Russia has recently suffered bloody attacks on airplanes, a subway and a school in response to its harsh suppression of Chechen self-determination. Israel has once again suffered bus bombings in retaliation for its occupation of Arab lands. Could the United States be the next victim of another catastrophic strike against its homeland for the occupation of an Islamic nation?
From the horrendous Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, one would think U.S. policymakers would have learned that radical Islamists are inflamed to commit terrorist acts by infidel intervention in and occupation of Muslim lands. This issue is Osama bin Ladens main gripe against the United States, and he has not hidden it. (Even former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently contradicted President Bushs assertion that the United States is attacked for who we are, not what we do.)
It is also what drove Islamic jihadists from around the world to Afghanistan in the 1980s to beat back the Soviet invasion and what now drives the zealous Chechen attacks on the Russians and the vigorous Palestinian strikes against Israel.
Islam requires that all Muslims do what they can to defend Islamic lands when under attack from non-Muslims. To defeat profiling techniques by security forces, even Islamic women have become involved in jihadist attacks against the Russians and Israelis.
Thus, it should be no surprise that radical Islamists have flocked to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the U.S. occupation of those nations. In Iraq, U.S. forces are fighting for control of the Sunni cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra with Islamist insurgents. Although for the time being, the U.S. military caused the withdrawal of Shiite radical forces from the southern cities of Najaf and Karbala, it also had to withdraw. Many of the Shiite radicals kept their weapons and lived to fight another dayperhaps in the Baghdad slum of Sadr City.
There is no question that the most powerful military in the world could take these cities back. If the tradition of U.S. warfare since Ulysses S. Grant were followed, the massive U.S. advantage in firepower would be used to blast those towns back into the stone age, kill their jihadist occupiers and occupy them in total victory. Unfortunately, the Vietnam War showed that those tactics do not work in a guerrilla war in which the enemy uses the civilian population for cover and support.
Retaking the towns would likely kill many civilians and turn the all-important Iraqi popular opinion decisively against the United States. The U.S. military is trying to avoid a Vietnam-like outcome in which the massive use of U.S. firepower turned the population against U.S. forces.
On the other hand, allowing the Islamic insurgents to control some Iraqi towns appears to show U.S. weakness. Like Vietnam, the United States is in but doesnt know how to win.
Since the Iraq war began, August was the worst month for the wounding of U.S. soldiersa better indicator of the increasing ferocity of the fighting than the number killed. But the tragedy of more than 1,000 U.S. service people dead and another 7,000 wounded to date in the conflict may not be the worst outcome from the invasion and occupation of an Islamic nation.
The continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has inflamed radical Islamic passions all over the worldbringing in money and recruitsand could lead Islamists to further attack the U.S. homeland. Al-Qaida has been more active since Sept. 11 than it was beforehand and could very well try to inflict as much pain on the United States as the Chechens recently did on the Russians.
What happened in Russia should be a warning to the United States.
The harsh reality is that Russia, Israel and the United States must expect further attempts by Islamist terrorists to attack their soil until the underlying cause of the terrorism is removedinfidel meddling in and occupation of Islamic lands.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.|
A candid reassessment of the presidential scorecard over the past 100 years, identifying the hypocrisy of those who promised to limit government while giving due credit when presidents lived up to their rhetoric.