SYPMPOSIUM: THE TERROR WAR:
HOW WE CAN WIN

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com

November 15, 2004

The Bush administration has now entered its second term in office. What strategies must it now renew -- or pursue -- to sow the seeds for victory in the War on Terror? Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distnguished all-star panel to discuss this question. Our guests today are:

Walter Laqueur, the former director of the Institute of Contemporary History in London. He is the author of some of the basic texts on terrorism, most recently Voices of Terror (Reed Publishing, 2004);

Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former acting chief of Communist Romania's espionage service, whose book Red Horizons was republished in 24 countries. He is still sentenced to death in Romania;

Robert Leiken, the director of the Immigration and National Security Program at the Nixon Center and the author of Bearers of Global Jihad? Immigration and National Security after 9/11;

and

Ralph Peters, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and the author, most recently, of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace".

FP: Gentlemen, welcome to Frontpage Symposium. It is an honor to be in the presence of such distinguished scholars and gentlemen.

We're going to get to Bush's election victory and what it means for the terror war, but first, let's see if we are on the same page in terms of our definitions and assumptions on our Islamist enemy.

Let me give it a shot to stimulate the discussion:

The West is at war with Islamism, a modern day totalitarian ideology that is a close cousin of fascism and communism. Based on the worship of totality, Islamism, like its two 20th century despotic counterparts, yearns for mass death and suicide for no particular rational reason --although, yes, in part, it finds a surface inspiration in its Islamic component that promises other-worldly rewards for jihad, etc.

Islamism ferociously despises individual freedom and democracy -- because liberty poses a deadly threat to its own existence. It must, therefore, annihilate human freedom wherever it sees it. This explains why militant Islam must wage war on the two nations which most powerfully symbolize, buffer and protect human liberty: the United States and Israel.

Is this a solid start for our discussion? Or have I misdirected us?

Mr. Leiken, let's start with you.

Leiken: Thanks Jamie. It is always a mistake to underestimate the enemy or its appeal. Yes we are at war vs. Islamist terrorism. But the basis of Islamism runs deeper than irrational animosity against the West and freedom. Islamism is a combination of an anti-imperialist and a revivalist movement. To take the latter first:: if it despises "human freedom," that's because Islamists believe Western freedom, which it would call license, destroys family, community and man's proper relation with God and nature -- a criticism not&! nbsp;far removed from social conservatism. As an anti-imperialist movement, it arose after the great powers divided up the Middle East, despite their WWI promises of freedom. Then, like nationalism and communism, it sought to blame the underdevelopment of Arab and Muslim nations on Western influence.

It pursues suicide bombing and mass terror as tactics in an asymmetric war, in which Islamism faces a better-armed enemy. These tactics can work, having provoked the US to take necessary pre-emptive actions (of which some have proved counter-productive, as in Iraq), thus dividing it from important allies, and having thrust Israel into a state of siege. The task before us is how to unite the country and Israel with the West and mainstream traditional Islam as well as civilians the world over against a common threat.

FP: Thank you Mr. Leiken. To be sure, of course there are always some "deeper" reasons for hatred and the impulse to kill -- and your insights into Islamism in this context are instructive. But I stress irrationalism because it is crucial to emphasize that there isn't always some explainable "reason" why tyranny-worshippers perpetrate the crimes that they do. This is what the Left loves to do -- rationalize evil -- and in so doing, it weakens our battle against our enemy.

For instance, right after 9/11, a former academic colleague of mine said to me, in an agonizing tone full of personal pain: "Imagine how hurt those poor men [the hijackers] were by America to have been driven to that."

No. The hijackers blew themselves up alongside 3,000 innocent people because they sought to kill others and themselves for no particularly logical or explainable reason. Of course we can examine their rage over the supposed and delusional injustice they perceive in Palestine, or in Western women wearing bikinis on Arab territory somewhere, but the point here is that there are movements, like fascism and communism, that simply hate human life and existence and yearn to extinguish it. And Islamism, like fascism and communism, is one of those movements.

In recognizing that this modern ideology seeks to suffocate life, without and within, we won't waste our time trying to figure out what rewards our enemies want to stop killing. We'll just get down to the business of killing them before, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Khomeini, etc., they succeed in exterminating as many human beings as possible -- for its own sake.

Mr. Peters, go ahead. Share your wisdom with us.

Peters: I have no "wisdom" to offer. But I certainly have my views, formed by extensive travel, in uniform and in mufti, in the morbid ruins of the caliphate. First, although I use the term myself--one has no choice--I dislike calling the current conflict the "War On Terror." It's really the Islamic terrorists' war on us. I prefer "The Terror War." But the die is cast.

While I agree with much of what Mr. Leiken offered, I do not see al-Qaeda and its affiliates as anti-imperialist; on the contrary, I see them as Islamic imperialists--savage crusaders of their faith. They do not wish merely to repel interlopers, but to conquer. They do not wish simply to defeat the West, but to destroy it. And the caliphate they wish to restore--although they'll settle for apocalyptic destruction--once reached into southern Poland, into Ukraine, throughout Hungary and much of former Yugoslavia, throughout the Iberian Peninsula (and, briefly, as far north as the Loire), and it included Greece, Sicily and part of mainland southern Italy, and the Swahili Coast of Africa as far south as old Sofala in Mozambique--south of the Zambezi River. Their appetite for Allah's real estate on earth is second only to the hope of the inner circle to nudge their god toward an apocalypse (indeed, all monotheist religions have succumbed, at different times, to something equivalent to the Christian eschatology of the Book of Revelation).

In my view, the inner circle of terrorists about whom we must worry most consists of apocalyptic terrorists whose articulated goals are ephemeral and, at most, secondary. They are, above all, bent upon destruction, and their appetite for slaughter is and will remain insatiable. If Israel and the U.S. were destroyed, Europe would have to go, too (in fact, Europe is going to suffer far more in the coming decades than we are). Meanwhile, in Iraq and elsewhere, the terrorists are delighted to purge Islam of less-rigorous, less-doctrinally satisfactory Muslims by killing them. We are facing the psychotic progeny of a neurotic (at best) civilization.

Finally--for now--I was baffled a decade ago by the outrage over Samuel Huntington's concept of the "clash of civilizations." Clashing is what civilizations DO. It's their inherent mission. There is no example in history of adjacent civilizations cooperating constructively over an extended period. And we not only are experiencing a clash of civilizations, but a situation unprecedented in history: The crash of a major civilization, that of Middle Eastern Islam, before our eyes.

The struggle in which we Americans find ourselves today began in the seventh century A.D. (or C.E., if you prefer). As Islamic conquerors burst out of Arabia, a war began that has never ceased. Only Islam's weakness over the past few centuries has lulled us into a false sense of peace (the fighting never really stopped--we only pretended it did).

American carriers now cruise where once the Portuguese caravels sailed (although we're considerably better-behaved). Both sides remain crusaders of their kind. If we are able to find a means of consistent, productive cooperation between Islamic and Western civilization by the end of the 21st century, it will be a miraculous, unprecedented achievement.

Meanwhile, there's a war to fight.

FP: Mr. Laqueur?

Laqueur: I am also not happy with the term "War on Terror". War implies armies and navies and air forces and uniforms. And this of course is not the case at the present time. Nor do I think that the "war" against terror can be won, simply because it is one of the manifestations of human conflict in our time, perhaps the prevailing one in the years to come.

I find it difficult to envisage a world without conflict as far as one can look ahead. One can do a great deal to reduce the danger and the frequency of terrorism. Fanaticism, as historical experience shows, does not continue with equal intensity forever, in fact it is often a matter of a generation or two. But after relatively quiet periods it tends to reappear.

What can be done to reduce the dangers? Intelligence should be greatly improved, Western counter propaganda is virtually non-existent, political use should be made of the mistakes of the terrorists. But democracies will find it exceedingly difficult to act effectively for reasons which need not be elaborated in detail. This will change only following terrorist attacks in which weapons of mass destruction are used and it is probably unwise if governments are moving too far ahead of public opinion.

As for the ideology of radical Islamism, it is a mixture of a variety of motives, religious, nationalist etc,. but anti imperialism hardly figures. It is true that they may think of themselves as anti-imperialist, but I do not see any good reason to accept this self image. Iran and Turkey were never colonies and as for the Arabs they were indeed subjects of an empire throughout most of their history, but it was a Muslim empire.

FP: Mr. Laqueur, you never cease to amaze me. In four short paragraphs you say more than I have read in 300-page books on this subject.

Your words suggest that in the human condition there is a recurrent virus of fanaticism and hate that perpetually surfaces, always mutating into different forms. Human history has taught that this is, indeed, undeniable. So no, we are never going to "win" the war against evil, for it will always be with us in our human condition (in this phase of human history anyway), but we can, as you suggest, keep it at bay to our best ability.

Your comments regarding how we can best keep it at bay reveal the horror of our future. We live in a time when individuals such as al Zarqawi and bin Laden will eventually get their hands on WMDs. Only after they use these against our human populations will our democratic societies acquire the courage and will to defeat our current enemy effectively. But, thanks to the Michael Moores, Noam Chomskys, Teddy Kennedys and John Kerrys of this world -- we do not yet have that courage and will.

Mr. Pacepa, it's your turn.

Pacepa: Thanks Jamie. I believe that the most important thing in a war is to know your enemy. Today's terrorism is a 21st century variation of the old anti-Semitism, that weapon of the emotions wielded by so many tyrants over the centuries.

History always repeats itself, and if you can live two lives, you have an even greater chance of seeing that repetition with your own eyes. During the last six years of my other life, as a Romanian intelligence general, the main task of the Soviet bloc espionage community was to transform Yasser Arafat's war against Israel and its main supporter, the United States, into an armed doctrine of the whole Islamic world. America was our main enemy, and a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on it than could a mere one million. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. Our task was to convert its historical hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States, by portraying this land of freedom as an "imperial Zionist country" financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious "Council of the Elders of Zion," the Kremlin's epithet for the US Congress.

According to KGB theorists, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hate. Islamic cultures had a taste for nationalism, jingoism and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against America would flow naturally from their religious fervor. We had only to keep repeating, over and over, that the United States was a "Zionist country" bankrolled by rich Jews. Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidel's occupation of its territory, and it would be highly receptive to our dogma that American imperialism wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, the Soviet bloc intelligence community flooded the Islamic world with Arabic translations of an old Russian, forged, anti-Semitic tract entitled Protocols of the Elders of Zion, along with "documentary" materials, also in Arabic, "proving" that the United States was a Zionist country governed by Jewish money, whose aim was to extend its domination over the rest of the world. We also infiltrated the Islamic world with thousands of Soviet bloc Islamic citizens recruited as intelligence agents and tasked to implant there a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism. They were to portray everybody and everything in America as being subordinated to Jewish interests: the leaders, the government, the political parties, the most prominent personalities -- and even American history. Most of these agents were religious servants, engineers, medical doctors or teachers, and they had excellent credibility.

Although we now live in an age of technology, we still do not have an instrument that can scientifically measure the results of a sustained influence operation. Nevertheless, it is safe to presume that over the course of the further twenty-plus years -- until the Soviet Union buckled -- the combination between spreading hundreds of thousands of Protocols within the Islamic world and portraying the United States there as a criminal Zionist instrument should have left some trace. The hijacked airplane was launched into the world of contemporary terrorism by the KGB and its puppet Yasser Arafat, and it is significant that this became the weapon of choice for September 11, 2001.

The United States won the Cold War on the 9th of November in 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed and the downtrodden people kept hostage inside the Soviet bloc woke up to claim freedom as their own God-given right. We in the West succeeded, because we united the free world against evil, and because we ensured that our side was armed with overwhelming military potential.

We can conquer terrorism if we can make the people of the Islamic world realize that democracy, not anti-Semitism, will give them a better life. Re-civilizing Iraq will be crucial toward that.

FP: Thank you Mr. Pacepa. So democratizing Iraq is one of our most effective weapons in the terror war. . .

Mr. Leiken, back to you now.

Fell free to respond to the previous comments of the panel. But kindly include a comment on the strategies we must implement to fight this war. Mr. Pacepa affirms that civilizing Iraq is crucial. Mr. Laqueur makes three preliminary suggestions: (1) intelligence should be greatly improved, (2) Western counter-propaganda should at least begin to exist, (3) and political use should be made of the terrorists' mistakes. Kindly build on these themes.

Leiken: "Anti-imperialism" constitutes no badge of honor. Nazism, Arabism Fidelismo, Sandinismo all began life as anti-imperialist movements. Khomeni was anti-imperialist, likewise the Afghan jihad. Some anti-imperialist movements are positive (George Washington, Ghandi, Resistance in WW2), many are or become "evil." Some are or become imperialist as with fascism and Islamism.

Did David Horowitz yearn to "extinguish human life" when he was a communist and backed the terrorist Panthers? He like others of us in the "second thoughts" group cherished good intentions which paved the road Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism and anti-Americanism.

Czech dissident Milan Kundera in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting notes that those who cheered the Communist takeover were "the more dynamic, the more intelligent, the better half." A nuance of our world is that evil may spring from virtues like compassion or piety. Kundera also wrote that

"Totalitarianism is not only hell but the dream of paradise -- the age old dream where everyone would live in harmony, united by a single common will and faith... If totalitarianism did not exploit these archetypes, which are deep inside us all and rooted deep in all religions, it could never attract so many people."

In Paradise Lost Satan, the brightest angel, led an anti-imperialist rebellion against God's "empire," authority and sundry "abuses"(V: 771-802). Milton's fallen angels joined the "glorious enterprise" from a "sense of injured merit"(I: 89, 98). The Islamist terrorists believe they are striding through holy war to holiness. Merely evil, they would not win adherents, would tire without a "higher" vision.

This not to apologize for September 11 pace Chomsky, or seek exculpatory "root causes" for terrorism. That leads straight to the gas chambers, to sacrificing Israel to appease Arab "humiliation." No: we need knowledge to fight.

Not "war" but "terrorism" molests me about the phrase. We have been the object of war since Bin Laden declared it in 1996. The Clinton administration and the FBI saw counter-terrorism as police work. They segregated intelligence to "build cases." In Afghanistan we did employ uniformed armed forces and do so today in Fallujah.

But Cheney's "war on terrorism" has presumed a union of terrorists, as if terrorism itself was an ideology or politics. That led us to suppose a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda which two independent panels, chaired by Republicans (the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Select Committee) denied; cf. my The Truth about the Saddam - al Qaeda Connection" www.inthenationalinterest.com. Individuals become terrorists via ideologies and politics. That is why we've had anarchist, fascist, Bolshevik, Christian, narco, Palestinian and even a few Zionist terrorists. We are not equally at "war" against all these.

As for strategy: first we must define our enemy: "Islamist terrorism" as the 9-11 report concluded and "not generic terrorism." Then define our allies: Israel, the West and all countries and individuals who oppose terrorism.

Democracy is not a panacea for several reasons:

* You needn't be a democracy to oppose terrorism -- e.g. Morocco, Jordan, China, Russia.
* In most Arab countries democracy will produce an Islamist state as it nearly did in Algeria.
* In the Islamist Middle East, absent a background of civil liberties and religious freedom, democracy is not in the cards. Religious freedom is what we should be championing in alliance with traditional quietists Muslims like Sistani. We should consider reviving USIA and giving it the mission of carrying out ideological war on behalf of religious toleration.
* But here prudence cautions that if there's a deficiency of religious freedom in countries like Saudi Arabia, before 9-11, there was an excess of it in, say, German surveillance of the Hamburg cell. On similiar grounds the FBI was barred from surveilling mosques.
* We cannot wait for years while the CIA trains agents with language mastery to gather significant intelligence within Islamist movements. That means liaison with foreign intelligence ("outsourcing"), starting with Israel but including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both of which have deep -- all too deep -- ties with Islamists.
At home we need an agency whose forte is counter-terrorism. I doubt that the FBI will morph in it. And we need smart borders (cf. http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/Leiken_Bearers_of_Global_Jihad.pdf)

Attacks may or may not activate anti-terrorism -- e.g. the Madrid bombings. Thanks to 9-11 U.S. public opinion is far ahead of the politicians in anti-terrorist engagement, which is why the grass root reaction to the Report of the 9-11 Commission forced Congress to return. One object of public education should be to strengthen and not weaken the Patriot Act.

FP: Thank you Mr. Leiken. I just want to comment on how the human yearning for earthly paradise leads to earthly evil.

I don't think anyone here is saying that totalitarian movements don't exploit, or have within them, some potentially legitimate issues. Obviously that is why they are so attractive to so many people. But this attraction is directly connected to the believers' rejection of human life as it exists in our human condition.

You ask: "Did David Horowitz yearn to 'extinguish human life' when he was a communist and backed the terrorist Panthers?"

Well, the answer to that question is not a simple one.

Let me begin by saying that, first and foremost, the Panthers and al-Qaeda are not the same kind of terrorists. In his memoir, Radical Son, David Horowitz made it clear that he was unaware that the Panthers killed anyone. He was in denial, as so many radicals are.

On the other hand, Horowitz has cited Marx's quote from Faust in The Eighteenth Brumaire in which Mephistopheles says "Everything that exists deserves to perish" and he has referred to this as the essence of the totalitarian idea which all of you supported when you were on the Left.

In other words, there is a direct connection between the terrorist actions of utopia builders and the dreams that inspire them. As Horowitz has said elsewhere, the idea of socialism or social justice, the perfect world which is made possible by the death of the imperfect one, is an analogue of the 72 virgins which is the Islamists' reward for destroying the non-Islamic world and preparing the reign of God's law on earth.

Naturally Horowitz, like many other leftists, was not walking around consciously -- and with calculation - dreaming of mass slaughter, though they were all creating the framework which would justify such slaughter by hailing the kingdom of freedom as a real possibility -- if only all those who opposed it, or would not go along with it, could be cleared out of the way. When you reject human beings for what and who they are, guess what your plans for building earthly paradise will do to them?

In any case, I am not sure if David Horowitz is really the best example for this discussion because, in my study of his life and ideas, I don't really think he was ever a true leftist. In his early work, even as a leftist, there was always a voice calling within him to examine, with a morally critical eye, the consequences of his ideology's ideas. That is why he broke from the Panthers after they killed his friend, Betty Van Patter and revealed to him who they actually were. But the entire leftist community that cherished romantic ideas of earthly paradise ignored her death, or justified it, precisely because, in my view, in certain realms of their psyches, they yearned for it. The rejection of human life as it exists in our human condition is directly linked to the desire to extinguish it.

Once David Horowitz accepted the reality of human mortality and the flawed nature of human beings, he could no longer hold to any tenets of the leftist faith. And he lost the impulses to sacrifice human beings on the altar of utopian ideals.

Laqueur: I speak and write with reluctance about counterterrorism for two reasons.

[1] I know a bit about terrorism but counterterrorism is not the same thing. I don't believe this differentiation is pedantic -- it reflects the situation in the real world. To speak with authority about counterterrorism one has to know a great deal not only about the other side but also about our own capacities.--something akin to Andy Marshall's office in the Pentagon. I am not in the loop, I do not know enough about our own capacities. I suspect they are deficient and I do not know how quickly they could be improved given the bureaucracies' hurdles and restraints.

[2] In the context of terrorism, I find it next to impossible to say something new about the subject. The issues involved are straightforward and relatively easy--yet there is considerable resistance accepting the basic insights concerning terrorism. The task ahead is really one of education and I am not a good teacher. Furthermore, experience teaches me that this reluctance which I mentioned will hardly be overcome by arguments however obvious and however often repeated. People learn from experience, especially bitter experience, not from speeches and articles -- however brilliant..

In the short term perspective, I am quite optimistic. The terrorists who are most dangerous have been hit by our countermeasures. Bin Laden and Zawahiri have threatened countless times that horrible things would happen within days, if not hours. But nothing on the scale of 9/11 did happen, either in the U.S. or anywhere else.

In the medium perspective, say the next 5-10 years, I am pessimistic because, as I said earlier on, the vigilance of the West will decline, especially if there will be no major attacks. At the same time, terrorists will continue their preparations--and we shall enter the age of megaterrorism. Four times out of five they will fail, but even if they will have only one success, this could be traumatic -- especially as far as panic is concerned.

As for the long term perspective--who knows? I see a chance that once a major disaster will have happened the great powers and most of the lesser powers will get together and decide to do something. But not before.

Pacepa: In my other life, I was responsible for supervising both Romania's share of the Soviet bloc effort to generate anti-American terrorism around the world, and Romania's own counter-terrorism operations at home. This gives me a different prospective.

Terrorism and counter-terrorism would seem to be as different as day and night, but they are in fact tightly interconnected. The best way to combat terrorism is to reverse the process of its creation, i.e., get rid of the terrorist leaders and educate their adherents. At one time Ceausescu's Romania was even more famous than the Spanish Inquisition for its domestic terror, indiscriminately killing off its faithful, its unfaithful, and its priests. But within days of Ceausescu's execution for genocide, his terrorism vanished as if it had never existed.

With Arafat's having recently been hors de combat, Palestinian terrorism has noticeably tapered off. Now we should remove Osama bin Laden & Co. and help their, and Arafat's, terrorists realize that there is more to life than blowing themselves up in the hope of being rewarded with 72 virgins. The Middle East has a storied history of remarkable civilizations, and its peoples should be receptive to thoughts of returning to their glorious past and building upon it. The faster we succeed in helping Iraq -- and others -- to re-civilize their societies, the sooner we will neutralize anti-American terrorism.

Peters: There is a great danger of over-intellectualizing all of this. Each participant has had stimulating and worthy things to say (although not necessarily correct). Whether or not we wish to believe we're at war with the terrorists, they certainly believe that they are at war with us. Warfare isn't just shooting at one another or hurling spears. Especially today, it's a "small c" catholic endeavor. Every action I take is an act of war against competitors in other culture. But as for the violent, organized side of the war with terror, well, the silliest thing I've heard over the past several years goes to the effect of, "Killing terrorists doesn't help...we can't kill our way out of this." Friends and neighbors, whether or not we can kill our way out of the terrorist problem, killing enough of the right people makes the problem considerably smaller.

Stand back. Look afresh. We are, indeed, experiencing one of humanity's intermittent waves of fanaticism, which are invariably associated with cultures and societies in crisis. But what the "experts" miss is that, in a bizarre fashion, President Bush is correct when he declares that we are not at war with Islam (although a significant portion of the Islamic world believes itself to be at war with us). The various terrorist groups affiliated with or aping al-Qaeda aren't really Islamic at their core. They're pre-Islamic. They're blood cults that practice human sacrifice. Mohammed would be horrified. This is just the sort of primitive desert religion against which he rebelled, spiritually and practically. The videotaped beheadings, complete with high priests, liturgy and sermons, hark back to the earliest Middle-Eastern civilizations, to the days of winged devils thirsty for blood. Human sacrifice to appease a vindictive god is deeply rooted in the human psyche--certainly, more deeply so than we wish to acknowledge. Every continent witnessed it. Looking at the wave of beheadings, bombings and assassinations for "Allah" in the Middle East, one might declare that "The Aztecs are back." And, of course, transplanted to new turf--the only difference being that the Aztecs had art, which Arab fanatics do not.

Seriously, I view 9/11, the ceremonial beheadings, the volunteers for self-immolation and the lust to kill the innocent (all forbidden by the Koran) as the resurgence of the most primitive human religious impulses. These are blood offerings--whether or not the terrorists are cognizant of the meaning of their actions (self-awareness is hardly the foremost human trait). The terrorists are not only blasphemers, but terrible enemies of Koranic Islam (as opposed to the various syncretic variants, some of which have a peculiar trend toward feigned or actual self-annihilation, from certain Sufi sects to Shi'a flagellants).

Yes, we should do what we can to facilitate the progress toward justice, the rule-of-law and, where feasible, democracy in the Middle East. But we also must be realistic and recognize that we can only play on the margins (though it's still necessary to play). We can force Arabs and their neighbors to do many things, but we cannot force them to succeed. I fear that we're see the explosive growth of a nihilistic, "apres nous, le deluge" culture among the young males of the Middle East. And if Arabs and other regional peoples do not choose to embrace the possibility of constructive change (which involves rather more of the Protestant work ethic than I've encountered anywhere in the region), all we can do is to limit their capability to do us harm.

I am, of course, a great believer in attempting to understand the cultures that spawn terrorism. After all, it's far easier to kill someone you understand. And as far as the hard-core "pre-Islamic" terrorists go, I see no alternative whatsoever to killing them for as many years, decades or generations as it takes. After all, it took the civilized world from 1866 to 1945 to get the Germans under control, and that was much tougher than hunting down and killing terrorists. Oh, in case anyone has forgotten: We had to kill quite a lot of Germans and the world has not missed them.

Therapeutic violence is greatly underrated. We're in an age of civilizational Darwinism. As every age is.

FP: Our final round has begun. Mr. Leiken go ahead. Feel free to respond to what has been said. And kindly include in your answer what you think of Bush's victory and whether or not it is a positive development for our terror war.

Leiken: The Bush doctrine states accurately that terrorism means pre-emption. Pre-emption demands intelligence. Intelligence requires surveillance. But that is difficult when the enemy is foreign and refrains from using means liable to interception. So intelligence also requires infiltration. Infiltration, if you are not Arabic or Muslim, means alliances with countries that are (e.g. Pakistan, Arabs, Africa, Central Asia), or who know how to (Israel, France) or can support in other ways (everyone else).

From a counter-terrorist perspective Bush's victory is good news and bad news. One plus is that he won't brook repealing the Patriot Act and can retain tough guys like Ashcroft was. But Bush does not seem very interested in unifying the rest of the country against terrorism, a step that New Gingrich in a November 9 op-ed in the Washington Post said would be facilitated by recognition of mistakes in Iraq.

Abroad, the positive side is Bush's resolute support of Israel's security. He won't sacrifice their safety to win over Europeans. The negative side is that we do need the Europeans if we're to build global counter-terrorist unity.

Iraq is now the central front against terrorism, but can we win? If we can, Bush is our man. If we can't (and the January elections may tell us), then we might have the wrong man.

The Bush administration has shown little strategic capacity -- to unite our friends against the main enemy and to divide our enemies. He's achieved the opposite. A mistake Bush-Cheney will not acknowledge is stubbornly insisting on a Saddam-Osama "connection" (see my recent article "The Truth about the Saddam - al Qaeda Connection," on InTheNationalInterest.com). On September 11th we learned we faced an existential threat in the radical Islamist movement. And we knew that the two things we had to avoid in confronting it were a land war in Asia and urban warfare. Now we have both.

Laqueur: This debate like most has been a bit chaotic. Not surprisingly because "terrorism" has many aspects and means different things and everyone talks about what is closest to his heart.--Iraq, jihad and so on. And we tend to forget that while these are the most urgent problems and dangers the terrorist problem is a much wider one. For the first time in history, very small groups of people have access to weapons of mass destruction. In other words terrorist attacks may come from all parts of the political spectrum, political, religious, social, from small groups of fanatics and madmen (or women) Terrorism will be the prevailing form of conflict. How to prevent this I do not know. Perhaps there is no answer. This debate has not even started.

FP: Ok, I guess we have to have another symposium then. Mr. Peters go ahead.

Peters: Bush's victory simply means that the majority of Americans know we are in a war and must fight. No matter how media sophisticates may parse voter motivations, Bush's re-election sent a message that we Americans have not wavered in our determination to defeat our most implacable, if not yet our most dangerous, enemies, the apocalyptic terrorists of the greater Middle East.

As I articulate these concluding lines, news has been coming in from the Second Battle of Fallujah--our reduction of a city that had, for a few months, become the new world capital of terror. The reports tell of hostage execution halls, of torture chambers and months of crusted blood on floors and courtyards where kidnap victims had been ceremoniously beheaded. So I return to my theme that these terrorists are not Muslims, despite their recitations from the Koran. They may think of themselves as Muslims, but they've strayed backward in time to primitive blood-cult behavior. Those gory "altars" in Fallujah are closer to the altars atop the Aztec temples than to anything sanctioned by Mohammed. We face a blood-cult of death whose hunger for victims is insatiable. We have to kill the "high priests" and as many of their followers as it requires to bring the world a semblance of peace and security. This isn't really a battle of ideas, but a contest of souls.

FP: Mr. Pacepa, last word goes to you.

Pacepa: My generation is still grateful to America's leaders of the World War II era who, instead of containing Hitler, destroyed his regime and rebuilt Western Europe -- and Japan -- with strong democracies. This American determination changed the face of the world and brought about an unprecedented period of peace. Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi stated during a 2003 visit to Washington: "Every time I see the U.S. flag, I don't see the flag only as representative of a country, but I see it as a symbol of democracy and of freedom."

Now America is also in a position to help the Islamic world normalize its society. In order to do that, we should get rid of the Hitlers of the Arab and Islamic world, and help their downtrodden slaves see the light of democracy -- Arafat's death can only move this process forward. Our recent elections overwhelmingly showed that Americans are ready. Let's forget "sensitive" wars -- like the one in Vietnam, where we lost over 50,000 soldiers and a good part of America's international prestige. Let's return to the traditions of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our enemies. Let's try to make Iraq into a kind of Germany of the Islamic world.

FP: Thank you Mr. Pacepa. Mihai Pacepa, Ralph Peters, Walter Laueur and Robert Leiken, it was an honor to be in your company. We'll see you again soon.


HOMEThe Maccabean OnlineComments