Douglas Farah thinks the omens now are bad, really bad:
Taken together, the recent developments of 2007 show that:
1) Neither Sunni nor Shi'ite terrorist networks are suffering from any shortage of funds or recruits, but rather seem awash in resources,
2) the increased decentralization of al Qaeda-related groups is a strategy that is paying off well for the salafist movements, which are slowly establishing viable networks in areas where not long ago they had none, and
3) that Islamists have begun a well-financed and sophisticated propaganda offensive, coupled with a political strategy of appearing to soften on some issues (i.e. Sudan) aimed at presenting a negotiating partner(s) to the West in an effort to forestall decisive action. So far it has been remarkably successful.
We haven't seen much lately that gives us a reason to disagree, have we?
How about this: The Jihadis may have found that high-profile terrorist attacks against the west, like Bali, 9/11, Madrid and London, while good for PR, are not necessarily their most important tactic. Rather, rely on the west to be lulled back to sleep by the constant trickle of bad news in remote regions, followed by a few incidents closer to home, while the Jihadis build strength and slowly force concessions until they are in a position to overrun weak states in Africa and Asia, and go on from there.
Also, the rogue state actors in this dirty game, like Syria and Iran, have undoubtedly concluded they have found the west's Achilles heel, especially after Hezbollah's stalemate against Israel and the US' fading support for continued action in Iraq: Wage war through proxy. The proxies, however, may only share the objectives of their masters while it is convenient to do so. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah may well have shown us the future.
If you distill all the political developments now at the start of the 21st century, it boils down to a weakening of national states and the rise of non-state actors as mayor power players. The rule of overwhelming force of arms, that can only be put in the field by powerful nation-states, may now have reached its zenith.
The combination of terrorist shock tactics and a media savvy way beyond what the old political apparatus has shown may well prove a combination that is too hot to handle. Deterrence no longer works; there is no place to bomb, and if it were, the adversaries would not care anyway. Negotiations, the solution to every ill according to the apparachniks of Old Europe and transnational institutions like the UN, can only work where the enemy is not demanding your ultimate demise as its minimum condition. Finally, raw force only works if you can locate your enemy.
The one place where we can most definitely lose the war on terror is on the battlefield of ideas. Who would believe that a combination of pure hatred and medieval superstition would provide the most appealing ideology of the 21st century?
What is our counter? The ideology of freedom, obviously. But do we really believe in it anymore? That is hard to believe on a continent which in the previous century was ravaged by the deadly poisons fascism and socialism, where everybody now seems to know what they are against (America, Jews, capitalism, immigrants, whatever), but there is little left to unite us when we are forced to decide what we are fighting for.
9:18:52 PM 
|
