Physical Safe Haven for Terrorists
Submitted by Douglas Farah on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 15:37
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionDouglas Farah
Paul Pillar, former deputy CIA counter-terrorism chief, wrote an interesting op-ed in Wednesday’s Washington Post posing an important question regarding the Afghanistan conflict:
Whether preventing a safe haven in Afghanistan would reduce the terrorist threat to the United States enough from what it otherwise would be to offset the required expenditure of blood and treasure and the barriers to success in Afghanistan, including an ineffective regime and sagging support from the population. Thwarting the creation of a physical haven also would have to offset any boost to anti-U.S. terrorism stemming from perceptions that the United States had become an occupier rather than a defender of Afghanistan.
Clearly, Pillar is arguing that the answer is Afghanistan is not worth the price, given those terms of debate. One of his main points is that the preparations most important to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States. Here is where I disagree. Clearly, training camps are not of paramount importance to terrorist groups, and the Internet provides a fluid and almost risk-free way to communicate both ideologically and personally, and physical safe havens are not as vital to many aspects of the terrorist threat as they were before 9/11. But it misses a key point to dismiss their importance to the degree Pillar does. Almost all the personal ties and connections that were formed among those who have carried out different terrorist attacks took place because the actors had a place where they met each other, understood that they were not alone in their vision of jihad, and built relationships of trust. This is fundamental to any cadre, and something that virtual exchanges simply cannot replace. The meetings in the hotel rooms and apartments were possible because of the bond of trust forged in a broader common experience. People are seldom motivated to act based on the Internet alone. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramsey Yousef, the 1998 Embassy bombers, Bali bombers and the current group of foreign recruits in Somalia all share a tie that could never be forged outside of being in a battlefield and fighting the infidel. Those who undergo the same experiences (training, combat, deprivation, communal living etc.), even if they do not do it together, share a bond that cyperspace simply cannot bridge. It is the building of community that is vital in moving someone from interest in jihad to actual involvement. It is also worth remembering the cross-training and learning experiences that safe havens provide. Hezbollah and al Qaeda exchanged “lessons learned” and technology when bin Laden was in Sudan. Sudan itself was the great mixing bowl for all radical Islamist groups, under the guidance of al Turabi and the Muslim Brotherhood, allowing Hamas and Hezbollah, PIJ and al Qaeda a safe meeting ground that enhanced the operational capacities of each and forged the bonds that still are relevant today. I think the analysis also overlooks the importance, in jihadist theology, of a physical caliphate or space that is considered a true Muslim nation or divine kingdom on earth. Hence the fight in Somalia, Afghanistan etc. It is not so much about conquering space to create safe havens as it is to establish the rule of Allah on earth, and eventually, spreading that rule over the entire earth. Safe havens make jihadists stronger. The cost of denying them is high, and Pillar is right that the case has not yet been publicly made for that in Afghanistan. It is time to seriously consider whether it can be made. FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Douglas Farah is an award-winning investigative journalist and Senior Fellow in Financial Investigations and Transparency at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. E-mail him at doug@douglasfarah.com.
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States.
What a joke !! Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took place in training camps in PAKISTAN or one can say Porkystan. And those training camps are active till now. Only a radioactive 9/11 can help waking up the Americans.
Have a nice dream with Hussain Obama : Americans.
Where ther'es a mosque
Where ther'es a mosque there's a safe haven/breeding ground for terrorists.
Yes,Terrorists are using the internet to communicate & recruit,but it is also their worst nightmare.
Because we,the freedom loving people are using the internet to expose the psycopath Muhammad & his Quran(terror manual).
So it's important for all of us to support anti-Islamic organizations & websites.
YouTube is another powerful tool for us to use & futher injure the Beast called Islam.
India offers the safest
India offers the safest heaven for jihadis with all kinds of Leftists, socialists, secularists on their side.
Well, maybe trying to deny
Well, maybe trying to deny all Islamic or Theocratic imperialists safe havens is indeed not doable. And maybe the price for trying it is indeed too high. I see Pillar’s point. Safe havens on earth may still be procured in many places, maybe also in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan etc.
But liberating people who are a bit ready for democracy, who then can be under worldwide divers influence, whose children can then be well educated and in future become more prosperous, maybe that is worthwhile to fight for?
But I speculate that we can allow Muslims all-Muslim-Sharia-states provided that they in turn let all the people leave there who want to abide by different, democratic laws. In this way they can practice Khalifates on a voluntary basis, let them experiment with that. And we can hold these khalifates more easily responsible because all its inhabitants are there voluntarily (except their children).
And I speculate further that we can provide somehow land in remote places to all those who want to leave Islamic countries. There are too many of its citizens that would vote with their feet out of their countries to accommodate in current democratic countries. But in remote areas we can create cities, which do not need vast areas and we can have contracts before entering these cities that democracy will be upheld in all its important rules. With the right to deport anyone who wants to topple the democratic system. That way ever more Muslims would be IN freedom-of-speech-areas, democratic-practice-areas, economic-growth-areas etc and that would influence them FOR democracy more than the atmosphere in Islamic countries where there is predominantly one-sided propaganda, combined with often low education-levels for the children.
It is a very costly, long-winding operation, but so is the fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
The equation is simple.Moslem
The equation is simple.Moslem sumbags are willing to die and kill for islam and pimp allah an d rapist mohammad in large numbers.
How many of the freedom loving and democratic people are even willing to consider this murdering and mayhem as an option against moslems? Zilch.So islam will win in due course and that will be the end of the world as we know.
Well thought out article, it
Well thought out article, it is really pitiful that we as sane human beings have to share the only world we have with the a large population of people whose thinking is severely altered towards barbarism, an average Muslim sees the world in Muslim versus kafir perspective, no matter how nice s/he might appear, try telling them how it is better to live together in a peaceful world with everyone as brothers and sisters and you will start hearing the bigotry in them, to them, it is the west that will never allow human prosperity, to them, peace is achieved only through the Islamic ways, no matter how much hybridization we make with governments to accommodate the Muslims, there will always be dissatisfaction from them, the only time these inordinately ignorant people will be pleased will be when the world's powerful nations become the Arab countries, they just hate the fact that the non-Muslims are on top.
Demsci, you wrote: "But
Demsci, you wrote:
"But liberating people who are a bit ready for democracy, who then can be under worldwide divers influence, whose children can then be well educated and in future become more prosperous, maybe that is worthwhile to fight for?"
I think they need to be a rather more than a "bit ready" fo democracy. Consider the nature of the "democractic" election in Afghanistan recently. The only thing "democratic" about it seems to be that the votes went to the highest bidder (in general), while some voters (in keeping with the fine Afghani tradition of treachery) took money from Kharzi's main opponent and then voted Kharzi anyway.
Alternatively the 'men' (and I use the term loosely, you understand) voted for all eligible voters in their households, thereby depriving women of the vote.
In some cases the village or tribe chief told everybody how to vote!
(See BBC reporting on this)
The only thing they weren't interested in it seems was who was to "run the country" in Kabul.
---
That said, I do agree with the thrust of your post Demsci.
Spot on, BustedDivinity. The "Dar-ul-Islam" and the "Dar-ul-Harb" is how Muslims see the world and the fact that the "Dar-ul-Islam" is mostly very backward or (for the oil rich) built on foreign technology etc just rubs salt into their 'wounds'.