Sunday's Washington Post column by Richard A. Clarke used the occasions of the recent botched bombing attempt in Times Square to urge greater "greater outreach to Muslim communities domestically and around the world."
In the raw aftermath of a successful attack, it will be very hard for an American president to shift the debate in a more productive and honest direction. Imagine if, after a fatal attack, President Obama responded by proposing greater outreach to Muslim communities domestically and around the world, in an effort to undercut radicalization. That is precisely what we and other nations should be doing, but it would undoubtedly be decried as a weak, starry-eyed reaction by our commander in chief, especially after an attack that revealed deficiencies in our counterterrorism system.
First, is there something dishonest about recognizing that these terrorist attacks originate with radical Islam? The more evident dishonesty comes from persons in the Obama administration who immediately described one attack as not "part of a broader plot" and the next attack as a "one-off". Not to mention how thoroughly dishonest it is of Clarke to imply, nine years into our war on terror, that the American Muslim community has been subjected to any systematic discrimination or abuse. In general, America has bent over backwards to avoid singling out Muslims, starting with George W. Bush who spoke at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. less than a week after the 9/11 attacks.
When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.
America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.
Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.
That was George Bush. Mr. Clarke, on the other hand, sounds as if it would be tough to imagine Barack Obama proposing greater outreach in the wake of another successful attack, but didn't Obama spend his entire election campaign preaching outreach? He said he was going to make us safer by restoring America's image and mending relations with the rest of the world – relations supposedly destroyed by George Bush. He was going to reach out to Iran to convince them to give up pursuit of nuclear weapons. He went to Cairo to apologize to the Muslim world and to reassure it that a new American policy would emerge. His first year in office consisted of one apology after another, but is there any indication that any of it has done any good?
Obama insisted that there would be no preconditions on talks with Iran, but has there been dialog? Outreach to Iran intended to persuade the mullahs to abandon nuclear development failed. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pretty much told President Barack Obama to stuff it. Senior U.S. military officials recently predicted that Iran will have a nuclear device within a year and a usable nuclear weapon in three to five years.
In the meantime there have been three terrorist attacks on American soil in the last six months, two of which failed because of terrorist incompetence. This is what we get for outreach?
All of this highlights the more disturbing point to Richard A. Clarke's Post article. No matter what we do, we must face the fact that an attack may eventually succeed, and in that event the important thing is for Americans to be nice. Here's what he said.On Christmas Day, a 23-year-old Nigerian engineering student allegedly tried to destroy an airplane flying into Detroit. One week ago, an American citizen of Pakistani origin allegedly attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York's Times Square. Neither effort succeeded -- not because U.S. authorities intercepted the attackers, but because the bombmaking skills of the wannabe terrorists were lacking.
In both instances, much of the subsequent debate has centered on how the attacks were able to get as far as they did. The unfortunate fact is that such cases represent a kind of terrorism that is virtually impossible to disrupt. These attempts will continue, and from time to time one of them will succeed, with many dead and injured. The more relevant question, therefore, is: How will we respond when that car bomb does go off?
I don't think how we respond is the relevant question, particularly from former and current government officials who swore to defend the U.S. I'm not opposed to turning the other cheek, but it's not the governments job to do it for me. It's more relevant to ask instead if those attacks were really impossible to disrupt. In the case of the Christmas bomber, U.S. authorities were given warning, but nothing was done.
The father, a top Nigerian banker, warned US authorities last month about 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's extreme views, say officials.
US sources confirm a file was opened, but say the information did not warrant placing the accused on a "no-fly" list.
The same is true of the Times Square bomber. Faisal Shahzad was apparently listed on a U.S government travel travel lookout list starting in 1999 because he brought approximately $80,000 in cash with him into the United States. In 2008, he was removed from the list, in spite of his frequent trips to Taliban controlled areas of western Pakistan.
But let's forget all that. Rather than worry about ways in which or surveillance of terrorists could be improved, Mr. Clarke accepts that a successful terrorist attack will probably occur, and he has a message. A seven part message in fact, but it all boils down this:
The Obama administration will protect America to the extent that budgets allow. If an attack is successful the administration will "refine our tactics and procedures" but don't expect them overreact by "throwing more money at the problem." In meantime, don't blame the Obama administration. In fact, if you do blame Obama you will "be regarded as despicable."
So listen up, America! Don't "demand overnight success." "[E]liminating the current terrorist threat will take a generation of diligent effort." If you happen to lose friends or loved ones to a terrorist bomb, don't whine about it. Just suck it up and take one for the team! And whatever you do, don't blame the Obama administration! That would be just despicable.
Comments