Terror Musings

Watching a History Channel presentation on the Ku Klux Klan yesterday, I was struck by a few thoughts.

According to the special, the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown versus Board of Education decision sparked a revival of the waning Klan that had been on a downward spiral since its peak in the 1920s. The ruling unified the Klan in its unwavering purpose: to prevent blacks from exercising their rights as full citizens.

The Klan’s hatred and fear of blacks fueled a ramp-up of violence in the South and that violence culminated at several points. Among the most widely publicized were the 16th Street Baptist Church murders, the Schwerner—Cheney—Goodman murders and, much later, the Michael Donald murder (warning: graphic). These and other murders involved bombings of public places, ambushes on lonesome roads, hidden snipers or more “traditional” lynching methods after which the body was left hanging in a plain view.

Today’s international terrorists have many similarities to our domestic terrorists of old. Today’s terrorists kill in secret but leave their victims’ bodies by the side of the road or hanging in public view, as was so in the cases of the Blackwater Four and of Nicholas Berg (warning: even more graphic). They also murder international envoys sent in peace, just as our terrorists murdered prominent peacemakers.

Are there any differences between the two groups? Our terrorists terrorized in the name of keeping the “right” to oppress others and keep them cowed and in poverty. But why would they want to keep another group down?

Today’s terror apologists would have the world believe that contemporary terrorists blow up liberating armies, public conveyance, and the school children of their own kinsmen in order to throw off oppression and escape poverty.

However, that’s not what the terrorists themselves say:

Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

Those are the words of the rich, well-born founder of Al Qaeda, What’s-His-Name and those words were put into practice most notoriously by nineteen mostly rich, mostly well-born members of his flock. Even more, his words have taken hold in the minds of many of his poor, oppressed co-religionists. But who is doing the oppressing?

What is stopping the average citizen of the oil-rich Arab Muslim nations from being as “blessed” as is the Infidel?

Instead of being honest with themselves, both yesterday’s and today’s terrorists choose to believe their own imaginings rather than face their own shortcomings and/or those of their leaders. Instead of acknowledging reality and doing something about that, they set themselves up as superior to the hated group and view that group as a) dangerous or b) blasphemous. They set up their toy enemy soldiers only to knock them down. The only problem is that the toy soldiers are living, breathing human beings.

Three years before I thought of any of this, however, some guy named Lee Harris wrote an essay about it for the Hoover Institute.

The terror attack of 9-11 was not designed to make us alter our policy, but was crafted for its effect on the terrorists themselves: It was a spectacular piece of theater. The targets were chosen by al Qaeda not through military calculation — in contrast, for example, to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor — but entirely because they stood as symbols of American power universally recognized by the Arab street. They were gigantic props in a grandiose spectacle in which the collective fantasy of radical Islam was brought vividly to life: A mere handful of Muslims, men whose will was absolutely pure, as proven by their martyrdom, brought down the haughty towers erected by the Great Satan. What better proof could there possibly be that God was on the side of radical Islam and that the end of the reign of the Great Satan was at hand?

In the last post, I guessed that it would be unlikely that al Qaeda would use a WMD on the West because of how strategically stupid it would be. But after seeing the Klan special and reading the Harris essay, I’m no longer so sure. For, in order to make that type of calculation, a certain amount of rationality would have to exist. I don’t think it does.

It may be that it is just as useless to appease the Islamists as it was to appease the Klan. Why? Because the only thing that you can give the Islamists is something you don’t want to give them: the fulfillment of their fantasies and that does not involve dispensing Balkan- or Somali-style humanitarian aid or anything else so mundane. (The lack gratitude for either of these adventures should tell us that.)

The fantasy ideologies of the twentieth century, after all, spread like a virus in susceptible populations: Their propagation was not that suggested by John Stuart Mill’s marketplace of ideas — fantasy ideologies were not debated and examined, weighed and measured, evaluated and compared. They grew and spread like a cancer in the body politic. For the people who accepted them did not accept them as tentative or provisional. They were unalterable and absolute. And finally, after driving out all other competing ideas and ideologies, they literally turned their host organism into the instrument of their own poisonous and deadly will.

The will, that is, to see you converted, dead or enslaved and to see the entire world as an Islamic one; I have my doubts as to whether that will be on any future G8 agenda.

If it is so that the Islamists are attempting to bring their own fantasy Islamic world into existence—just as KKK types tried to bring about and still dream of having their fantasy white world--then all this talk about pulling back forces and helping them eradicate poverty is a waste of time. The KKK was neutralized only because this country was created on certain principles and its people—educated on those principles—could be shamed. That is not so for the majority of Islamists and those who are gullible enough to believe them.

Stopping them may involve some methods of awakening that are uglier than any of us wants to contemplate. Ask the Japanese.

(Thanks to Diggers Realm)

Comments

[Grim]

I think I've mentioned this, but I grew up in a part of Georgia where the Klan was welcome -- they used to hand out literature on the courthouse square, and didn't bother wearing masks at all.

On the other hand, Klan membership in the area was (I am given to understand) quite low, for the same reason that the Klan wasn't seen as dangerous. The area was almost completely devoid of blacks. Nobody much cared about the Klan either way, as a result -- their preaching didn't do any immediate harm (because there was no one to harm), and neither did it strike any obvious chords with the community (because there was no chord to strike).

In time, as I grew up, I saw them become fewer and fewer, and finally they disappeared altogether. The wave of tolerance and anti-racist thinking that had been growing in America finally reached even to rural Georgia. There were (and, I'm sure, are) still rabid racists out there, but they no longer felt that they could express their racism in public. It's been many years now since I've seen a Klansman.

You mention that KKK membership had been on the sharp decline since the 1920s, and was spurred greatly by Brown. That created a wave of recruitment and violence in the cities that had to be put down with main force. And that, obviously, is one way to succeed against terrorist organizations.

But then there is this other way -- of letting them die out. In places where they aren't really causing any actual harm, we succeeded with far fewer problems simply by letting them run out of steam. The FBI still infiltrated them, of course, to make sure they weren't planning any real violence -- but they were allowed to carry on expressing their hatred in nonviolent ways. Eventually, growing prosperity and changing attitudes eliminated their base of support.

The two strategies worked in combination with each other -- the Feds didn't shy from confrontation when confrontation was needed, but were happy to use quiet infiltration and tolerance when it would work.

Food for thought, I think, in terms of the current problem we face. There are places where these groups need to be eradicated; but there may be places where we can more usefully infiltrate them, but otherwise leave them alone and concentrate on other business. Improving the democratic status of local Islamic communities, and their economic prosperity, may do more in some cases than direct confrontation.

I'm thinking of places like Banda Aceh, for example -- places full of Islamist wrath, but empty of anyone who isn't a Muslim. Much like in the parts of rural Georgia where I grew up, the Islamists there are probably more engaged in burning up their own energy than in actually accomplishing harm. Economic aid, and attention to democracy concerns, may be just the ticket in some of these cases.

In any event, I thought I would mention all this. It seems to me that this may not be an either/or solution -- that there may be a case, and even a strong case, for a two-pronged approach.

[Francis W. Porretto]

The truly terrifying thing about modern Islamic terrorism is that it recognizes no bounds: first and most obvious, on whom it shall target, but second and more devastatingly, on the price it's willing to pay to inflict damage on its enemy.

All of conflict studies is premised on the assumption that your adversary wants to live and prosper. By implication, there's a maximum price he's willing to pay to hurt you. That's not true of today's terrorists -- which puts them beyond all hope of defeat by any method but extinction.

Let's get on with it.

[Cobb]

Schneier's 'Beyond Fear' is excellent on this topic. I'll write more extensively later, but one of the things to remember is that when even a very small number of individuals are willing to take extreme measures for their purposes, there is a rationality. It's just not rational from the perspective of risk that someone in the middle class or even organized crime might deem acceptable. When self-destruction is an acceptable cost, it changes the battlefield, but in ways that can be predicted.

[baldilocks]

Grim: your description of the Klan dying out reminds me of the reports of WWII Japanese soldiers hiding out in the jungles of the PI for 50 years while the world moves on without their knowledge. It's not a perfect analogy of course, because--unlike those old soldiers--the Islamists aren't content to stay in their strongholds; they want the world, literally and figuratively.

Cobb: Thanks. Sometimes I forget that the evil have a rationality that is unthinkable to most of the rest of us. I sometimes even forget it when I'm typing an essay about it. :-)

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

Great, sobering stuff, Baldilocks. You'd probably appreciate this, too:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8414

[Jay]

Are there any differences between the two groups? I don't think I see any. I just found your site, love it, and will be coming back often.

[AH·C]

"Stopping them may involve some methods of awakening that are uglier than any of us wants to contemplate. Ask the Japanese."

Methinks that day will come sooner or later, but nevertheless inevitable.

[Steven J. Kelso Sr.]

A coward is a coward--in no matter what age.

[Christina]

Having a pinging problem. I apologize for the multiple pings...

[Ben-David]

"Stopping them may involve some methods of awakening that are uglier than any of us wants to contemplate. Ask the Japanese."
- - - - - - - - -
It also involves knowledge of our own culture, and the proud sense of self that gives strength in battle.

We are unfortunately living through this in Israel. We have all the materiel we need to vanquish our enemies, but our will is being sapped by leftists who are deeply ambivalent about their Jewishness - and project that into assertions that the Israel's existence is illegitimate.

Sound familiar?

Look at the enormous inequity between the 2 sides of this cultural conflict. Sure oil has brought a lot of money and clout - but it's still not comparable to the vibrancy, diversity, and wealth of the West.

That Islam has gotten so far indicates a crisis of will in the West.

It has been most interesting to see the light bulbs go on in my Israeli coworkers' heads over the past 15 bloodsoaked years of Oslo - the realization that the left/liberal elite not only did not have the answers or leadership savvy that they projected, but that they were in a spiral of self-hatred, destroying the country their grandparents had built.

Hopefully more light bulbs will go on in London and Europe these next few weeks.