| Editorial
Flight
263
 By
John H. Stuart
This was Pan Am 103 following
its destruction by a bomb in 1988. Only luck, incompetence by the terrorist
and the heroic effort of one passenger prevented Delta 263 from a similar
fate this past Christmas day. United 93 and 175 and American 11 and 77
were used as bombs during the attacks of 9/11. The failed Bojinka Plot
planned by Khalid Sheik Mohammad to occur in January 1995 involved the
downing of twelve airliners and the demise of possibly 4000 passengers.
As an icon of modern day travel, the civilized world’s technology and an
expression of one of our many freedoms, radical Islamist terrorists continue
to focus their efforts on bringing down airplanes.
Following the attempted Delta
bombing, a steady procession of administration officials have issued statements
ranging from the ridiculous ("the system worked") to late but welcomed
admission ("systemic failure") in connection with protocols that
exist to protect the American public. Subsequently, we are told that security
programs are to be re-assessed, new measures implemented and the end product
will result in the restoration of safety and confidence for this important
mode of transportation. That is reassuring until the next airliner event,
which according to the laws of probability, will result in a very bad day
for some travelers and those that might be unfortunate enough to be situated
under the flight path.
But, playing defense is a
very costly and difficult endeavor, particularly when protective measures
are either based on a false premise (criminal as opposed to ideological)
or constrained by political correctness. Two quotes aptly summarize this
dilemma:
"Any government can through
laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses
to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy --
jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into
a governing philosophy." (Charles Krauthammer in Human Events)
"Terrorists only have to
be lucky once, we have to be lucky all the time." (IRA’s spokesman, P.
O’Neill following the Brighton bombing in 1984 in an attempt to assassinate
Margaret Thatcher).
Unfortunately, the failed Delta
bombing by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has been described by our President
as having been perpetrated by an ‘isolated extremist’ while failing to
note that Abdulmutallab was an Islamic jihadist; had been mentored by Anwar
al-Awlaki, the American born Wahhabist imam who also counseled Major Nidal
Hasan
before the Ft. Hood massacre; and that since September 2001 more than 14,500
acts of terror have been conducted worldwide by Islamic terrorists. These
oversights or misrepresentations contribute to the public’s misunderstanding
of the threat we face --- war and the involvement of radical Islam.
Succinctly stated, Abdulmutallab
and Hasan are jihadists, practioners of radical Islam and have engaged
in acts of war by any reasonable definition. History shows that the West
has been at war with the militant segment of Islam for nearly 1400 years.
Yet rather than stating the obvious source of the threat, politicians and
the media engage in the use of misleading and incorrect terms to describe
the jihadist such as extremist, fanatic, fringe element or hijacker of
his/her religion. Our obsession with pathologies such as political correctness,
multi-culturialism and moral equivalence increase the risk to our safety.
Additionally, our growing reliance on international organizations such
as the UN and other NGO’s only exacerbates our war fighting position. Failure
to correctly name our enemy serves to aid and abet his cause. Our inability
to "connect the dots" also contributes to our vulnerabilities.
Deeds and words confirm that
the jihadist’s actions are the product of strict religious doctrine, the
focus of which is to conquer us by war or drive us into submission in order
to reinstitute Shar’ia law. Jihadists understand that they are compelled
to carry out terror acts against non-believers until their goals are achieved
and routinely cite specific Qur’anic scripture that is considered by all
Muslims to be eternal and immutable.
Americans who believe
that we can deter, contain or react ex post facto to jihadist terrorist
acts delude themselves. Those who cannot accept the reality that we are
at war actively aid and abet our enemies. Extending an ‘open hand’ to Middle
Eastern adversaries is viewed as a sign of weakness and is provocative
as well. For the jihadist compromise is not an option.
Our abilities
to defend ourselves are further diminished when we treat acts of war as
criminal activities, extend habeas corpus as well as other Constitutional
privileges to unlawful enemy combatants and refuse to use enhanced interrogation
techniques when we capture them.
We cannot defeat what we
refuse to define. We cannot win this war with self-imposed restrictions
which degrade our military efforts while our adversary ignores conventional
laws of war and the protection of innocent life. Finally, for war to end
there has to be a winner and a loser. If we continue along the present
path, we doom ourselves to lose.
Wake up America! Otherwise,
the portent for the future is bleak.
John H. Stuart is an Advisory
Board member of the Defenders Council of Vermont.
# # # # #
|
