory in Palestine all underscore the fact that this malignancy is spreading — rapidly.
The civilized world has a common stake in containing this internationally connected jihadist offensive. Can we match their will? As former Secretary of State George Shultz said: "If we put this in terms of World War II, we are now sometime around 1937."
We paid dearly for being unconcerned about that totalitarian menace. Let's not make the same mistake twice. Today, events in Iran are unfolding like a slow-motion Cuban missile crisis. If the mullahs develop nuclear capacities, the chance that nuclear weapons will wind up in the hands of Al Qaeda, Hamas or its client Hezbollah is greatly enhanced.
Iran must be dealt with, but it is just the most obvious nuclear menace. We must also step up the efforts to secure all nuclear weapons and put them beyond the reach of terrorists. We must find ways to preclude national capabilities for the enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of plutonium, the essence of our struggle with Iran. And we must do all we can to cap the number of states with nuclear weapons.
Along with depriving the terrorists of potential weapons, we must eliminate their freedom to murder. We must help fragile governments better serve and protect their people. We must have no compunction about pursuing terrorists living in failed states or in states taken over by lawless dictators. We should recognize that, in this new twilight world of global terrorism, conventional standards of government conduct will have to be rethought as we adapt our security agencies and our laws to the threat. Pre-emption is better than punishment. Much better.
To assist and coordinate these efforts, the United States should advocate a special international commission to build a consensus for protecting civilization. Let us coordinate the arrest and prosecution of sleeper cells, agree on how to prosecute terrorist supporters and come together on making counterterrorism the highest priority for law enforcement. Winston Churchill's counsel is more relevant than ever today. "It is not enough," he said, "to do one's best. What is required is rather that one do what is necessary for success."
New York Daily News
June 12, 2006
How great it is that the loathsome Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is no more. The hope is that this will reduce sectarian violence in Iraq. But we must remember that the odds in counterterrorism are wildly unbalanced: The authorities have to succeed each and every time while the terrorists must get lucky just once. Which is why the war on terrorism is like no conflict America has ever faced before.
It's not "scare talk" to imagine a nuclear explosion in an American city. Someone as wise and thoughtful as former Defense Secretary William Perry fears the odds are 50-50. A recent documentary, "Nuclear Jihad," showed how Pakistan's renegade scientist A.Q. Khan organized a nuclear Wal-Mart to sell weapons technology to anyone who could pay the price, including, quite possibly, several terrorist organizations.
The deep-rooted hate directed against the West is manifest in the wave of arrests of radical Muslims in London, Australia and, now, Canada. For the first time, we must think about defending against infiltrators from our friendly neighbor to the north.
And how have we improved our response capability to the terrorist threat? By a 40% cut in funds to protect the most obvious targets, New York and Washington. This is the latest lunacy from those wonderful folks at the Department of Homeland Security.
Commissions have met, investigations have been concluded and reports written, but little has changed to enhance public confidence. Despite 9/11, we still tend to take comfort in our relative geographic isolation behind two vast oceans. They are porous shields, however, with millions of uninspected shipping containers arriving in our ports.
On the other side of the Atlantic, thousands of radical Muslim terrorists have been training for years, largely undisturbed by European security services. These individuals are alienated, frustrated and uncertain of their prospects in a fast-changing world. They have absorbed totalitarian ideologies steeped in twisted versions of Islam.
They use the Internet for indoctrination and communication in a way that obviates the need for leaders, with chat rooms providing the illusion that their views are universally held. The Iranian drive to build a nuclear arsenal, Al Qaeda's bloody efforts to foment civil war in Iraq and the Hamas victory in Palestine all underscore the fact that this malignancy is spreading — rapidly.
The civilized world has a common stake in containing this internationally connected jihadist offensive. Can we match their will? As former Secretary of State George Shultz said: "If we put this in terms of World War II, we are now sometime around 1937."
We paid dearly for being unconcerned about that totalitarian menace. Let's not make the same mistake twice. Today, events in Iran are unfolding like a slow-motion Cuban missile crisis. If the mullahs develop nuclear capacities, the chance that nuclear weapons will wind up in the hands of Al Qaeda, Hamas or its client Hezbollah is greatly enhanced.
Iran must be dealt with, but it is just the most obvious nuclear menace. We must also step up the efforts to secure all nuclear weapons and put them beyond the reach of terrorists. We must find ways to preclude national capabilities for the enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of plutonium, the essence of our struggle with Iran. And we must do all we can to cap the number of states with nuclear weapons.
Along with depriving the terrorists of potential weapons, we must eliminate their freedom to murder. We must help fragile governments better serve and protect their people. We must have no compunction about pursuing terrorists living in failed states or in states taken over by lawless dictators. We should recognize that, in this new twilight world of global terrorism, conventional standards of government conduct will have to be rethought as we adapt our security agencies and our laws to the threat. Pre-emption is better than punishment. Much better.
To assist and coordinate these efforts, the United States should advocate a special international commission to build a consensus for protecting civilization. Let us coordinate the arrest and prosecution of sleeper cells, agree on how to prosecute terrorist supporters and come together on making counterterrorism the highest priority for law enforcement. Winston Churchill's counsel is more relevant than ever today. "It is not enough," he said, "to do one's best. What is required is rather that one do what is necessary for success."
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 9:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home