Is war on terror over?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Published April 28, 2007
Do we still need to fight a war on terror?
The answer seems to be "no" for an increasing number in the West
who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the
absence of a major attack on the scale of September 11, 2001.
The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror"
as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central
Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight
against radical Islam.
An influential book making the rounds -- "Overblown: How
Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security
Threats, and Why We Believe Them" -- argues that the threat from al
Qaeda is vastly exaggerated. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's
national security adviser, goes further, assuring us we are
terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror -- not the
jihadists themselves.
Even onetime neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998 called
for the pre-emptive removal of Saddam Hussein, believes "war" is
the "wrong metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists.
Others point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the resources
of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the Soviet Union.
This thinking may seem understandable given the ineffectiveness of
al Qaeda to kill many Americans after 2001. Or it may reflect hopes
that, if we only leave Iraq, radical Islam will wither away. But it
is dead wrong for a number of reasons:
(1) Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested periodically
in both Europe and the United States. Just last week a leaked
British report detailed al Qaeda's plans for future "large-scale"
operations. We shouldn't be blamed for being alarmist when our
alarmism has resulted in our safety at home for the last five
years.
(2) Have we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to kill
3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did Japan ever destroy 16 acres in
Manhattan or hit the nerve center of the U.S. military? Even the
Soviet Union couldn't inflict billions of dollars in damage to the
U.S. economy in a single day.
(3) In some ways stateless terrorists can be more dangerous than
past conventional threats. Autocrats in some Middle East countries
allow indirect financial and psychological support for al Qaeda
terrorists without leaving footprints of their intent. They must
assume a single terrorist strike could kill thousands of Americans
without our ability to strike back at their capitals. This
inability to tie a state to its support for terrorism is our
greatest obstacle in this war -- and our enemies' greatest
advantage.
(4) Jihadists have already scored successes in all sorts of ways
beyond altering the very nature of air travel. Cartoonists now
lampoon everyone and everything -- except Muslims. The pope must
weigh his words carefully. Otherwise, priests and nuns are attacked
abroad. A single false Newsweek story about one flushed Koran led
to riot and death. The net result is that terrified millions in
Western societies silently accept that for the first time in
centuries they cannot talk or write honestly about what they think
of Islam and the Koran.
(5) Everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water plants
depend on sophisticated computers and communications. And you don't
need a missile to take them down. Two oceans no longer protect the
United States -- not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our
borders are relatively wide open, and dozens of ships dock and
hundreds of flights arrive daily.
A germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas could cause
as much mayhem and calamity as an armored division in Adolf
Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered rational enemies who
accepted the bleak laws of nuclear deterrence. But jihadists claim
they welcome death if their martyrdom kills thousands of
Americans.
Finally, radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich Middle
East. Since September 11, 2001, the price of oil has skyrocketed,
transferring trillions of dollars from successful Western, Indian
and Chinese economies to unsuccessful Arab and Iranian
autocracies.
Terrorists know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting
control of Iraqi petroleum reserves -- and they attempt both all
the time -- will alter the world economy. Even their mere threats
give us psychological fits and their sponsors more cash.
This is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack convince
some that the real danger has passed. And when we kill jihadists
abroad, we are told it is peripheral to the war or only incites
more terrorism.
But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic
terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until
Middle Eastern dictatorships reform -- or we end their oil
stranglehold over the world economy.
