David Horowitz on why America's security failed

[unixronin]

radarrider found this article by David Horowitz (find radarrider's original post here).  It's long and rather one-sided -- it blames the Democrats entirely for the failure of US intelligence to prevent 9/11, and totally ignores the Republican responsibility for many of the same failings, not to mention the manner in which the current Republican administration is quite unashamedly using terrorism as a rationale for a blatant grab of unprecedented police powers within the US -- but nevertheless, Horowitz makes many good points.  In particular, he's right on the mark about the manner in which, during the Clinton administration, Islamic radicals repeatedly kicked the US in the face and the US flinched, backed down, and apologized.

Things the US needs to keep in mind:  It's not about Iraq, it's not about Saddam Hussein, and the radical Islamists who issued a fatwa condemning every non-Muslim in America to death are not going to just pack up and go away.  (In particular, America will remain on the marked-for-death list as long as Israel exists and America continues to support Israel politically, financially or militarily.)  Nor is the US going to be able to defeat them via conventional military force.  A regular army cannot effectively fight a well-organized guerilla force in the field.  It's like trying to punch smoke.

Nor is policing every inch and second of every American's life the answer.  One of the goals of the Islamists is to destroy America's freedom.  If the US government does that itself, they have still won.  But in the eyes of government, that's OK, because if American freedom is broken under the foot of massive, all-pervading police power, the government has won too.

No, I'm not offering any pat answers to Islamic terrorism.  I don't have any, short of turning the entire Middle East into a plain of radioactive green glass, which obviously isn't a very viable option.  There's this problem with fanatics -- if they hit you, and you do nothing, it spurs them on to hit you harder; and if they hit you, and you hit them back where it hurts, it spurs them on to hit you harder.  It's a lose-lose situation.  Ultimately, there's only one way to deal with fanatic terrorists:  you kill them all, without mercy or hesitation.  However, half a dozen armored divisions trundling around in the desert looking for lone terrorists isn't a very effective way to accomplish that, and even a certainty of death is little discouragement to an Islamic terrorist who believes with every fiber of his being that death in the course of an attempt to murder infidels is an instant first-class ticket directly to paradise.

But I digress.

Ultimately, the single most important reason why 9/11 succeeded -- and many of the details Horowitz points out are mere symptoms and side-effects of this -- comes down to one thing:  We, as a nation, believed that it couldn't happen here, it couldn't happen to us.  We as a nation -- or, as a government -- believed implicitly that no major terrorist attack on American soil could succeed, because America was invulnerable, because America was the world's great shining bastion of freedom.  More stupidly, we -- or, again, our government -- continued to believe that a major terrorist attack against a target on American soil couldn't happen even after it did.  And because, even after it had happened, we refused to believe that it could happen, we allowed it to happen again.  It took 9/11 to shake America out of its complacency, and then our response was to launch a grandiose global war against terrorism as though it was a tangible, discrete entity that we could meet in the field and defeat in detail.  Oh, sure, it's a wonderful ideal, and I understand there's been some very positive effects, but if this is a war that we're going to keep fighting until it's won, then it's a war that we're going to keep fighting forever, because it is a war in which we will not and cannot ever achieve a complete, final victory.  The kind of worldwide security measures necessary to totally obliterate terrorism would be a first-class practical example of Nietzche's diktat, "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster."

That's the damnedest thing about terrorism.  You can't defeat it without destroying your own freedoms.  You can't win without losing.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

You can't win without losing.

It depends. Both sides have to be willing to compromise, though. We have achieved something vaguely resembling peace in Ireland (or, at least, a whole lot less things going boom in the night than there used to be); ditto South Africa. The Aussies, to hear them tell it, have been doing a bang-up job of peacekeeping in the South Pacific.

OTOH, none of these parties were true fanatics. Not all, but some, of the Arabs are. There are, as far as I can tell, two ways to deal with these people. Hit them in the head - as you said, kill'em, particularly their leaders - and hit'em in the wallet. If we would quit buying their damn oil, they wouldn't have any money to buy explosives with. No, it's not going to be easy, but it can be done sanely and without wrecking anyone's economy except the oil barons', if we put our minds to it. (And the first SOB to try to blackmail us, his hometown becomes a target for the B-52's out of Diego Garcia. No nukes.... but enough high explosive that there's not one stone left on top of another.)

Oh, yeah, and the penalty for piracy/hijacking/whathaveyou? Spacing, over a wooded area.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

If we would quit buying their damn oil, they wouldn't have any money to buy explosives with. No, it's not going to be easy, but it can be done sanely and without wrecking anyone's economy except the oil barons', if we put our minds to it.

But do enough of us have both the power and the will to do it? Can we wean ourselves off of oil? I doubt it.

(On the other hand, if high-temperature depolymerization turns out to be a large-scale success, we could both end out dependence on foreign oil -- become a net exporter of oil, in fact -- and solve our garbage disposal problems at a single stroke. We could even mine our existing landfills and turn the contents into oil and raw materials.)

(And the first SOB to try to blackmail us, his hometown becomes a target for the B-52's out of Diego Garcia. No nukes.... but enough high explosive that there's not one stone left on top of another.)

And this is where we REALLY don't have the will. It's true that we might very well dissuade at least all but the most fanatical terrorists if they knew we were willing to bomb their entire home town flat. The problem is, we're not -- and even if we, the US, as a nation, were willing to go out and openly, intentionally bomb an entire populated town to rubble, the censure we'd get from the other Western nations would be prohibitive unless we were ready to tell the entire rest of the world "Fuck off" and go it totally alone. Which, economically, I'm uncertain we can.

(On the other hand, I suppose it'd mean US jobs would be available for US workers instead of being farmed out to the third world for burger-flipping wages.)

It also must be said that there are those among our foes to whom having their entire town, with everything and everyone in it, including their entire families and everyone they know and love, blown to dust would be just an even more magnificent sacrifice to the greater glory of Allah. This, to me, is the greatest evil of organized religion -- it spawns raving bugfuck lunatics like that, who are ready to unblinkingly commit any atrocity and joyfully accept any cost in the name of their deity.

And not least, there's the ethical issue that being willing to bomb an entire town into rubble and scraps of rotting meat lowers us to their level. I have no problem with expediting fanatics' face-to-face meetings with their god. I do have a problem with making entre populations suffer for the actions of the fanatics (many of whom, if the truth be told, will adopt any cause as long as they can kill in its name, and will unhesitatingly turn on their own people if the cause calls for it).

[aalauber.livejournal.com]

You can't defeat it without destroying your own freedoms.

that's why we need legions of incorruptible, morally pure, ethically-unfettered telepaths. with guns.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

And attack-trained wombats! Never underestimate the sheer psychological terror inspired in the unworthy by a slavering, screaming attack wombat.

(Seriously, the telepaths would sure be nice to have if they existed. We could start'em out with a proof-of-concept deployment on Capitol Hill.)

[caged-admin.livejournal.com]

In particular, America will remain on the marked-for-death list as long as Israel exists and America continues to support Israel politically, financially or militarily.

America will remain on that list as long as we continue to stand for everything they hate. Our support for Israel just helps cement our position at the top of their shit-list.

If a bunch of misogynistic, fascistic, Dark Ages, knucklehead throwbacks are driven to towering fury at our very existence, we must be doing something right.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

America will remain on that list as long as we continue to stand for everything they hate. Our support for Israel just helps cement our position at the top of their shit-list.

Very true, the statement loses no accuracy through being generalized. I singled out Israel basically because it seems to be at the center of the most intense and widespread Muslim hatred.

If a bunch of misogynistic, fascistic, Dark Ages, knucklehead throwbacks are driven to towering fury at our very existence, we must be doing something right.

A very valid point which I cannot find it in my heart to disagree with. :)

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Nor is policing every inch and second of every American's life the answer. One of the goals of the Islamists is to destroy America's freedom. If the US government does that itself, they have still won. But in the eyes of government, that's OK, because if American freedom is broken under the foot of massive, all-pervading police power, the government has won too.

Actually, I don't think the Islamists would consider that a victory. Only if our freedom is destroyed because we've submitted to an Islamic theocracy would that be the case. I think they would accept one of three outcomes: (1) We are totally and completely destroyed, (2) We convert to Islam and implement Sharia, or (3) We submit to Islamic rule without converting ourselves and become dhimmi.

I was also going to comment that it's not just our support for Isreal that is the cause of their hatred of us but someone beat me to it. :)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't know ... I'm sure there are some to whom Islam is more than a mere justification for killing people, to whom the destruction of the US as it now exists and the submission of the US to Islamic rule (whether under the Sharia or as dhimmi) are orthogonal and to whom only the latter is important. However, it seems equally clear there are others -- bin Laden apparently among them -- who don't primarily care all that much whether the US becomes an Islamic state, so long as America as it exists now, America as a symbol of freedom (more-or-less secular, and more-or-less gender-neutral), ceases to exist. To these latter, destruction of the American way of life may not be a complete victory, but it is a definite and distinct victory.

I was also going to comment that it's not just our support for Isreal that is the cause of their hatred of us but someone beat me to it. :)

Indeed. as noted, I picked out Israel simply because it's the focus of the most intense and unrelenting hatred.

Personally, I can't help but wonder what could be accomplished if all the different Islamic terrorist factions put as much effort into building their own nations up as they now put into trying to tear others down.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

America as a symbol of freedom (more-or-less secular, and more-or-less gender-neutral), ceases to exist.

Y'know, that's what the current politicos in power have been saying, but is it really true? Is there anybody out there who just hates the fact that we aren't ruled by a theocracy? Or are they really just pissed off at the fact that we poke our noses into every little corner of the world, and the whole "they hate our freedom" thing is just propaganda?

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There is that too. That's yet a third aspect of it. There's a lot of folks out there who justifiably hate America (or, more accurately, the US Gov) for being the swaggering bully on the playground. We've been installing right-wing "strongmen" (translation: bloody-handed tyrants) in nations we want to get cheap resources from for most of a century now, and still show no signs of any kind of shame or repentance over it.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

For example, Iran, where we overthrew their government, installed the Shah, supported him in brutalizing the country, and then refused to return him for trial after he was overthrown.

Israel, where we've had a good hand in the random colonial partitioning and enforcement thereof, from the people who originally lived there and are now peasants and serfs in their own homeland.

Venezuela, where we tried and failed to overthrow the government, but it didn't stick.

Iraq, where we put President Hussein in power and kept him there while it was convenient for us.

China, where we intentionally left Chiang Kai Chek out to dry, letting Mao Tse Tung stabilize control of the country.

I could go on, but I'm starting to get ill.

I really think it has more to do with our tendency to impose our will on everyone by right of our military, than the fact that back at home we don't stone people for adultery.

-Ogre