TERRORISM: All Terrorism is Local

[DarthZeth]

The latest Terrorism article from strategypage.com

TERRORISM: All Terrorism is Local


December 2, 2004: Just as "all politics is local," so, it would seem that all terrorism is as well these days. While much attention is paid to international terrorism, most of the actual terrorist activity is taking place locally, carried out by local terrorists. Fears that Osama bin Laden is planning devastating new attacks from a cave headquarters in Pakistan have taken a distant second place to local terrorist organizations that are very active, and under heavy attack.

Al Qaeda was cited as a growing threat until September, 2001, after which al Qaeda was pronounced "the" threat. But since then, little violence has been traced back to al Qaeda. In addition, many of the long time terrorist threats (the IRA in Britain, PKK in Turkey, ETA in Spain, the LTTE in South Asia, Zapatistias in Mexico, and right wing militias in the United States), suddenly became very quiet. These groups don't want to risk antagonizing an angry United States and being accused of links with al Qaeda. But local Islamic terrorists in several other areas are as active as ever. These include the groups in Israel, India (Kashmir), Indonesia and Pakistan. The Islamic radicals in Algeria have been declining, but that was because of decade of government effort. Maoist terrorists in Nepal are increasing their activities, but this is seen as a spillover of Maoist rebels that had been operating in neighboring India for decades.

We also tend to forget that there are criminal groups engaging in terrorism (usually in the support of extortion schemes) all the time. Gangsters set off more bombs and kill more people in the each year than do political terrorists. But the gangsters we can understand. It's business. It's always there, and the cops are always on top of it. Religious and political terrorism is another matter. Or is it? The current terrorism in Iraq is largely driven by Sunni Arabs who want to be back in control of the country. Saddam Hussein basically ran Iraq as a criminal enterprise, often enlisting purely criminal gangs as allies and helpers. Saddam used a lot of terror. But since he was running a police state, no one tagged Saddam as a terrorist. He was just another nasty dictator. But a segment of the Sunni Arab gunmen in Iraq proclaim they are doing it all in the name of Islam. So suddenly they are part of an international Islamic terror network.

It doesn't work that way, although if you read enough novels, play enough video games and watch enough movies, you get the impression that there is an international Islamic terrorist conspiracy that James Bond would be hard pressed to deal with. In reality, most of the terrorist deaths are from local groups, fighting over local issues, led by local leaders and sustained by local sources of support (money, weapons, food, technical advice.)

In Iraq, it's the unemployed Saddam enforcers and Baath Party hacks who are organizing and leading the terrorism. The much smaller amount of al Qaeda activity was put together by local al Qaeda members. None of the old al Qaeda leadership (most of whom are now either dead or hiding out in Pakistan) is involved. Same with the upsurge of al Qaeda terrorism in Saudi Arabia. It's all local guys who could, or would, not go to foreign countries to do their business. And at home they promptly made
themselves immensely unpopular by bringing their Islamic war back home. The reaction in Saudi Arabia has been very violent, with several local al Qaeda leaders getting themselves killed or captured in the last 18 months.

The American invasion of Iraq is said to have inspired al Qaeda, and brought forth more recruits. Americans in Iraq are said to have made more Moslems hate the West. For those who bothered to notice, there were plenty of Moslems who hated the west before early 2003, or late 2001 for that matter. What the invasion of Iraq did was force many Moslem, and Western, governments to get more active in dealing with Islamic radicals and the terrorism some of them are so fond of. In the last three years, al Qaeda has all but ceased to exist as an organizations. More importantly, Moslems are facing up to Islamic terrorism as never before. All of a sudden, Moslems are asking hard questions about why most of the terrorism in the world is being carried out by Moslems. Unthinkable subjects, like problems or flaws within Islamic countries, is now openly discussed in the Moslem media.

The problem of Islamic terrorism isn't international, but local. And so are the solutions.

[icythaco]

It doesn't work that way, although if you read enough novels, play enough video games and watch enough movies, you get the impression that there is an international Islamic terrorist conspiracy that James Bond would be hard pressed to deal with. In reality, most of the terrorist deaths are from local groups, fighting over local issues, led by local leaders and sustained by local sources of support (money, weapons, food, technical advice.)

True, most terroristic attacks in Iraq are not directed toward Americans, but toward native Iraqis: More specifically the majority of terroristic attacks are carried out by the Sunni's against the Shi'ites, and since Iraq is relatively small, these Sunni extremists don't have to travel very far to find a shi'itte(spelling?) car to strap a bomb to. By throwing out Suddam, America inadvertantly brought this conflict to the foreground in Iraq.

What the invasion of Iraq did was force many Moslem, and Western, governments to get more active in dealing with Islamic radicals and the terrorism some of them are so fond of.

I agree: many countries were bullied by the U.S. into routing out terrorist groups that they otherwise would have ignored in the past; this means that the amount of terrorism has actually stayed about the same since 9/11. It appears to have increased of late because the governments are enforcing it more strictly, not because its happening more often.

[Mental-Rectangle]

Going off on a tangent here... How much of the US is at risk of international terrorism?

The only regions really at risk are
1) with seaports and airports.
2) with very large cities.
3) with densely crowded areas in cities.
4) with mass transportation of some kind in those cities.

That confines pretty much any attack to New York City, Chicago, Philly, DC, San Fran, LA, Seattle, Boston, Miami.

Unless you think a terrorist wants to bomb glaciers and grass praries.

But any city at all could see a local whacko terrorist pop up. That's mostly what we'd be dealing with. Unibomber, DC Sniper, Anthrax, McVeigh, Columbine, one-time acts that are much more a nuissance than a united front that can be met.

No country in the western hemisphere has any reason to flood terrorists through here. So indeed most international terrorist acts, appropriated by militias and radical organizations, are going to happen where it's close in the Eastern Hemisphere, by a staggering margin. Being separated by oceans has its merits when it comes to that.

Granted, to the poor souls who LIVE in the aforementioned cities, which there are probably a good 30-50 million of, certainly watch your step.

[Illuminatus]

Originally Posted by Mental-Rectangle

But any city at all could see a local whacko terrorist pop up. That's mostly what we'd be dealing with. Unibomber, DC Sniper, Anthrax, McVeigh, Columbine, one-time acts that are much more a nuissance than a united front that can be met.

As someone who lived in Oklahoma City at the time of the bombing, I would really much prefer it if you didn't refer to it as a "nuissance".

I agree with the article. I think the most ridiculous thing is a paramount fear of a n international organization that we've been bombing/hunting the hell out of for the last three years. We really need to look within our own borders.

[icythaco]

Speaking as one of the "poor souls", I'm not really afraid of any terrorist attacks: after nine/eleven, terrorist groups will be hard-pressed to find some way to infiltrate are insane amounts of security since then. They are forced to attack smaller locations, such as Madrid, in countries that don't have as high security, but are still "part of" the western civillizition they all seem to hate.

Also, its much easier to carry out terrorist attacks on American troops in Iraq and Afganistan than it is to carry them out on America itself. They can drive a few miles, attach a bomb to a military vehicle, and be home by supper; They don't have to worry about smuggling weapons through our airport security if they aren't leaving their own country. I know it sounds morose, but our invasion of Iraq was like building a fast food chain for terrorists: fast, convenient, and close to home. Our military are the "poor souls" you mention above, not me and my fellow East coast city dwellers: they're the ones who are really at risk.

[icythaco]

Agreed. I don't like to side with Michael Moore, but I've seen people building bombs and such in my own school. Their are some really screwed up people out there with alot of anger to take out, and many of them are in our own country. Higher airport security isn't going to prevent another Oklahoma City Bombing or another Wakko. These incidents happen with much more frequency than international terrorist attacks.

[Viper Daimao]

But higher airport security might prevent another 9/11. These arent mutually exclusive goals, we can have higher airport security and do what we can to protect from a lone wacko bombing a building (not a whole lot we can do to guard against that though)

[Mental-Rectangle]

As someone who lived in Oklahoma City at the time of the bombing, I would really much prefer it if you didn't refer to it as a "nuissance".

Noted. You have my utmost condolences in that regard. I'll find a better use of words.

But higher airport security might prevent another 9/11. These arent mutually exclusive goals, we can have higher airport security and do what we can to protect from a lone wacko bombing a building (not a whole lot we can do to guard against that though)

Because one person thought it'd be funny to take a shoe-bomb onto a plane, everyone has to have their shoes checked. If anyone gets caught with dynamite in their ass, we'll all have to get anal probes. Our form of security is too much of an inconvenience to passengers, because it really does cost a lot to keep adding more of it to accomodate everyone.

In the end, someone really devoted could get past. (Getting an implant to excuse the metal detectors, putting chemical explosives in epoxy containers, etc.) And the massive security hubs themselves could be a terrorist target (hundreds of people in a small room. You could just leave a suitcase sitting around there, walk off... ). And then there are the bizarre methods of getting on from the runway, and remote-controlled bombs that get in from the sewer.

I just thought of a good one... getting a big ladder and walking right over the security from the roof. Heh? Guards on the roof? What if you're wearing a Guard's uniform, or a maintenance uniform? Think of EVERYTHING and realize that the measures that security has been increasing in airports are all VAIN as hell.

I mean c'mon, it's the 21st century. Someone will be creative and always get past everything. But there's no way to get on an airplane from the air, so ensuring security there is the most logical first step.

I've always thought the best solution was to arm flight attendants. Tranquilizers, guns, anything and everything.

[Viper Daimao]

i dont know about flight attendants, but arming pilots seems like a great and inexpensive security measure. and not make airports hire govt screeners.

[Sesshoumaru]

I remember something a saw on Letterman a few years back. It was on the Charts and Graphs section. Apparently, the thing people fear most about riding in an airplane is crossfire from drunken pilots (this was right after the big drunken pilot scandle, and the push to give pilots guns).