The Old Is New
January 9, 2004
As a culture, we Americans can be a bit short-sighted and impatient. We complain that fast food isn’t fast enough. We tend to lose the historical perspective. For example, I know the answer to this question, which baffles most Americans: “How many days were the hostages held at the US Embassy in Tehran, Iran?” It’s a very easy number to remember. I also remember what date the embassy was stormed, what day of the week it was, and what other key terrorist event (also by Iranians) happened at the same time.
The point of the above is not to qualify me as a “Jeopardy” contestant. The point is to demonstrate that most Americans don’t keep a grip on historical facts, even though they often affect our future. How I wish that Americans could rattle off historical facts the way Joe Sixpack can rattle off sports statistics. (And — unless you’re engaged in gambling — sports statistics won’t affect your future, anyway.)
As reported recently by WorldNetDaily, our intelligence and security services are worried about a “new” terrorist threat. Apparently, some members of our government are surprised to discover that not all terrorist operatives are Arab males. In our age of “enlightened” equality between the sexes, perhaps those intelligence analysts should be given further “sensitivity training”, so that they will come to realize that not all women are made of sugar and spice, etc.
From a more serious angle, though, intelligence analysts need to keep in mind what really motivates our enemies. Ultimately, one of their biggest motivators is envy (see the last five paragraphs of Tammy Bruce’s recent MND article for another angle on this). They are powerfully envious of the America that President Reagan called “a shining city upon a hill”. It galls Leftist radicals that free citizens can choose their own leaders, and discharge them in an orderly fashion if we are not happy with their performance. Imagine what might have happened with the oil wealth of Iraq if they had this freedom.
Oh, did I say “Leftist radicals”? But, isn’t this about terrorism? Read on.
In a recent article, entitled “Louder Than Words”, I demonstrated that the actions of tyrannical regimes and their terrorist henchmen stem from Leftist leanings. The article also described how religious sentiments are inextricably linked to Islamist terrorism. The war of “the prince of this world [system]” (John 12:31) against the “king of all the earth” (Psalm 47:7) is an all-encompassing struggle. Nations are caught in this struggle, and it stretches throughout history. To ignore this fact is to ignore the true root of the problem.
Because deeply-held religious sentiments (which are sometimes different from beliefs, but that’s another topic) are at the root of the problem, a purely pragmatic approach to the problem of terrorism will not work. Our country cannot bribe away a lifetime of anticipation of 72 virgins, for example. And, sentiments usually hold even stronger sway with women than they do with men. If a woman grows up in misery and poverty, and is told that killing her “oppressors” will earn her a direct flight to Heaven, then it should not surprise anyone that women have been recruited as suicide bombers.
For this reason, I’m somewhat under-impressed that a Homeland Security intelligence report – titled “Al-Qaida Use of Non-Arab and Female Terror Operatives” – notes that, “Non-Arab al-Qaida operatives could find it easier to avoid unwanted scrutiny since they may not fit typical profiles.” Hello! As I wrote in a “9-11” anniversary article, Osama bin-Laden is not a stupid man — he is an evil man. Did our analysts expect the terrorists to wear a uniform? The essence of terrorist operations is to blend in with the target population until the last possible moment before an attack. Therefore, it should not surprise anyone if al-Qaida is actively recruiting blonde-haired, blue-eyed nitwits to join their cause. And, where will they find them? The connections already exist, and have existed for much longer than most people realize.
One of the first modern sources to document the interlocking and cooperative nature of terrorist groups was the 1980 classic, “The Crimson Web of Terror”. Disparate groups have pooled their resources to “subvert the dominant paradigm” in various ways for decades. One of the groups at the center of European terrorism in the 1970s was the Baader-Meinhof Gang, which operated in Germany. The group lived on (after the suicides of its founders) as the Red Army Faction (RAF) and attacked the headquarters of the US Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) at Ramstein Air Base. (I was at a briefing about the bombing, back when the information was still classified.) It was well known at that time that European terrorist groups, such as the RAF, were working with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and their splinters; and, that both of those umbrella groups were training at camps in scattered locations across North Africa. Those camps, of course, were operated by Islamist terror groups, such as the groups headed by Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. Certain countries — notably Libya, Chad, and Sudan — were supportive of those training camps.
Most people, even if they are fairly well-informed on terrorism, think that such cooperation started about twenty years ago. There are indications, however, that IRA groups secretly cooperated with the Nazis during World War Two, because they viewed a Nazi defeat of the British as a means of freeing Ireland from British rule. (The famous Arab proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” would apply in that case.) Twenty years ago, I was aware of this connection, but — until now — I have not had unclassified sources available to support my assertion. According to the news account linked above, the British government had just declassified the two files on that topic about six weeks ago.
Most news outlets downplay the role of women in terrorism, and the fact that it has a long history. You see, the commission of heinous acts by female terrorist operatives — who would be considered “empowered” by their culture’s standards — does not come across well in newsrooms that support the “empowerment” of women. Another point that does not play well in Left-leaning newsrooms is the concept that women terrorists, like women in general, tend to base decisions on emotions of the moment. Thus, in the eyes of a female terrorist leader, burning down a department store is a suitable response to a police shooting. (Did they fail to honor her expired coupon the week before?) The absolute lack of logic in such a decision is frightening — both to an anti-terrorist planner, and to a pro-feminist editor, but for vastly different reasons. Thus, even our own government’s analysts are apparently taken by surprise when the idea of a female operative is considered. The surprise was apparently so great that a special report had to be issued. And — despite having sections entitled “Understanding the Threat” and “The Blind Spots of Terrorism” — there is no word of the special role of female operatives in this statement to the “9-11” Commission.
Clearly, both political and operational leaders in the War Against Terrorism (WAT) need to expand their thinking beyond the “traditional” expectations of conventional security planning. Long before people grow up into such leadership roles, they have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the emotion-based concept that all women are “sugar and spice, and everything nice”. Such an adjustment in thinking is not a new requirement. For example, it took many robberies before US law enforcement officials during the Great Depression finally realized that Bonnie Parker was the partner — not the hostage — of Clyde Barrow. Once that realization was made, it wasn’t long before “Bonnie and Clyde” met their end in an ambush that involved shotguns and machineguns. Photos of the blood-splashed car served as a crime deterrent for years afterward. Our government needs to revive the type of thinking that stopped Bonnie and Clyde.
Oh, by the way, for those of you that are wondering about the “trivia” question in the opening paragraph: The US Embassy in Tehran was stormed by state-supported college radicals on 04 November 1979. Here in the States, that was a Sunday, and it happened around noon Eastern Time. (Was it timed to insult American Christians, who were just getting out of church at that time? Probably.) The hostages were held for 444 days, ending during the inauguration speech of President Ronald Reagan on 20 January 1981. (See my unpublished article, “The Couric Lie”, for more about the timing of the hostage release.) And, at the same time as the storming of the embassy, Iranian nationals stormed the torch of the Statue of Liberty, and burned an American flag (after the news helicopters showed up, of course). That is why no one is allowed to go up into the torch anymore, to this day. I can rattle off those facts any time, day or night, because America’s security is more important to me than sports statistics. That’s why, apparently, some of our government’s analysts think the old is new. For me, the “new” is obviously the same old thing.
Now, what will we do about it?
