Andrew Hagen

A research fellow at King’s College, University of London, Peter R. Neuman argues that terrorist groups are capable of existing without state support. It appears in the New York Times. (*)

According to the classically “realist” mindset, only states can pose a significant threat to the national security of other states, because lesser actors simply do not have the capacity, sophistication and resources to do so. Hence, if terrorists suddenly became effective in destabilizing countries like Italy, they couldn’t possibly have acted on their own. They must have had state sponsors, and it was only by tackling the state sponsors (in this case, the Soviet bloc), that you could root out the terrorists.

During the cold war, the paradigm of “state-sponsored terrorism” was useful, if not entirely correct. Most terrorists did receive help from states, and there were some links between disparate groups, although not to the extent that many in the United States believed. And some of the worst atrocities — like the 1983 attack on United States military headquarters in Beirut — were in fact carried out by groups that had been created by “rogue states” like Iran, Libya and Syria.

With the end of the cold war, however, things changed. While there was no longer a prime state sponsor for any “terror network,” there was also no longer any need for one. It became easy to travel from one country to another. Money could be collected and transferred around the globe. Cell phones and the Internet made it possible to maintain tight control of an elusive group that could move its “headquarters” across continents. In fact, by the end of the decade, it seemed as if the model of state-sponsored terrorism had effectively been reversed: Al Qaeda was now in charge of a state — Afghanistan under the Taliban — rather than vice versa.

The footer of the Times op-ed piece reads, “Peter R. Neumann [sic] is a research fellow in international terrorism at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London.” The Department has a presence online. (†)

We should clarify what is meant by “state-sponsored.” On the one hand, it could mean the provision of money, training, and materiel. That is apparently Neuman’s meaning. On the other hand, it could mean providing nothing more than safe harbor for terrorists. Under the Bush Doctrine, states that merely allow terrorist groups to exist on their territory are treated as states that provide money, training, and materiel to those terrorist groups.

Under Saddam, Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorist groups, including Ansar al-Islam. Today analysts have concluded that Saddam’s regime did not otherwise aid Ansar al-Islam. Under the Bush Doctrine, however, Ansar’s uncontested presence in Iraq meant Saddam’s regime was as guilty of supporting the terrorist group as if it had been providing money, training, and materiel to it.

It is highly important to keep this argument separate from the argument that Saddam’s regime was providing money, training, and materiel to the terrorists that carried out 9/11. That separate argument is much more controversial, its evidence widely doubted.

It is too easy to characterize all terrorists as either affiliated with states or unaffiliated. Reality is murkier than that.

In Laurie Mylroie’s stark conception of international terrorism, the 9/11 attacks could not have been executed without the resources of a state. Furthermore, she says, Iraq worked with Islamic militants throughout the 1990s and sponsored the 9/11 attacks. (*)

We know Dr Mylroie was wrong on a few things. Saddam did not rain anthrax upon Israeli cities when Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced despite her conviction that it would. Peter Bergen concludes she is a “crackpot” in a Washington Monthly essay. (†)

A number of analysts have challenged Mylroie’s position that Saddam’s Iraq sponsored the 9/11 attacks. Mylroie contends that the CIA is withholding evidence of the Saddam regime’s complicity with the attacks. (‡) She wants evidence released of the 707 airplane that was at Salman Pak, a terrorist training camp near Baghdad possibly used to train the 9/11 hijackers. (§)

The main question, however, remains: are non-state entities capable of pulling off terrorist attacks like 9/11? Mylroie could be wrong on a lot of issues, but if she is right that they are incapable of such attacks without state help, she has won a critical point.

It is conceivable that a terrorist group could afford to refuse the help and sponsorship of a nation-state, including funding and protection. Yet, given the choice, a terrorist group would not refuse such aid. That would not be economically rational. The level of aid provided by a state would be too high for a terrorist to pass on.

Perhaps the better question is what incentive if any does a terrorist group have to refuse state aid? In a context of competent and adequate law enforcement closing the net on high–profit margin black market operations like drug smuggling, the level of funds needed to sustain terrorist activity can only come from a handful of a few places, and the most obvious is a government.

Plainly a terrorist network enjoys an advantage over a state in that a state can be easily located by a foreign power and possibly destroyed. A terrorist network thrives on mobility. In the event that a host state like the Taliban suddenly squares off with a superior enemy like the US–led coalition, a group like Al Qaeda has the opportunity to flee the fighting to new environs where operations may safely be resumed, thereby escaping the fate of the host government.

On the other hand, the weak point in the armor of a non-state terrorist network is that for maintenance of group cohesion, frequent resort must be had to global communications technologies like telephones and the Internet. A terrorist network without global communication has no global coordination. In a way, electronic coordination of terror is the most dangerous cyberterrorist threat.

The terrorists’ need for constant global communications access is mitigated somewhat by the method of sleeper cells. If a terrorist group uses sleeper cells, orders can be given in such a way that they are only executed at some point in the remote future. Then, until word comes from above, sleeper terrorists embed themselves deep within the free society. Sleeper cells suffer from numerous tactical disadvantages. People move on with their lives, or miss the secret triggering message. Sleeper cells are highly dangerous weapons when deployed against free states, but a terrorist group cannot rely on them.

To fight a non-state terrorist entity, free states must monitor the Internet and the telephone networks for hidden messages and codes, and put that intelligence to use immediately.

A multi-pronged approach to fighting these terrorist groups may be described as:

• Monitor or cut off the terrorist’s access to global communications networks;
• Reduce the terrorist’s funding by improving law enforcement of black market industries with high profit margins like illegal drugs;
• Reduce the terrorist’s funding by tracking down money laundering schemes and enforcing laws against funding terror;
• By any and all necessary means, disrupt or remove state regimes that sponsor, help, or finance terrorists; and
• Monitor communications and funding links between terrorist groups and regimes.

The last one may prove the most challenging. Unfortunately, I believe that the channel most likely used for communication and funds flow between regimes and terrorist groups is the mosque. The problem might be limited to a few radical mosques. If the problem were indeed limited in scope to a few radical mosques, the level of controversy in addressing this problem would not be high. Controversy, great or small, will inevitably follow scrutiny of mosques, however.

If we take Mylroie’s argument seriously, we have to look at the mosque as the essential middle-man between a government and a radical Islamist terrorist group. We must remember that Islam is a very political religion (and a very religious political system). The mosque traditionally plays a key governance role in Islamic countries.

Today, the known terror-supporting states have dwindled in number. Syria, Iran, and perhaps others continue to support terror. The best strategy for free states is to focus effort on the terror-supporting states and their affiliated groups.

Wondering which political belief system you belong to? Donald J Hagen (no relation) has a useful guide that manages to skewer them all. (*)

It all makes sense to me now, or something like that.

The South Dakota state senate defeated the abortion ban bill by one vote. (*) It appears that this legislation will not become law, and will not spark the abortion issue in the 2004 elections after all. (†)

Due to the expected Supreme Court retirements, however, abortion will be an important issue in the campaign.

No major terrorist attack has occurred in the US since 9/11.

There is no sign of catching Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The possibility exists of secret communiqués between the US government and terrorist groups. A truce involving a financial payment could have been arranged.

The BBC reports this week that AZF, a terrorist group in France, has demanded extortion money from the French government. “Pay up… or else France will surpass ingloriously the sad records of Spain,” AZF’s letter reads. (*)

A traditional concept of the Muslim system of dhimmitude is that extortion money regularly paid protects the “infidel” from continuing jihad.

As far as I know, the US government has not issued any statement about its policy in this area since 9/11.

To remove all possible doubt, two steps should be taken. First, the US government should issue a public statement stating its flat, non-negotiable policy of never paying extortion to terrorists. Second, the US government should implement that statement as policy, if it has not already done so.

It may be that the US government did make a public statement on this issue in the past, and I missed it or forgot it.

To describe the nature of the Global War on Terrorism, we must begin with religion.

Judaism is not generally accepting of Christianity as a faith that either takes the place of Judaism or legitimately worships the same God as Judaism. Yet, nowhere in the core teachings of Judaism is the Trinity rejected. The Trinity is the Christian description of God. Christians say God is unitary but has three distinct aspects: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, since Judaism is worship in accordance with the Word of God, and the Gospel of John states that Jesus is the Word, a Christian case can be made that righteous Jews honor the Word. Most Christians accept that righteous Jews are worshipping the same God as them. Many Christians believe that Judaism is a righteous religion and that the Covenant between God and Abraham endures, even though they do not demand that Jews recognize Christianity as the legitimate religion of God.

On the other hand, the core Islamic teaching—the Koran—makes specific and unmistakable the Islamic rejection of the Trinity. That is, Muslims reject the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit both. Donald Sensing finds that there are several other important differences between Islam and Christianity. (*) Notably, while Christianity fosters a personal relationship between the believer and God, Islam does not foster such a thing. Ultimately, due to the Muslim rejection of the Trinity, Islam and Christianity can never be reconciled.

The irreconcilability of Christianity and Islam originates at even deeper levels, though. The prophet of Islam, Mohammed, made little in the way of what Christians recognize as prophecies, from God or otherwise. Neither was Mohammed accompanied by signs, portents or miracles, and so there is no verification of Mohammed’s commission as an apostle as there was for Jesus Christ, the disciples, and Paul. In fact, Islam teaches that the Bible is very corrupt, and can only be properly interpreted from the perspective of the Koran. To Christians, Mohammed appears as a false prophet who rejects the Bible and attempts to substitute his own teachings. Due to these doctrinal differences, the Christian and Islamic faiths can never come together. One or neither is right, not both.

Judaism and Islam are different. Jews and Muslims lived together in peace for hundreds of years, so long as the Jews lived as subservient citizens, or dhimmis. Muslim doctrine requires the acceptance of subdued or conquered Jews (and subdued or conquered Christians, for that matter). In the past, this was a relatively good deal for Jews because Jews at that time were often unfortunately not welcomed in Christian communities. Since the rebirth of the State of Israel, however, the Muslim concept of the ummah has been invoked. Israel is said to be on “Muslim land.” To force Jews to once again bend the knee to Muslims as dhimmis, radical Muslims have undertaken jihad or holy war. This is why radical Muslims are engaged in what we in the West call Jew-hatred, and indeed in general a systematic campaign of murdering Jews, young and old alike. Their goal is to destroy the State of Israel and force Jews to become their slaves, or dhimmis. Therefore, so long as the State of Israel exists and Jews have freedom, Judaism and Islam cannot be reconciled, either.

According to Judaism, neither Christianity nor Islam is equal in righteousness to it.

According to Christianity, Judaism may be equally as righteous as Christianity, but Islam is not at all a righteous religion. (Some Christians disagree that Judaism is righteous.)

According to Islam, neither Judaism nor Christianity is as righteous as Islam, but both have a minimal degree of righteousness. Muslim doctrine considers Jews and Christians as worthy of respect only if they completely submit themselves to Muslims as conquered people.

Within all faiths are syncretists who attempt to blend all religion into one. These people willfully ignore major doctrinal differences in order to reach their conclusions.

A deep split haunts Islam today. Radical Muslims want to wage holy war against the non-Muslim world and at the same time come to dominate the Muslim world. Modern Muslims want to practice their faith without being forced to engage in holy war as dictated by the radical Muslims, or to live under the iron fist of either dictators or radicals. Westerners ought never forget that most Muslims want freedom, not a campaign of global jihad.

So where does this leave us politically? First, Christian and Jew must band together and stand firm against the onslaught of radical Islam. Secondly, Christian and Jew must put aside religious doctrinal differences and band together with the modern Muslim (sometimes called the moderate or liberal or secular Muslim.) Even as this is done, both Christian and Jew must be wary of any Muslim attempts at either taqiyah, dissembling (lying) to advance Islam, or non-reciprocal proselytization opportunities. The (Arabic) word for the proselytization of Islam is dawa. The trouble arises in that while Muslims freely proselytize in Christian countries, when Christians attempt to proselytize in predominantly Muslim countries, or in divided countries like Nigeria or the Sudan, Christians are often butchered. Whenever Christians do not bend the knee to Muslims and behave as conquered servants to Muslims, like the Christian Hannah Ashrawi does for the Arab Palestinian terrorists, radical Muslims call for jihad to force the Christians into dhimmitude. Both Christians and Jews need to understand that the radical Muslim tolerance of their existence is predicated on their eventual surrender to oppression. As for atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus and pagans, they ought to know that radical Muslims would kill them on the spot, regardless of their willingness to surrender.

Under their first commandment, Christians are not allowed to disavow God, and thus neither are they allowed to disavow Christ. Thus, Christians who were sent to the gladiator pits in the days of pagan Rome could not have kept their faith and yet escaped execution by disavowing Christ. They had to choose to live as a pagan or die as a Christian. If under radical jihad a Christian is ordered to either disavow Christ or be murdered, a Christian remains under the commandment to not disavow Christ. Many Christians have recently been martyred in Africa in this very situation.

Muslims are allowed to disavow their religion in the interest of their lives. This often falls under taqiyah, although taqiyah is usually seen as a part only of Shia jurisprudence, and not part of Sunni jurisprudence. Most Muslims are Sunnis. Any Muslim can temporarily disavow his faith to escape persecution. As a result, there is the problem of the “stealth Muslim” or “secret Muslim.” An example of a stealth Muslim who is sometimes identified as a Muslim is the American writer Stephen Schwartz. His Muslim name is Suleyman Ahmad al-Kosovi.

Stealth Muslims are people who pretend to not be Muslim in order to gain some access or trust among non-Muslims, and then abuse that access or trust in some way to benefit Islam. This is something that non-Muslims can address effectively so long as they know that the problem exists. Usually, one can figure out who someone is if you think about it. Unfortunately, most Christians and Jews today have never even heard of the concept of the stealth Muslim.

This has practical impact in the area of loyalty tests. If a radical stealth Muslim were asked to swear loyalty to the Constitution, for example, he could swear to Allah loyalty to the Constitution even while remaining secretly dedicated to fighting the Constitution and all the while remaining a Muslim in good standing. (I’m sure that there is a division within Islamic jurisprudence on this matter, but from the perspective of Christians the division’s practical impact is impossible to discern.) Therefore, the loyalty tests and oaths that have become a fixture within Christendom over the course of millenia are revealed to have a severe limitation in the contemporary context of multiculturalism.

The Global War on Terrorism could easily slip into a war of civilizations, pitting Christian and Jew against Muslim. While this would be a preferable option to letting radical Islam dominate the globe, it is not the option we most prefer.

The optimal situation is for Jews, Christians, and the non-radical, moderate, liberal, or moderate Muslims—in addition to all others from atheists to Buddhists to Hindus—to resist and repel radical Islam and the jihad campaign. We call this the Global War on Terrorism.

A keystone of this campaign is to not respect multiculturalism, because that is nothing more than anarchy, and anarchy breeds war. The first step against multiculturalism is a halt in immigration to the West from Muslim countries, just as Muslim countries do not allow Westerners to emigrate there. This reciprocal halt is needed for social stability in Western countries. The repugnance Muslims have to the sound of bells and the presence of crosses, and the towering, intruding nature of their spires and the penetrating, amplified call of the mosque to prayer five times a day, all remain in deep conflict with cultural Christendom. In order to avoid needless neighborhood disputes that are likely to grow into full-fledged battles, it is better for Muslims to not be welcomed into predominantly Christian countries. A reciprocal choice has already been made by Muslims, who do not allow immigrant Christians into countries they dominate. While large numbers of immigrants leads to social instability, a number of missionaries who travel freely would not cause any social breakdown.

Simultaneously throughout the world, all proselytizing faiths, including Christianity and Islam, must be free to peacefully proselytize everyone, including each other’s believers. This last part becomes exceptionally tricky, but so long as the proselytization is truly peaceful and not backed by intimidation, economic coercion or bribery, or any kind of subterfuge, the situation should be agreeable to all. Ideally, we would all put away our weapons and just try to peacefully convince one another of our views. Unfortunately, radical Muslims are disinterested in any kind of peace deal. For them, it seems to be either victory or death. We free people of the world of all faiths must resolutely face this terrible choice the radical Muslims are making, unite together, and prepare to defend ourselves. We must remain alert and on guard.

Many Christians have called for Christianity to restrain itself against proselytizing Jews. While that may be a very good idea indeed, it should remain a theological determination and not one subject to political or legal arrangements. For otherwise it would conflict with the new rubric of universal peaceful exercise of religion and proselytization that we freedom-loving peoples of the world mean to enforce as our victory condition in this Global War on Terrorism.

Hans Jansen, a Dutch academic, reminds Europe of its past conflict with Islamic invaders. In consideration of Al Qaeda’s obsession with reversing the tide of history through brutal savagery, high on Al Qaeda’s hit list will be Spain and Vienna. Additionally, since Al Qaeda perceives Rome as the center of Christianity, Rome is a likely target. (*)

The article has a factual mistake. It says that the historic victory by European forces over the Ottoman empire at the gates of Vienna occurred in 1693. In fact, it occurred in 1683.

I would add that Greece must also be high on the list. The Greeks won their independence from Ottoman rule after a long, bitter campaign that culminated in the 1820s. This only adds importance to the need to protect the summer Olympics this year in Athens.

The Plain English Campaign has a new list of overused words and phrases. (*) Currently the most irritating is “at the end of the day,” and tied for second place are “at this moment in time” and “like” when used unnecessarily. Of the words and phrases listed by the Campaign’s press release, the following are commonly heard in America.

• 24/7
• absolutely
• address the issue
• awesome
• ballpark figure
• basically
• basis (”on a weekly basis” in place of “weekly” and so on)
• bear with me
• between a rock and a hard place
• boggles the mind
• bottom line
• crack troops
• epicentre (used incorrectly) (†)
• glass half full (or half empty)
• going forward
• I hear what you’re saying
• in terms of
• it’s not rocket science
• literally
• move the goal-posts
• ongoing
• prioritise
• pushing the envelope
• the fact of the matter is
• thinking outside the box
• to be honest/to be honest with you/to be perfectly honest
• touch base

Apparently “uh” was not considered a word. It’s a good list overall, but they fail to mention “something like that.” This monstrosity, “something like that,” is the phrase that in my estimation does more damage than any other. Not only does it malignantly grow, wastefully using more and more of our time speaking to one another, but it also fosters ambivalence in everything from serious matters to trivial details.

I’m as guilty as anyone else in overusing this list, and I resolve to do a better job of avoiding it in the future, or something like that.

Writing a book review for the San Francisco Chronicle, Don Lattin makes two shockingly inconsistent statements.

Noting a particularly cruel example of tyranny carried out by Christians who were in 415 AD newly running the Roman Empire, having displaced the paganistic practices and emperor worship that came before, Lattin writes: “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”

By the end of the review, Lattin writes:

Paganism, with its worship of a variety of gods and goddesses, tends by its very nature to be more tolerant of other faiths than monotheistic religion.

(*) Before Lattin said that Christians and pagans are morally equivalent. Later he says that monotheists (Christians) are more intolerant. Ergo, Christians are worse.

Of course, Lattin fails to mention the crucifixions, the gladiator matches, the maulings by wild animals, and the other punishments inflicted under the pagan rule of Rome on Christians. Apparently, paganism is capable of much intolerance as well.

Let us also pause for a moment to consider the human sacrifices, the child sacrifices, the cannibalism, the mass murder, and all the other memorable deeds done by pagans. It’s not just a bunch of people singing songs and burning incense while “skyclad” out in the woodlands.

A proper comparison of religions would compare doctrines. The errors and failures of believers should be a factor, but not the only factor under consideration.

Update: 25 March 2004. Kalblog links. (†) He makes good points.

Popular Iranian reformer Mohammad Khatami has given up the fight and conceded defeat to the country’s hardline theocratic regime. (*) (†) Peaceful, incremental reform inside Iran is dead.

The strategic implication is that the future paths for Iran are reduced to three: maintenance of the Status Quo, revolution from below, or intervention from outside Iran.

One of the highest budget priorities for the US should be fully funding the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure and lock down all of Russia’s old nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, as Sally Ann Baynard notes, the Bush Administration is actually proposing a cut in the program for the next fiscal year. (*) If even one of Russia’s nukes were to be acquired by terrorists, the consequence would be horrific.

The Clinton Administration also neglected this program. We need to put aside partisan differences and get the job done. In this time of the Global War on Terror, we can’t afford the problem of loose nukes.

Could shortwave radio including the BBC, ham radio, CB radio, some police and law enforcement radio, and other radio communications suddenly stop working in the United States?

Yes, says the Amateur Radio Relay League, a ninety-year old organization of radio enthusiasts. (*)

They cite the proposal before the FCC to allow Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology. Electrical power lines would act as gigantic transmitters and receivers. This could jeopardize radio communications that are critical to securing the homeland and providing emergency services. FEMA has warned that its operations would be impaired with BPL. (†)

Considering that a number of informed people have stated very serious concerns on these very important matters, and that the FCC is proceeding apace to implement the BPL plan, it would appear advisable to Congress to hold hearings on BPL before the FCC acts.

It would be better to slow down BPL for a short while to get the facts as opposed to bearing the risk of the great harm that informed people say would occur with BPL.

Kofi Annan has sent a proposal to the UN Security Council asking for an independent inquiry into the UN–Iraq Oil for Food program. (*) Millions or even billions of dollars may have been siphoned off in corrupt transactions and bribes. (†) The probe will look into entities outside the UN. (‡)

Some have made charges that France and Russia were motivated by oil contracts and bribes to oppose what would have been the eighteenth UN Security Council resolution on Iraq (often misleadlingly (§) called the “second resolution” by the media).

The strategic implications of the inquiry’s findings could be large. If the primary champion of the antiwar cause, France, is seen to have been motivated by money to oppose the liberation of Iraq, the side of freedom will gain an opportunity to increase the coherence of its side against appeasement.

Building on the work of the writer Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer makes the case that Europe has fundamentally aligned with Arab Muslim regimes.

This “shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence,” Bat Ye’or explains, was intended to break the “traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity.” To deflate American power and assure themselves a steady supply of oil, European leaders accepted “the traditional cultural baggage of Arab societies, with its anti-Christian and anti-Jewish prejudices and its hostility against Israel and the West.” In exchange for markets in the Islamic world, Europe turned its back on its Judeo-Christian heritage and set the stage for its own Islamization. At the highest political level, Europe, including Spain, has been selling its soul for decades now—giving up, in effect, its blood for oil.…

(*) The US–Europe alliance faces this challenge.

Does Europe suffer from a failure of nerve? Is Europe doomed? We shall find out.

Edmund Burke stood against the tide and opposed the French Revolution. His prescient warning that brute tyranny would arise from anarchy is relevant today. Christopher Hitchens tackles the man and his ideas. (*)

The Decadent West is a sharply written, interesting web log. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend you check it out. (*)

Decadent West is currently offering a condensed explanation of America’s obesity problem. Fatness now outweighs lung cancer as the leading cause of death. Americans are eating too much corn, says DW, especially in the form of corn syrup. (†)

Corn does have a lot of sugary calories. Eat prudently.

Update: 24 March 2004. The Corn Refiners Association says that high fructose corn syrup “is not the cause of obesity.” (‡)

Michele of A Small Victory has written an elegant and devastating short essay on the seething, irrational rage of the establishment Left. (*)

They have abandoned all of the highest left-wing ideals expressed since the Enlightenment. It is left to us, that remnant that clings to our ideals, to tend to the banners of peace through victory, liberty through strength, prosperity through transparent markets, freedom through law and morality, and democracy through duty and courage.

The Spanish exit from the battlefield of Iraq in the Global War on Terror speaks ill of the Iberians, but Spain’s ignoble retreat already looks like but a minor Al Qaeda victory.

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski has announced that now Polish forces will stay in Iraq “as long as needed, plus one day longer.” (*)

Norway has announced that it also intends to stay the course in Iraq. (†)

Even the United Nations is now readying its return to Iraq after pulling up stakes last summer following the barbaric attack on its Iraqi headquarters. (‡)

Finally, there is the Iraqi people. They will stand and fight for their own freedom. Never underestimate the people of Iraq.

Come June 30, Iraqis will enjoy self-government again—this time forever. The transition will expose to all Al Qaeda’s endless quest for mass murder in Iraq and elsewhere as the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-West, anti-freedom, illegitimate, barbaric, criminal undertaking that it is. The next few months may well be a tough ride, but the goal is now in sight. The civilized world—both Christian and Muslim—is working together to defeat terror. We can and will succeed.

There are several reasons to doubt the sincerity of the terrorists’ offer of a truce to Spain in the wake of the Madrid bombing—one of the most incredible victories for terrorism ever.

The murderous fanatics released a statement.

In its statement, Abu Hafs al-Masri said it was calling a truce in Spain to give the socialist government that was elected Sunday, three days after the train attacks, time to carry out its pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq.

The group appeared to boast it had the power to change governments.

“We change and destroy countries,” the statement said. “We even influence the international economy.”

(*)

(The terrorists also claimed to support Bush over Kerry in the US presidential election. That is an obvious lie.)

I would guess that the statement used the Arabic word “hudna,” and that was translated into “truce.” It is widely noted that throughout history, Muslims have used hudna as a tactic to gain temporary respite against a superior enemy so that strength may be gathered over time to deliver a conquering blow later in time. (†)

Some have said that the Arabic word hudna should not be translated as “truce.” I disagree. “Truce” means temporary cessation of conflict. We just need to keep fresh in our mind that a truce is temporary. To end a war, you need what is formally called a “peace agreement.” Note that the terrorists have never offered or suggested any peace agreement. They only offer truces, and only then when they are weak.

Even if Spain withdraws from Iraq, the terrorists will eventually come for Spain again. As the terrorist front group Abu Hafs al Masri Brigades said after the Madrid attack, “This is part of a longstanding settling of scores with Crusader Spain.” (‡) The Moors were driven out of Spain in 1492 AD in the Reconquista, a long campaign associated with the Crusades to defend Christendom.

In Al Qaeda’s official declaration of responsibility, Spain’s involvement in Afghanistan is also invoked as the terrorists’ cause for war. “This is a response to the crimes that you have caused in the world, and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan.” (§) Spain stood with the US against terror after 9/11, and Spain has contributed to the Afghan campaign.

Exiting the Iraq campaign will not give Spain security. The terrorists will fight until Spain exits Afghanistan and the Iberian peninsula is controlled by radical Muslims.

Update: 20 March 2004. Minor changes. Additionally, Robert Spencer says that “Islamic law allows mujahedin to agree to a truce only for a temporary period, when they are weak, in order to gather their strength and fight again more effectively.” (**)

The disastrous outcome of the Spanish election has been much noted elsewhere. (*) A few days before the election, foreign terrorists murdered 200 people and injured 1,400 more in an attack on innocent men, women, and children riding on commuter trains in Madrid. A radical Islamist terrorist statement publicly called on Spain to remove its forces from Iraq. The incumbent party’s lead in the polls disappeared. The challenging party, promising to remove Spanish forces from Iraq, won the election. The Socialist leader, Zapatero, has already sealed his place in history alongside appeasers like Neville Chamberlin for declaring he will withdraw Spain’s 1,200 troops from Iraq.

I have a few comments.

• The barbarians dictated terms to the Spanish people. The Spanish people cowed before the barbarians.
• You do not honor your dead by retreating over their graves.
• This is not merely troubling for Spain. It is troubling for the future of democracy. I still believe that democracies are capable of defending themselves against terrorism, but reason for some doubt has now been created.
• Spain’s incumbent party should have done a better job in managing the situation. They should have communicated with the people the full information they had on the attacks immediately. That would have bred less distrust.
• The obvious inference is that terrorists will now attack around every election around the world. Fasten your seatbelts as we approach November 2nd.
• Every time we give into terrorism, terrorism gets worse.
• Frederick Turner memorializes Spain’s tragic moment of dishonor in a poem. (†)
• The thesis that the radical Left and the terrorists are joining forces has picked up support.
• The coalition should consider requesting that Spain withdraw its forces from Iraq without delay, because they could now be used by the Socialist government of Spain to collect information on coalition forces for the benefit of terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. I doubt the Spanish military would stand for such a thing, but the new Spanish government cannot be trusted.
• A discussion in Spain is taking place along the lines of the cowardice the voters showed. (‡) That such a discussion occurs is a good sign. (§)

It’s unfortunate that Spain is now the sycophantic, bent-knee servant of the terror masters. I hope that the natural valor and courage of Spaniards returns to steady them in the near future, and that they will rejoin the civilized world in our fight against the terrorist savages.