Terror's Next Wave?
The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud--who likely planned the assassination of Benazir Bhutto--has claimed credit for yesterday's horrific attack at the Pakistani police academy near Lahore, and he is threatening similar attacks in Washington:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.
This is not an insignificant threat: U.S. intelligence officials have been worried since the Mumbai slaughter in December that a new wave of low-tech terrorist attacks are in the offing, less spectacular that 9/11--but horrific nonetheless. "We've been lucky, if you can call it that, that Al Qaeda has been fixated on duplicating spectacular plots like 9/11," one intelligence expert told me. "But these latest attacks may be a sign that we're facing a new sort of threat."
The Mumbai effort required no local infrastructure--no sleeper cells in India, nothing more than a few boats to ferry the attackers into Mumbai harbor, plus communications equipment and smalls arms. Similarly, and unlike the elaborate planning that preceded 9/11, Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists could sneak across the porous Mexican or Canadian borders and hit a shopping mall, a government building, a sports event, a school anywhere in the United States. The effect of such an attack--the immediate call to beef up security everywhere--would be staggering.
Our enemies may have increased motivation now that President Obama has focused on the Taliban safe havens in Northwest Pakistan, and has also decided to put increased pressure on Pakistan--especially its Army and intelligence services--to stop aiding the terrorists. Obama's low-key reasonableness has the extremists on the defensive and more likely to try to change the conversation with new attacks
Secretary of State Clinton has now acknowledged that the War on Terror is not the Administration's preferred term of art. She's right about that--calling the discrete campaign against the band of Islamic extremists who attacked us in 2001 a "war" gave Osama bin Laden and his pals a stature they didn't deserve. It was too imprecise, too wantonly inclusive. It slopped over into unrelated problems, like North Korea--and to jurisdictional fights, like the Arab-Israeli battle, in which terror has been used as a means to achieve a very specific goal.
But even though we may not call it a "war," that doesn't mean the struggle, or the bloodshed, is close to being over. Obama's new Af/Pak strategy is a necessary move, but not necessarily a safe one, however.
Update: I don't know what to make of this response from Michael Goldfarb, noxious neocon. If he doesn't somehow understand that an intensification of pressure on our real enemies, Al Qaeda and the Taliban--eight years after Bush
let them off the hook--might result in some blowback, he's dreaming. If he doesn't understand that Obama's calm and reasonable demeanor represents a much greater threat to the extremists in the court of world opinion than Bush's cowboy bluster, he has a limited imagination. If you put those two factors together with a possible turn toward more rudimentary, less spectacular terrorist attacks like Mumbai, you have an increased possibility of trouble here.
And if, God forbid, those attacks come, you know who'll be first in line blaming Obama for "not keeping us safe" like Bush. But then, Goldfarb is interested in distortion and smears, not argument.
-
1
Joe, the Bush Administration ramped up the Pred strikes against Taliban in NW Pak. I think you're puffing up Obama's policy a wee bit.
-
2
Terrorists get exactly what they want every time somebody is terrified. The answer is to put their attacks, and the possibility of their attacks in perspective. For example, every year tobacco smoking causes something like 400,000 deaths. Drinking causes another 120,000. Tens of thousands die in car accidents and suicides. Thousands die in murders. And people everywhere start sh!tting their pants after some terrorists kill a few dozen. Where's the perspective? 3,000 people died in the WTC attack. How many people died that year of easily preventable diseases like the flu or diarrhea? And yet 2 or 3 trillion dollars and thousands more lives were spent to invade foreign countries in order to prevent, what, another terrorist attack that would claim less lives than the annual death toll of people who fail to buckle their seat belts?
.
That psychopath in Pakistan has delusions of grandeur. He thinks he can influence world policy by threatening to kill a few dozen or even a few hundred people in America? What a maroon. Kill a few tens of millions like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, and I'll be worried. Kill a few dozen? Big whup!
.
And yet. Americans have been trained to care about these terrorists by a media and a political establishment that profit from their fear. What once would not have even made front page news suddenly becomes a key, pivotal issue in the election for the President of the United States, the leader of the free world. Who are the real terrorists? If the definition of a terrorist is someone who terrorises, I'd say it's the media and the politicians just as much as any extremist in a cave or madras. Blaring articles about orange alerts and graphic images of the results of terrorist attacks is the real problem here. What the media is doing is like screaming fire in a crowded movie theatre because one ignorant jackass decides to light up a cigarette. -
3
spob--Just to be clear. I support the Predator policy, and special ops in the Northwest Frontier Areas. The Predators have been quite effective, and more accurate than much of the bombing on the Afghan side of the border, which has been poorly and hastily planned on the basis of informaton less sound than the CIA is using--apparently--in Pakistan.
In any case, though, the Predators are a sideshow: the real threat to Al Qaeda is an America that doesn't behave badly, doesn't shoot first and negotiate later, doesn't harbor a neocolonial disdain toward Muslims. Deprived of a Great Satan, the jihadis have little reason to exist.
-
4
Always wondered why terrorists didn't do that small-scale stuff. This is pretty, well, terrifying.
-
And people everywhere start sh!tting their pants after some terrorists kill a few dozen. Where's the perspective?
-
Unfortunately, nhautamaki, that's not how humans are wired to perceive risks. Something sudden, new, and out of our control is much more likely to stick in our minds. I was shocked to learn that 0-3 people died in the Three Mile Island "disaster." But it scares people because it's new. You can argue that our leaders and the media don't always help us out, and that's true enough, but that's just the way we are. -
5
nhautamaki must be an educated man because only an educated person could be this ignorant.
.The point is that if a terrorist can strike at will, they can put a lot of fear into a lot of people. Yeah, this guy may be blowing smoke. But the thought of terrorists killing large numbers of Americans in random and numerous attacks is a bit chilling, and rightfully so, particularly if they have the means to carry it out (we'll see about that). The two lunatics in DC sowed a lot of fear--was the fear unjustified?
-
6
Americans have been trained to care about these terrorists by a media and a political establishment that profit from their fear
.
The tendency of humans to inflate unlikely sources of fear and ignore common ones is well documented and cannot simply be blamed on the press coverage. I suspect that Baitullah Mehsud is actually very busy dodging missiles and doesn't feel compelled to actually have a plan in place before bragging about it.
.
spob raises an interesting point. Obama's reliance on Predator's is indeed a continuation of a Bushco strategy. The fact that Obama was widely ridiculed for advocationg the same strategy during the campaign seems to have escaped his notice however.
.
I'm still waiting for someone to patiently explain to me, why Pakistan differs from Iraq and Afghanistan in regard to the possibility of the USA operating within it's borders. We had no qualms about leveling city blocks in the hopes that Saddam might be there. What's the difference? -
7
" ... who likely planned the assassination of Benazir Bhutto .."
?
-
8
Joe, I didn't say that you didn't. I just see Obama's NW Pak policy as either a continuation of a sotto voce ramped up Bush policy or a "variation" on a Bush theme. I think you puffed up Obama here. Your response didn't really address that.
.The real threat to al Qaeda is an American that doesn't behave badly? Are you saying that the Clinton Administration behaved badly towards the Muslim world? Al Qaeda grew a lot during the Clinton Administration . . . .
-
9
Elvis, I'd argue that while it's true that Americans today are not wired to percieve risks logically, the relevent question to ask here is 'who's doing the wiring?'
.
People are not born able to logically think about anything. Logical thinking is generally part and parcel of growing up and maturing and getting an education. Unfortunately, the job isn't always completed. Sometimes people remain stubbornly illogical about something because they have not had a proper education or relevent life experience to draw upon. Sometimes forces act upon people to make them even more illogical, to encourage their base, instinctual, illogical lizard brains, and to suppress their higher order capacity for reason. This is certainly the case in the fear of terrorists. It is also the case in intense tribalism; uniting people against a common 'enemy' is the oldest trick in the book for getting them to do what you want. I learned that lesson in grade 3 when I realised I could get kids to stop bullying me for being the small kid by redirecting them to bullying the fat kid. As a resident of China I see how this works in the macrocosm too. Chinese children are trained to hate Japan and mistrust most foreigners on general principle. The fruits of that conditioning were easy to see last year when the Chinese people united ferociously behind their government in support of the brutal crackdown against Tibetan rioters. Never mind that Mao is responsible for probably ten times as many Chinese deaths as the Japanese or any other foreign power; the foreginers are not to be trusted. They just want to keep the Chinese people down. I see the exact same thing in China that I see in America; irrational fear and hatred of foreign 'aggressors' used to control the populace and stay in power. Never mind that more American lives have been lost as result of military action taken subsequent to the WTC attacks. The Muslims hate America damnit, and if you're not with us, you're against us!
.
Realising who is trying to pull the strings and why is the first step to true freedom. Only by understanding the causes of our beliefs, and the likely consequences of our actions, can we conduct ourselves as responsible, mature, productive members of society. -
10
PD, from an international law perspective, the US would be justified in sending troops into Pakistan. A responsibility of sovereignty is that you either have to prevent guerrillas from using your territory as a base from which to attack another country or accept the fact that the other country may elect to deal with the problem itself.
."The fact that Obama was widely ridiculed for advocationg the same strategy during the campaign seems to have escaped his notice however."
.Au contraire. Obama was not widely criticized for advocating the ramping up of Pred strikes, but rather recklessly promising to send US ground forces into Pakistan, which, while legal, doesn't seem to be such a hot idea, given Pakistani possession of nukes, their control of US supply lines etc.
-
11
I'm still waiting for someone to patiently explain to me, why Pakistan differs from Iraq and Afghanistan in regard to the possibility of the USA operating within it's borders. We had no qualms about leveling city blocks in the hopes that Saddam might be there. What's the difference?
.
Paul Dirks, Pakistan has around 150 million people and it's nuclear. Basically, it's more dangerous to bully Pakistan than Iraq because Pakistan is so much more powerful. The consequences of handling Pakistan as badly as Iraq has been handled are almost too horrific to think about. That's why I support a very cautious approach that recognizes things could be a LOT worse than they are in Pakistan. I'm not saying I'm happy that Al Qaeda is hiding out in caves in Pakistan, but let's not forget that they are effectively trapped there. We shouldn't assume that things can only get better in Pakistan; that could turn out to be one of the worst decisions ever.
.
Signing off now... -
12
"I see the exact same thing in China that I see in America; irrational fear and hatred of foreign 'aggressors' used to control the populace and stay in power."
.The Chinese in power also use the barrel of a gun.
-
13
Sounds eerily similar to Osama's warnings that Bush ignored in '01...
-
14
spob is once again flat-out wrong.
.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210003
.
As he was on this topic as well.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066_pf.html
.
You'd think that knowing his track record, he might slow down with the provably false assertions. -
15
spob--yes it was. The two DC lunatics killed probably less people than had died in the same period of time in car accidents in the DC area. People had no more cause to be afraid of them than they had to get into their car.
.
It's like bungee jumping. Naturally it's a fearful experience, but logically, you know that bungee jumping is very safe and accidents very rarely happen. You're no more likely to die bungee jumping than you are to die getting hit by a vehicle as you're walking down the sidewalk. And so yes, that fear may be natural, but it's illogical and it can be overcome. If someone offered you a thousand dollars to do a bungee jump, you'd be highly illogical to turn it down. If you stayed at home and risked losing your job, for example, during the DC shootings, you would be acting highly illogically and if I was your boss, I wouldn't be too happy about it. But then again I'm a really forgiving guy and I'd let it go, which is why I'll probably never make a good boss.
.
If you think that letting foreign policy be dictated by a few psychopaths in caves is logical, I'm afraid that's just insane. The reason that Obama is forced to take this somewhat seriously is because the public has been trained by the fear mongering previous administration and their happy collaborators in the press that need to sell copy and nothing sells like fear to demand that he do so. Luckily, Obama has the advantage of being somewhat competent and intelligent and doesn't need fear to sell his agenda, so hopefully we'll gradually return to some level of sanity. Much to the consternation of the press I'm sure. -
16
@rose83
.
Just to clarify. I'm not actually advocating a more agressive US military posture in Pakisatn. I'm just noting the hypocrisy that's literally built in to our predominant narratives on the subject. -
17
Spob: "The Chinese in power also use the barrel of a gun."
Is that supposed to be an indictment? I mean what does that even mean? You honestly think that Chinese people are less nationalistic than Americans? That the Chinese government only maintains power through the threat of violent force? In the case of the Tibetans; yes. But the overwhelming majority of Chinese people are almost fanatically nationalistic and have a severe 'circle the wagons' complex when it comes to any criticism whatsoever of how the Chinese government runs things.
.
At least you are willing to listen to me and debate with me. If I talked to you this way and you were Chinese, likely you'd be threatening to hunt down my IP address and post my personal information on a website specialising in 'outing' China-haters, so that rabid Chinese nationalists could phone me to harass me 24 hours a day, lobby my boss to fire me, lobby the government to revoke my visa and expel me, or just personally come and kick my ass. -
18
Spob--if you don't believe me, just try making a few posts critical of China in the China blog and see what happens....
-
19
Thank you so very much for responding to commentary, Joe Klein.
.
Staying engaged with your readers is an excellent way to make certain that your reporting is clearly understood, so that proper conclusions can be drawn, and relevant questions can be posed.
.
Thanks again for your important clarification. -
20
Paul Dirks Says:
" .. We had no qualms about leveling city blocks in the hopes that (?) might be there. .."Are you in this case carefully avoiding the use of the word "terror" or the phrase "unleashing terror among innocent civilians"?
.
nhautamaki said:
“That psychopath .. has delusions of grandeur. He thinks he can influence world policy by threatening to kill a few dozen or even a few hundred people in America .. ”
"world policy"?
Do you remember the saying: "We will bomb them back into the stone age!"OurThe west's threats (to unleash holy terror mostly on civilian populations?) and our overt/covert actions around the world does " kill a few dozen or even a few hundred people ".
Can we refer to Nixon/Kissinger's delusions of grandeur in the execution of a 'world policy' in Vietnam?
Well. Sometimes, often times, it works for us. -
21
Commenters:
.
...the real threat to Al Qaeda is an America that doesn't behave badly, doesn't shoot first and negotiate later, doesn't harbor a neocolonial disdain toward Muslims. Deprived of a Great Satan, the jihadis have little reason to exist
.
I can't think of a better synopsis of the difference between the discredited orthodoxies of the neo-conservative cult, and the realist, comprehensive approach of the Obama Administration, can you?
.
Joe Klein has out-Obama'ed the great communicator Obama with this cogent rationale for a transformed foreign policy.
.
Extraordinarily well said, Joe Klein...Impressive. -
22
cfukara: I can't really figure out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the general thrust of my arguments here, but I will say that regardless, comparing the capabilities of the American military and the capabilities of a few dozen or even few hundred extremists with small arms is kind of silly....
-
23
rose83 Says:
" .. Basically, it's more dangerous to bully Pakistan than Iraq because Pakistan is so much more powerful. .."
"bully"!
That is a brutal indictment, rose.
Its seems to be geared toward distracting us from the good works and the crusade to spread democracy all over the world and beyond. Are you, or have you ever been, a vile communist? ;-| -
24
The threat of a Mumbai style attack should be a wake up call for those who are calling for new gun control measures. From this writers perspective, an armed populace would seem to be our first line of defense against such an attack. Does anybody recall the cameraman who took one of the few (the only?) photos of the attackers, saying "I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera."?
-
25
stuart_z: nice to see you give credit where credit is due. Still, we've been saying basically that same thing here for years...
.
It does feel ever so vindicating to see it finally gain at least a little mainstream traction though, I must admit.
- TIME See the top 10 movies of 2009 | http://su.pr/21qEh7 - 1 hour ago
- TIME See the top 10 news stories of 2009 | http://su.pr/5YMHW6 - 3 hours ago
- TIME See the top 10 tweets of 2009 (and check out TIME's top 10 of everything) | http://su.pr/2S5OSN - 4 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- How to Outsmart a Debt Collector
- Best of the Decade: Gadgets
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
- Suspect Headley: Pakistani Terrorist Group Going Global?
- Study: Parents' Sex Talks with Kids Happening Too Late
Quotes of the Day »
RSS