The Continuing Al-Qaeda Threat
Appearing last week before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
testified that he could not say the threat from al-Qaeda is any less today than
it was ten years ago. It was a shocking admission. Does he mean that the
trillions of dollars spent fighting the war on terrorism have resulted in no
gains? That those who urged us to give up some of our liberties to gain
security have, as Benjamin Franklin warned, lost both?
There may be reasons Director Clapper
would want us to believe that the threat from al-Qaeda is as strong as ever. An
entire industry has arisen from the government’s war on terror, and for both
the government sector and the security-industrial complex the terrorist threat
is big business. Economic pressure has thus far not affected the military or
intelligence sectors – despite false claims that the sequestration cut military
spending. However, emphasizing continued high threat levels without being able
to openly explain them due to secrecy requirements is one way to keep the
security budget untouched.
Also, emphasizing the
continued high threat level from terrorists overseas is a good way to frighten
citizens away from their increasing outrage over reports of massive domestic
spying by the NSA. Unfortunately Americans may still be more willing to give up
their liberties if they are told that the threats to their security remain as
high as ever.
What
if Clapper is telling us the truth, however? What would this revelation mean if
that is the case?
For
one, it means that we have gotten very little for the tremendous amount of
spending on the war on terrorism and the lives lost. We are told that the
military and intelligence community can protect us if they are given the tools
they need, but it appears they have not done a very good job by their own
admission.
More
likely, it may mean that the US government’s policies are causing more al-Qaeda
groups to arise and take the place of those who have been defeated by US drone
and military attacks. Clapper does mention that there are so many different
al-Qaeda franchises popping up it is difficult to keep track of them all, much
less defeat them. But why is that? A former State Department official stated
last year that every new drone strike in Yemen that kills innocent people
results in the creation of 40-60 new enemies. Likewise, the young girl from
Pakistan who had been brutally shot by the Taliban for her desire to go to
school told President Obama during a White House meeting that “drone attacks
are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead
to resentment among the Pakistani people.”
Are
there more al-Qaeda groups out there because our policies keep creating new ones?
On
that point, Clapper said to the Senate that in Syria the al-Qaeda affiliated
al-Nusra Front “does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland.” It is all
the more disturbing, then, to have also read last week that Congress voted in
secret to resume sending weapons to the Syrian rebels, who are dominated by
al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. We have read about US-supplied weapons meant for
“moderates” in Syria being seized
by radicals on several occasions, and the Voice of America reported
last year that our Saudi “allies” are arming the same al-Nusra Front that
Clapper identifies as a threat to the US. Is the US Congress arming the very
people who will commit the next attack on US soil?
Why
is al-Qaeda as much a threat as it was ten years ago? Perhaps it is that we
continue to fight the wrong war in the wrong manner. Perhaps because we refuse
to consider that many overseas are angry because of our government’s policies
and actions. After ten years of no progress, is it not time to try something
new? Is it not time to try non-intervention and a strong defense rather than
drone strikes and pre-emptive attacks?
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly
granted, provided full credit is given.
No comments:
Post a Comment