Andrew Hagen

Richard Goldstein has an article, “Neohawks: Leftists Who Love the War Too Much,” in a recent issue of Village Voice that attempts to discipline the progressive Left back into obedience to the establishment Left on the issue of the the Iraq intervention, but ends up only providing examples of several common antiwar fallacies. (*) Goldstein says:

[I]t was a shock to find [Greil Marcus] dissing leftist intellectuals for their skepticism about the war on terror. Marcus is not the only member of the counterculturati to find the hawk within. . . . What we know about U. S. foreign policy is that it played a crucial part in the rise of Muslim militance.

Read the second part of this excerpt closely. That is only supportable if US foreign policy has been significantly more harmful to Muslims than to any other group. Yet, I am not aware of anyone in the American Left who outwardly voices such a view. On the other hand, Osama Bin Laden takes such a view in order to justify terrorist attacks.
(more…)

Michael Kelly notes that the voguish pejorative “chickenhawk” suggests that only one who served in wartime may advocate war, yet our democratic country is premised upon an extant military class not making the ultimate war and peace decisions on behalf of the larger public. (*)

As the establishment Left fails to understand, this world is not a fairy tale. Here evil men such as Saddam Hussein do torture and kill the defenseless in horrifying ways whenever their sick whimsy strikes. Thus exists the need for peaceful men to defend themselves.

Today, a delivery truck was reported to have exploded on a highway in the St. Louis, Missouri vicinity. This gave rise, inevitably, to speculation that there were terrorists afoot. I thought, “Was it a bomb?” Later reports said that the truck went off the road, whereupon its fuel tank ruptured, causing a fire and, perhaps, an explosion. (*) It was an accident—not terrorism. Thankfully, no one was injured.

There have been innumerable false alarms here in the US since the 11 September 2001 attacks.

• A professional football game was delayed after a police officer used mace to break up a fight in the stands. The gas wafted onto the field and some players became nauseated. It wasn’t clear at first what was the cause of their condition. The fear was that there was a chemical or biological weapon involved. There was, but not a lethal one or one used inappropriately.
• Last November, when Flight 587 crashed, speculation turned to terrorism. At the time, I felt strongly that it must have been sabotage. Now the evidence shows that the tail fin swung wildly from side to side on the basis of cockpit controls, and that the crash occurred for a reason unrelated to terrorism. (†)
• At the time of the anthrax attacks, there were numerous false alarms related to white powdery substances.
• There have been numerous fighter jet escorts of passenger aircraft on the bases of false alarms.
• There have been a incidents where sky marshals drew their firearms aboard aircraft, when later it turned out that the suspicious activity that provoked them was not terrorism.
• Many airport terminals have been evacuated because someone broke through security. In most if not all of these cases, the security jumper turned out to be someone other than a terrorist.
• There was the Florida highway case, where some harmless Muslim students were overheard, I believe, joking about terrorism. A highway was shut down and a public relations fiasco resulted. (‡)

The unifying theme is that in the post–9/11 environment, every threat must be taken seriously. It makes every news broadcast a potentially horrifying experience. We try not to lapse into fear. Quality of life suffers under the threat of terrorism. So much more the reason to invest our society’s resources into winning the War on Terrorism.

Last updated: 9 April 2003. Title edited.

The Wellstone family held a memorial service tonight for Paul Wellstone, his wife, his daughter, and the five others who died in the plane crash. The memorial service was open to the public; anyone who stood in line was welcome. (*) Vice-President Richard Cheney had expressed his interest in attending the memorial service. The Wellstone family requested that he not attend, and he decided not to. (†) These must have been heartrending days for the Wellstone family, and many have joined in their grief. Nevertheless, in not allowing Vice-President Cheney to attend, they were in the wrong. There was talk that the family was worried about the security burden that must necessarily accompany a Vice-President. Yet, they welcomed many Senators and others who required heightened security. The issue wasn’t security.

The real issue was ideological differences, and the sometimes bitter political struggles of the recent past between Paul Wellstone and the Administrations Bush. Some things are bigger than politics, however. The funerary service is where our entire society comes together to mourn—where anyone may pay his last respects to the dead. The funeral and the memorial service have a special place in our great American culture. Funerals are different than weddings not least in whom may attend. To attend a wedding, it is mandatory that one has received an invitation. To attend a funeral or memorial service, however, any genuinely grieving person may simply show up. All are welcome. The only exception is for the funerary rites of famous people, whose families may choose to hold a private service if for no reason but for the sake of not being mobbed at a time when they wish only to commemorate their lost. For example, when John F. Kennedy, Jr. and his wife died, the general public was not admitted to the actual service. This sole exception gives the grieving family of a well-known person the option to close the ceremony.

The Wellstone family willingly opened tonight’s memorial service to the public, and then claimed the right to deny entrance to persons that they disliked, including Richard Cheney, of whom they had no reason to distrust in his statement that he intended to grieve for Paul Wellstone and the others memorialized. No family has the right to pick and choose which mourners will be turned away at the door. Cheney committed no crime against the Wellstones. This was not a private service; it was a public one. Cheney should have been welcomed and allowed to mourn.

The Chechen and Arab terrorists who seized a defenseless playhouse in Moscow, set free only the Muslim attendees, tortured and shot several people, including women, and placed bombs in hopes of murdering 1,000 had hoped all along to force Russia into making concessions to the Chechen rebels. (*) Now, in the wake of the counterterrorist operation carried out by Russian forces, and the deaths of all the terrorists save those who may have run away moments after boldly stating that they never would, the leader of Chechnya calls for negotiations. (†) It seems an unlikely coincidence. He did at least condemn the hostage-taking and planned murder. Fortunately, Vladimir Putin is having none of it, and hints darkly at what may happen if the Chechen terrorists ever attack a nuclear facility. (‡) The Chechen terrorists have died for nothing. Instead of forcing Russia to negotiate and give up more leverage to such common murderers, a stepped-up military campaign against the Chechen rebels has already commenced. (§) (**) Another goal will be dismantling the stranglehold that Chechen organized crime has over the Russian economy. (††)

It has been a thirteen-month “Year of Terror.” (‡‡) The ultimate lesson for all of the world’s terrorists and all of their sympathizers should be, must be, and is extraordinarily simple: terror does not pay.

I have always opposed the sectarian Left. This weekend, the Left marched en masse, with some exceptions, under the banner of sectarianism—particularly that of the “International ANSWER” coalition, controlled by the WWP. (*) The Left has also championed the banner of “Not in our Name,” a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party, which explicitly supports terrorist groups like the Sendero Luminoso of Peru, the so-called “Shining Path.” (†)

I support the Iraq action as a necessary war. The Iraqi state sponsors terrorism. (‡) The Iraqi state is also trying to build a full array of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction. (§ PDF) Mirror (**) Other states that seek nuclear weapons, such as North Korea, are open to good faith negotiations. (††) (‡‡) Iraq is not open to good faith negotiations. (§§) If we do not fight to liberate Iraq, as soon as Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear weapons, terrorists of one group or another, be they Al Qaeda or some other group, will have in Iraq a permanent safe haven wherefrom to operate with impunity. This alone makes Iraq the greatest and most imminent threat to peace in the world today.

The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II because it could not, or would not, stop Hitler. (***) Now France is on the verge of preventing the United Nations from enforcing the dozen Security Council resolutions that Iraq has unapologetically broken. (†††) (‡‡‡) Saddam Hussein edges closer every day to building the weapons that would ensure terror and tyranny in the Middle East and around the world for decades to come.

Of course, there is always a good moral argument against war. It is that the ends do not justify the means. Yet, that is the very justification that many fellow American Leftists have clung to when confronted with the fact of the sectarian domination of the American Left. (§§§) (****) It is all right, they say, to support sectarian groups such as the WWP and RCP, as long as the sectarians are currently taking agreeable action. What has so terribly disappointed me in these last few weeks is how much of the Left has been so willingly seduced by the sectarians. Anti-sectarians have made their statements against the Iraq war, but I fear their voice of reason has been drowned out. (††††) Now that the moral voice of the American Left has effectively nullified itself, it’s time to rethink things.

We especially need to rethink our long-neglected political theory. There has been too much of an emphasis on organization and not enough emphasis on weighing what is right. I’m in the process of doing my own rethinking now.

Adapted from private correspondence.

Paul Wellstone, 58, Senator of Minnesota, his wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, and five others died when their plane crashed in icy weather on approach to the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport (EVM) in northeastern Minnesota. (*) (†) (‡) (§)

It made me proud as an American to have Paul Wellstone in the Senate. As a member of the Left, I always viewed him favorably. I found myself disagreeing with him rarely. I was always proud of his many successes as a sterling representative of the great traditions of liberalism and progressivism. He was a great warrior in the true sense of the word who fought for the best of ideals on behalf of Minnesota and the United States. He never betrayed his values. The phrase “conscience of the Senate” applied to him better than to any other. If ordinary folks could count on one Senator to stand up for them, it was Paul Wellstone. He was a great man.

Our country has suffered a heartbreaking loss in the death of Paul Wellstone. His life serves as an inspiration to others as to the great things that public service can achieve.

Last updated: 28 November 2002. Airport code added.

Conservatives were quick, and still are quick, to criticize former President Clinton for making appearances at seemingly every emotion-laden, media-drenched national moment. Conservatives salute President Bush for bringing the stiff upper lip back to Washington, DC, even though Bush has played the same emotional counseling role as President Clinton did. Andrew Sullivan, the noted conservative journalist, today opines on his web log about this very practice of President Bush’s, as most recently exemplified by Bush’s few comments on the horrifying sniper case, now thankfully brought to a conclusion:

One difference bwteen [sic] this president and the last is that Bush doesn’t feel the need to be the country’s permanent emotional counselor, or to involve himself in every issue or event. Yesterday he made brief but sensible comments and showed that the feds were doing what they could to help. Beyond that, this is a police job. Period.

(*) That’s a nice thought, but the facts get in the way. President Bush has played this same kind of emotional support role, interjecting himself into national events, most recently in this summer’s dramatic and commendable mine rescue. Quoting USA Today from 6 August 2002:

President Bush saluted the courage of nine rescued miners Monday and said their survival is symbolic of an American spirit that will defeat terrorism and a sagging economy.

‘’I believe that what took place here in Pennsylvania really represents what’s best in our country, what I call the spirit of America,'’ Bush told a crowded Green Tree Fire House.

He later attended a fundraiser for the state’s GOP gubernatorial candidate and raised $1 million.

Bush met with the coal miners who were rescued last week from a flooded mine in Somerset, about 60 miles away. The men were trapped for three days in the Quecreek Mine as hundreds of rescuers worked to free them.

‘’It is the determined spirit of America and our optimism and our ability to solve problems, which will help us deal with the economic downturn,'’ he said. ‘’Working together, we can achieve big objectives and big goals.'’

Bush’s remarks came on a day of falling stock prices.

(†) The mine rescue was a matter of state, local, and federal agencies working together, just like in the sniper case. Yet there is President Bush, acting the part of the nation’s emotional counselor. This difference that Andrew Sullivan detects is real, but where President Clinton tried to comfort the grieving, President Bush scores a political point off the near-tragedy and heroics of other people.

Just 818 more days.

Earlier this month, the US went to North Korea for a discussion. The North Koreans told US officials that they had a nuclear weapons program. Eventually this admission was leaked to the press. The immediate question in the US media became what to do about North Korea’s admission.

Some Bush Administration officials said negotiations with North Korea were out of the question. Soon, American conservatives were lining up to congratulate the Bush administration for its hard line stance on North Korea, noting that this stance caused North Korea to make its confession. Included in their number was Wall Street Journal editorial board member Claudia Rosett, who recently wrote:

Last January he [Bush] called these regimes “evil.” Then, instead of apologizing to all the modern Neville Chamberlains who had gone faint with shock, he went about telling the world just how evil. His administration confronted Saddam and Kim Jong Il with evidence of their depredations and violations. And what do you know? Some of the world’s worst bullies have begun to crack.

(*) Unfortunately for Rosett and her conservative fellows, however, the facts are against Bush being a hardliner. Quoting from the New York Times, 25 September 2002, in an article entitled, “In Policy Shift, U.S. Will Talk to North Korea:”

President Bush will send a senior American diplomat to North Korea early next month, the White House said today, ending 20 months of internal debate on whether to open talks with a country that Mr. Bush lumped with Iran and Iraq as part of an “axis of evil.” . . .

Administration officials say they intend to have a wide-ranging discussion with North Korea that will cover its missile production and exports, its huge array of conventional weapons within reach of South Korea and its history of repression. There will undoubtedly be revived talk about its nuclear program, which has been frozen since 1994 under an agreement with the United States.

The timing of the White House announcement was significant, because the stance on North Korea contrasts so sharply with Mr. Bush’s approach to Iraq. Administration officials have gone to some lengths in recent weeks to explain why they think diplomacy can work with Kim Jong Il of North Korea but not with Saddam Hussein.

(†) In other words, it wasn’t threats from the Bush Administration that provoked the North Koreans into admitting their nuclear weapons program; it was negotiations. Furthermore, President Bush has not been against negotiations with North Korea all along, as so many conservatives exclaim. Instead, the whole reason for US officials to go to North Korea in the first place was to open negotiations. When North Korea admitted to its nuclear weapons program, things suddenly changed, and everyone conveniently forgot about the original intention behind talking to North Korea. Even today, however, negotiations appear as a distinct and realistic possibility.

That should clear up any confusion.

Here, north of the Equator, a chill strikes the air. The waters of the earth turn slowly to frost and hail. Autumn is here. As the seasons change, the senses recover; the memory stirs. John Keats’s To Autumn eyes this time and espies its virtue. (*) A recent Atlantic article by Sven Birkerts provides an introduction. (†) Keats asks of his titular subject what is beauty. He eschews the approach of the aesthetician and attempts to take autumn’s properties directly into his perception—first by sight, then by touch, finally by hearing—certain all along of their beauty, seeking only to know them.

It is the tragedy inherent in autumn that is upheld here as beautiful, for in every ripeness is a future of decay and demise. The true glory of fall is not in a pretty snapshot of it, but in the groundwork it lays for the rebirth to come.

There has been some amount of controversy lately about MSNBC’s description as “hateful” of the web log known as “Little Green Footballs.” (*) Many conservative web loggers have leaped to the defense of LGF and its writer, Charles Johnson. (†)

Then, today comes along and Charles Johnson posts:

Oriana Fallaci’s book The Rage and the Pride has been vilified in Europe, for daring to tell the truth about Islam’s hatred of the West.

(‡) Let’s leave to one side what Orlana Fallaci believes. Let’s focus on what Charles Johnson said. It’s apparently okay for Charles to say without evidence, without reason that Islam is a monolith that hates the West, but it’s not okay to say that based on his monolithic, stereotyped characterization of Islam, that Charles is a hater of Islam. Got that?

Islam is not a person, it’s a thing—both a religion and a civilization. A thing can’t hate. Moreover, I happen to know several Muslims, and I can’t think of one of them that hates the West. We do know that a few Muslims are terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and clearly do hate the West, but there is no reason to believe that this hatred is shared by more than a relative few. Islam can’t be described so simply as by Charles Johnson.

I would like to think that Osama Bin Laden will not get his wish, and that we of this world will learn to look past our differences and live in peace. That will not happen until the terrorists are defeated. Yet, there are apparently many in the West that are tempted to do what Osama wants and start hating Islam for being Islam and turn civilization upon civilization, as if peace were a luxury. We are right to direct our wrath toward our enemies—the terrorists—but not against Islam itself, which does not hate the West, no matter what some may say.

Anil Dash reflects thoughtfully on the controversy. (§)

Mac Diva comments. (**) (††)

Update: 2003.08.30. Link is reinstated. (‡)

The Orlando Sentinel recently syndicated an in-depth series of articles on the incredibly complex and important challenge of providing for homeland security. The articles compare the tasks of getting to the moon and defending the homeland. Relatively speaking, getting to the moon was easy. (*) (†) (‡) (§) (**) The subtext is that homeland defense will be the greatest challenge to face our generation.

The White House released its homeland security strategy last July. (†† PDF) Not to be forgotten is the report headlined by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman that called in February 2001 for a cabinet-level department on homeland security. (‡‡ PDF)

This weekend, an antiwar protest will be staged in Washington, DC and other cities, by the “International ANSWER” coalition. (*) These protests will probably attract a wide variety of progressives. As is reported, “International ANSWER” is a front group for the Workers’ World Party (WWP). (†) The WWP is a sectarian group vocal in its support for war criminal and master planner of genocides Slobodan Milosevic. (‡) Another front group of the WWP’s is “International Action Center.” (§) This is the group that Ramsey Clark, supporter of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, frequently headlines.

I do not espouse anarchy, even though I must admit the anarchists at Infoshop do a nice job of exposing to sunlight the WWP and its front groups. My concern is that while the progressive Left ignorantly allies itself, as if somnambulant, with the sectarian Left, the possibility fades of holding the moral high ground and winning wide support. (**) We must forswear participation with the sectarian Left if we hope to ever successfully advance a genuinely progressive agenda.

Update: 14 March 2003. The anarchists have taken down most of their page for some reason. I commend to you Nathan Newman for further information. (††)

Update: 3 December 2003. I see the anarchists put their page back up.

Saddam Hussein held a sham election in which he got 100% of the vote, where few voters dared to use the curtained voting stations to cast their ballots freely. (*) Then, only after the election, he opened Iraq’s jails and freed all but the non-Arabs, or all but the non-Iraqis, according to various reports. In the mob frenzy that resulted, several people were tragically trampled to death. (†) Classified as missing/believed captured, Lt. Cmdr. Scott Speicher of the US Navy was not among the released. The fact that Hussein opened the jails only after the election, and not before, when the release could have sparked an emotional backlash against his regime, is indicative of Hussein’s paranoia.

Opening the prisons is a standard tactic used by governments when they face the threat of being overwhelmed by a superior military force. In this case, Saddam Hussein appears to have hoped not only to bolster his armed forces with released prisoners, but also to increase his support among the Iraqi people and win international support. After it became clear to Iraqis that some unknown large number of prisoners will never be freed, because they died in prison without notice to their families, or were secretly executed, spontaneous protests have challenged the regime. (‡)

Meanwhile, for the past several weeks, Saddam Hussein has been conducting a purge of his high-level security officials, including of Tikiritis, his most loyal cadre. (§)

The regime is getting more and more desperate. Saddam Hussein must know that one way or another, his reign of tyranny will soon end.

Update: 3 April 2003. Text slightly changed to correct misstatement. Either Arabs or Iraqis were freed, and either non-Arabs or non-Iraqis were not freed. (**)

The arrested man claimed by the Philippine government as being an Abu Sayyaf leader was actually a foot soldier. (*) The government is claiming another positive step, however, in the killing of three Abu Sayyaf rebels. (†) Meanwhile, an article in Asia Times calls the Philippine government’s effort “bumbling.” (‡) The Philippines must put more resolve and more resources into their law enforcement and military.

For years, a brutal civil war with many civilian casualties has wracked the Sudan. (*) Finally, with the signing of the Sudan Peace Act, the US sends a strong message to the Sudanese government that they must resolve the conflict and protect human rights or face a variety of sanctions. (†) While this Act may not successfully stabilize the Sudan, long a safe haven for terrorists, or fail to do enough to encourage the recognition of human rights there, it does send the right message. It is a sign that the US and the international community are at last getting serious about the Sudan.

It is reported that the highest profile group to have organized protest against the Iraq war, known as “Not in our Name,” is a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a United States–based communist group that supports Maoism and violent revolution against capitalism. (*) (†) (‡) The RCP has supported the Peruvian terrorist group Sendero Luminoso. (§) (**) (††)

Go to the home page for “Not in our Name” and you will see that they have no indication of who or what committee is running the show—a sure sign of a front group. (‡‡) When “Not in our Name” asks for financial help, they mention that their fiscal sponsor is the “Interreligous Foundation for Community Organization,” a group that gets a grand total of three Google hits. (§§) “Not in our Name” appears to be a front group.

Many progressives have argued that “Not in our Name” is doing the right thing, and thus we shouldn’t be concerned that they are a front for a group that apologizes for the murders of tens of millions. I argue that if you want to raise a protest that has a chance of making a difference, you best state that protest from a position that is not wholly disreputable, as is that of communism.

There is a long-standing problem amongst us on the American Left with accepting into our ranks and into our leadership people who have loyalties to cultists and murderers. They use terms like “democratic centralism” to make it appear as if their cults are not centrally controlled, when they are indeed. They deny they are sectarian, when they are. They recruit the young and naïve. They send their members into non-sectarian groups on the Left, from political parties to unions. Their members deny that they are members of the sects, or deny that their conflicting loyalties matter. They seek to take control of the group. Once they take control, they use the good reputation of that group to promote their Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, or Maoist propaganda. Once they have fully spent the resources of the formerly progressive group, it is nothing but a hollow shell, destroyed from the inside. Another tactic is to start a front group, like “Not in our Name” that starts out with a fairly moderate message, and then make use of its earned reputation to spread their communist propaganda and gain even more recruits. The goal of all these groups is political. They want “revolutionary change” around the world, with however many murders that would entail.

Let’s say the Republican Party was holding a campaign rally. Suddenly, the Neo-Nazis, the KKK, the White Aryan Resistance, and some Christian identity folks showed up and wanted to participate. They wanted to speak. They wanted to get their message out in front of the cameras. Would the Republicans even hold a discussion on what to do? Would they wring their hands and say, “Gee, I don’t like those guys, but, after all, they are on the right-wing. We gotta show solidarity and allow them to participate”?

No, they wouldn’t. They would kick them to the street. But we on the Left allow such extremists to join us. It is not bold or brave to suggest, as some do, that the crackpot sectarians should merely be denied leadership positions in our progressive movements. It is not bold or brave to suggest that the Left just go along with “Not in our Name” as if the true leadership of the group did not matter.

Some say that the crackpots must be allowed to participate as a matter of free speech. I am not a lawyer. Anyone can read the First Amendment, which guarantees not only free speech but also free association. Part of free association is the right to exclude people from your group. Excluding the crackpot sectarians from the progressive movement is indeed justified. If they want free speech, let them speak—alone.

Sectarians have a way of recruiting (tricking) people into their groups. The Left is small and needs new participants. Some say sectarians should be allowed to participate in our groups because they bring people. The Left is small, however, for the very reason that we do cede the moral high ground when we allow such walking moral compromises into our groups. A sectarian group is like a strange man on the corner who offers the neighborhood kids free candy. Every time they take some and eat it, they get sick, and then sicker. Some even die. Notwithstanding the evidence, the neighborhood watch denies that the candy is poisonous and tells the kids to keep eating it.

The RCP and other crackpot sectarian groups are to be unequivocally condemned and absolutely barred from any participation in the progressive, left-wing movement. The crackpot sectarians are our ideological opponents just as much as is the hard right-wing.

Originally posted in different parts to Belief Net and to Max Sawicky’s web log.

Update: 10 March 2003.Earlier, I wrote that the RCP supported the Tiananmen Square massacre. That was incorrect. I was thinking of another group. The RCP has condemned that massacre. (***)

Update: 1 January 2004. Linked by the Angry Clam. (†††)

I posted earlier that North Korea might not have meant that they considered the 1994 Agreed Framework to be actually nullified. (*) Now North Korea is making statements indicating that, indeed, they do not consider it nullified. The New York Times reports on a recent broadcast made by Radio Pyongyang:

“Eight years after the Agreed Framework was adopted, the United States is still shifting around at the starting line,” the radio said in a broadcast monitored by South Korea’s Yonhap news agency. “The framework is at crossroads whether it should be scrapped or not because of the delay in providing the light-water reactors.”

(†) This knocks out Colin Powell’s reasoning that since North Korea considers the Agreed Framework nullified, there is no point in negotiating with them. They do not consider it nullified. That is good news.

Now investigators are back to the original conclusion that there were two, and not three, bombs that hit the Kuta Beach district in Bali. (*) Obviously, the investigation is still at an early stage. The terrorists first set off a smaller bomb inside the nightclub, apparently with the intent of getting people to go outside. Then, a large bomb in a car parked just outside the nightclub went off with people standing nearby.

It was a twisted and wicked act of mass murder.

There appears to be widespread confusion on whether the shooter or shooters who have shot eleven people and murdered nine are terrorists. Terrorists have a political agenda. They want to change the political order. They do not merely want to terrorize. They terrorize for the purpose of influencing politics. (*) So far, there is no evidence at all that the shooter or shooters have any political agenda.

Update: 10 December 2003. At the time, that statement was accurate. Now we know that the snipers conceived of their attacks as jihad, holy war. (†) They had a political agenda after all.