How to End Terrorism

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
December 5, 2006
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4174

[NY Sun title: “Moderate Islam May Be Key To Winning War on Terror”]

An effective counterterrorism strategy must focus on the fact that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam presents the strategic threat today to civilized peoples, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

On the low end, this threat involves lone individuals seized by the Sudden Jihad Syndrome who unpredictably set off on a murder spree. At the high end, it involves an outlaw organization like Hamas running the quasi-governmental Palestinian Authority, or even Al-Qaeda's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In all, were terrorism by Muslims halted, this would be a major advance toward winning what some call World War IV.

Can this be achieved?

Yes, and partially via effective conventional counterterrorism. Individuals must be hunted down, organizations closed, networks smashed, borders monitored, money denied, WMD restricted. These steps, however, address only the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. "The problem itself" consists of the motivating forces that lie behind the surge of violence by Muslims in the name of Islam. Only by isolating why terrorism has emerged as so prominent a feature of Muslim life can the violence be countered.

This aggression results not from some perverse impulse to inflict damage for its own sake; nor does it flow from the religion of Islam, which just a generation ago did not inspire such murderousness. Rather, it results from political ideas.

Ideas have no role in common criminality, which has purely selfish ends. But ideas, usually ones about radically changing the world, are central to terrorism. and especially to its suicidal variety. Unlike the rest of us, who generally accept life as it is, utopians insist on building a new and better order. To achieve this, they demand all powers for themselves, display a chilling contempt for human life, and harbor ambitions to spread their vision globally. Several utopian schemas exist, with fascism and communism historically the most consequential and each of them claiming tens of millions of casualties.

By 1945 and 1991, respectively, these two totalitarianisms had been vanquished through defeat in war, one violently (in World War II), the other subtly (in the cold war). Their near demise emboldened some optimists to imagine that the era of utopianism and totalitarianism had come to end and that a liberal order had permanently replaced them.

Alas, this view ignored a third totalitarianism, growing since the 1920s, that of Islamism, most briefly defined as the belief that whatever the question, from child-rearing to war-making, "Islam is the solution." As the result of several factors – an historic rivalry with Jews and Christians, a boisterous birth rate, the capture of the Iranian state in 1979, support from oil-rich states – Islamists have come to dominate the ideological discourse of Muslims interested in their Islamic identity or faith.

Islamic law, in retreat over the previous two centuries, came roaring back, and with it jihad, or sacred war. The caliphate, defunct in real terms for over a millennium, became a vibrant dream. Ideas proffered by such thinkers and organizers as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Shah Waliullah, Sayyid Abu'l-A'la al-Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and Rouhollah Khomeini aggressed successfully against traditional, modernist, and centrist approaches to Islam. To advance the poisoned vision of these utopians, their followers adopted violent means, including terrorism.

The most effective form of counterterrorism fights not the terrorists but the ideas that motivate them. This strategy involves two main steps. First, defeat the Islamist movement just as the fascist and communist movements were defeated – on every level and in every way, making use of every institution, public and private. This task falls mainly on non-Muslims, Muslim communities being generally incapable or unwilling to purge their own.

In contrast, only Muslims can undertake the second step, the formulation and spread of an Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, liberal, good-neighborly, humane, and respectful of women. Here, non-Muslims can help by distancing themselves from Islamists and supporting moderate Muslims.

Although theoretically possible, the weakness of its advocates at present makes moderate Islam appear impossibly remote. But however dim its current prospects, the success of moderate Islam ultimately represents the only effective form of counterterrorism. Terrorism, begun by bad ideas, can only be ended by good ones.

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org), director of the Middle East Forum, last week presented a longer version of this analysis in Brazil, at a conference hosted by the country's intelligence agency, the Agência Brasileira de Inteligência (ABIN).

Renew Milton Friedman's Conservatism
Print Mail

By Newt Gingrich, David Merritt
Posted: Monday, December 4, 2006

ARTICLES
National Review Online
Publication Date: December 4, 2006

Milton Friedman was a man of towering eminence. He had a positive impact on the world surpassed by only a handful of individuals in the 20th century. He revered the individual, private cooperation, and peace, and he distrusted centralized power of any kind. As we mourn his passing, we should renew Friedman's call for freedom and for responsible, limited government--and we should apply his conservatism to meet today’s challenges.


Senior Fellow Newt Gingrich

Two of our most pressing challenges today are a broken health-care system and crumbling public education. Each demands new, transformational solutions. Friedman would agree that government can and should play a role in overcoming these challenges. But he would warn that its role must be limited, as he often said that a government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem itself.

Take a look at our public-education system. Nearly a quarter-century ago, the Reagan administration warned America that our failure in education was becoming a major threat to our national security. The report A Nation at Risk noted that "[o]ur once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world." It went on to soberly conclude that "what was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments." Unfortunately, since that report was issued in 1983, public education has continued to deteriorate.

According to the 2005 National Assessment for Educational Progress, the definitive national study of student performance, nearly 40 percent of all fourth graders were below basic proficiency in reading. These numbers are virtually unchanged since the early 1990s. Math proficiency is almost as bad. 31 percent of fourth graders in 2000 scored below standards of basic proficiency.

With those dismal results, you would expect alarm bells to go off throughout the education establishment. You would expect that in four or five years, math performance for these students would be drastically improved. You’d be wrong. Eighth-grade performance was actually worse in 2005, with 32 percent of students performing at below basic proficiency.

School administrators, government officials, and teachers' unions profess to want real change. Their calls ring hollow, considering that student performance has not improved in a generation. After all, public education is a monopoly run by city, county, and state governments, with a growing federal role in oversight. Bureaucratic intransigence and vested union interests consistently block transformational solutions that will bring about real change.

The status quo is failing our students, and to truly see real change, we need to enact real change. The simplest and surest way to transform education is to give students and parents the freedom to choose where they will go to school. This means eliminating restrictive zoning laws that force kids into schools simply because they live nearby. This means introducing free-market forces into education, encouraging schools to compete for students, much like businesses compete for customers. This means that schools that do not perform will either improve or close their doors--which is as it should be. There is no middle ground.

The success of school choice, when properly administered, is indisputable--proven by hoards of academic studies and thousands of personal experiences. School choice attracts better teachers, encourages creative curriculum, and improves student achievement. Friedman was a passionate advocate for school choice, particularly through his work at the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation. He argued--correctly--that by applying market principles to education, you empower students and parents at the expense of bureaucratic government control. This combination, of limited government and a vibrant market, never fails to deliver better outcomes--even in public education.

This exact approach can bring about real change in health care as well. No one is satisfied with our current system. Every year, consumers pay more for health care, with millions of Americans going without any health-care coverage at all; businesses, both large and small, are hemorrhaging under the weight of rising costs; the quality of care seldom seems to improve, especially considering the urgency of the very real threat from medical and medication errors; and the waste and inefficiency in our system is breathtaking.

This can be changed. We can transform health and health care to deliver more choices of greater quality at lower costs to every American. And government has a role to play. It can and should build an electronic infrastructure, much like government builds public school buildings. But perhaps most importantly, it must also get out of the way.

We need to put the consumer at the center of the health-care system, just as we do in every other market. And the surest way to do this is by creating a national market to purchase health insurance.

Current state and federal laws permit consumers to buy only those health-insurance plans that have been approved in their own state, meaning it is illegal for a citizen of one state to buy insurance in another. These government barriers to free trade stifle competition, producing disastrous results: The absence of robust competition artificially inflates the cost of insurance, preventing millions of citizens from purchasing affordable coverage, and thus shifting the burden of care to those who do pay for insurance and into government programs.

To reverse this, government must allow competition to flourish. More competition among insurers in a national market will encourage more creative products, better services and lower prices--just as it always does wherever competition thrives--and every American will be able to find affordable coverage. The Health Choice Act, which was introduced by Representative John Shadegg of Arizona, will go a long way toward creating a rational, working market in health care.

A vital part of this rational market is the availability of information. Information on performance, cost, and quality allows consumers to make informed decisions, but health care is perhaps the only market in which consumers have virtually no access to this information. When Americans shop for a new car, home, or thousands of other items, they quickly and easily gather information on cost and quality from an endless array of resources. But in health care, consumers are blind. Try finding out how a doctor stacks up against his colleagues. Try finding out how much a hospital charges for an elective surgery. Try finding out which surgical team has the lowest mortality rate.

Americans have a right to know this information, and the data that can best inform us is Medicare-claims history. Medicare has detailed information on nearly every doctor and hospital in the country, which can be analyzed to identify the most efficient hospitals, best doctors and most effective treatments. The federal government also has information on disciplinary action and lawsuits filed against doctors, collected for the National Practitioner Data Bank. Inexplicably and inexcusably, the federal government will not release this data, despite growing demand from many health plans, employers, consumers, and researchers. This information will save lives and save money now. Americans have a right to know this information, and taxpayers must continue to demand its release.

Good education and a healthy citizenry are--and will always be--the keys to a prosperous civilization. We must tend to both needs to ensure our survival as the greatest nation on earth. Friedman was right: The only way to do this is to allow markets to work. A fitting tribute to him--and our country--would be a new generation of leaders who see intrusive government as part of our problems and markets as part of the solutions. By applying the conservative, market-based solutions that Milton Friedman so passionately and eloquently advocated, we will undoubtedly bring about real change and build a brighter future for America.

Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at AEI and founder of the Center for Health Transformation, where David Merritt is a project director.

A New Plan For Iraq - Give It To The Chinese
Written by Dave Nalle
Published December 04, 2006

See also:
» Don't Cry for Me, Ahmadinejad
» As Sound As A Dollar? The World Hopes Not!
» Evan Bayh is Running for President
Let's start out by assuming that the dream of building a new, better, and democratic Iraq has pretty much fallen by the wayside. That being the case, we're left with a messy situation and we have to find a way to salvage whatever we can for the Iraqi people and for the interests of the United States and other involved nations.

Right now, the problem with Iraq is that the Shiites are winning and that means that Iran is winning. If we were to pull out of Iraq today the Maliki government would bring in full scale Iranian support and crush the Sunnis. Kurdistan would become independent (the one bright point) because the Iranians know better than to try to fight the Kurds, but the rest of Iraq would become an Iranian puppet state. Once they consolidated their gains the Iranians would then move south and seize the oilfields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and perhaps even the United Arab Emirates, just as Saddam attempted to do. Unlike Saddam, the Iranians would be competent and the bruised and bloodied US, having already written off involvement in the area, would not intervene, so the Saudis would pull back into the desert and be virtually unable to fight back.

The upside of this would be a guaranteed holy war between Sunnis and Shiites all over the region, mainly taking the form of terrorist attacks against Iran, which would be a nice change of pace. The downside would be that the Iranians would have an empire, controlling most of the oil in the Persian Gulf and wielding enormous international power. Once they consolidated their gains, their oil wealth and enlarged territory and population would make them a major player in world politics and the international economy at least on a par with India or any of the major European nations, and probably more powerful economically. Their victory would also establish a real legitimacy for Iran as the premier state in worldwide Islam and they would likely have a claim on the support and resources of a network of other nations from Indonesia to Morocco. They would be the new Caliphate that so many Muslims have been yearning for.

That future of a super-powerful Iran is what we here in the 'Great Satan' really want to prevent the most - far more than we want to help the Iraqis or protect the flow of oil. Without a draft we don't have the manpower to increase our presence in Iraq or fight Iran directly, and financially we really can't afford a unilateral war with Iran, even if it's fought through surrogates. That means we can't stay in Iraq forever or escalate our efforts enough to make Iraq stand on its own. The question we face is how do we stop Iran if we write off Iraq and our involvement there.

One radical solution which no one has suggested yet is to get someone else to do our dirty work. You might wonder who on earth would want to take up the financial and military burdens of fighting Iran in the Persian Gulf. Certainly no one would want to do it for the quasi-altruistic (dumb and idealistic) reasons which motivated the US to get involved, but there are countries which might do it out of that most powerful of motivations, self-interest.

Saudi Arabia has already indicated its intent to resist the expansion of Iran. They have been doing this with financial and material support for Sunni militias in Iraq, and through their alliance with the United States. They know that with the US out of the picture they would be in serious trouble, and although they have a fine military they just don't have the manpower to actually go toe to toe with Iran. It appears that as US resolve weakens and the situation in Iraq worsens, the Saudis are shopping around desperately for another solution, to essentially buy their way out of trouble with their vast financial resources.

What the Saudis need is a country with a lot of soldiers and desperate need for oil, which would be a perfect description of China. China is anticipating an enormous oil shortage as a result of its growing industry and population, a shortage like nothing the world has ever seen. It's the one thing standing between them and what they perceive as their economic destiny. China has the largest army in the world with 2.8 million soldiers. They aren't the best trained or equipped, but there are a hell of a lot of them. The Saudis have the oil the Chinese need and the money to outfit at least part of their army with more modern hardware, and the Chinese would have none of the manpower problems the US has had. If doubling the troops in Iraq would solve the problems there, well that's just 1/10th of their available forces.

The Chinese have more than just the need for oil to motivate them. They've already got problems with domestic Islamic minorities like the 16 million Uighur in Xinjiang province who could easily fall into the Iranian sphere of influence. They don't much want a huge theocratic empire controlling most of the world's oil and sitting pretty much on their western border.

This isn't something the United States could do on our own, but we could certainly act as a matchmaker to bring Riyadh and Beijing together for their mutual interest. So why not invite the Chinese into the Persian Gulf? Offer them control of the Iraqi oil fields, with a certain amount to be paid to the people of Iraq, along with the requirement that they provide security for the region, which means putting Shia-dominated southern Iraq under the control of the Chinese Red Army. This would essentially be another partitioning plan, with the Sunnis retaining control of the 'Sunni triangle' with the help of the US and other international forces, but with the added clout of the Chinese thrown in. And while the Red Army may not be as well trained as the superb US military, they likely have more experience and more appropriate training for suppressing unruly civilian populations which is something our military just isn't trained to do.

You could start a plan like this out relatively subtly. Instead of offering the Iraqi oil contracts to various multinational oil companies, you offer management of the oil fields and disposition of their output to the China National Petroleum Corporation. Since they're a Chinese company they're largely state owned, which means from the very start they're going to bring in the Red Army to provide security. And to be secure they need to control more than just the oil fields. They need to control Basra and the other ports and they need to establish a secure perimeter, which means controlling a lot of territory around the oil fields and refineries.

They also need to stop terrorist attacks on the infrastructure, which means subduing the terrorists in the region and establishing an extended secure perimeter. They'll also eventually need local sources of supply which means a functioning local economy, which is only really possible with peace, would also be an objective. There are probably some long term complications, both good and bad. Just giving China unfettered access to middle east oil is a bit daunting, but they're going to get oil from somewhere and this way they pay a meaningful price for it.

It's a big job, but they've got a big army to do it with. If the Chinese are still leery after we've pointed out that an Iranian superpower would be a threat to them, and after we've offered them the Iraqi oil, then we push the Saudis forward with suitcases full of money and more exclusive oil contracts to bribe them into participation. Iraq may indeed be a horrible mess, but if there's one country in the world for which getting involved there might be a smart move, it's China.

Email this • Subscribe to this feed

Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and a history professor. He now designs fonts for a living and lives with his family in a pimped-out duck blind just outside Austin. You can find his writings on politics and culture at The Elitist Pig and his writings about fonts, art and graphic design at

The Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com
The Iranians' ultimatum

By Kenneth R. Timmerman
Published December 3, 2006
Advertisement

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has followed up his 18-page letter to President Bush earlier this year with a five-page missive to the American people.
In the earlier letter, which left the Bush White House shaking their heads with wonderment, the Iranian invited Mr. Bush to embrace Islam. That is a well-established Islamic tradition when dealing with an enemy just prior to war. If they refuse, then the Muslims are "justified" in destroying them.
The letter released Wednesday by Iran's mission to the United Nations in New York followed a similar pattern. In it, Mr. Ahmadinejad lays out his case for America's "injustice," using the term no fewer than 12 times in five pages.
The concept of justice lies at the very center of the Islamic faith. Justice is considered the backbone of all creation, handed down by the Almighty. The faithful should strive to achieve justice, to "secure justice," as Mr. Ahmadinejad puts it. Those who pursue injustice, on the contrary, are spitting in the face of Allah. Mr. Ahmadinejad claims that America, under Mr. Bush, is pursuing injustice.
But justice, in Mr. Ahmadinejad's eyes, has little to do with the concept as we know it in America, or indeed, the Western world. Instead, it's all about Islamization of the entire world. In making his case, Mr. Ahmadinejad does not position himself as president of Iran, but attempts to set himself up as a spokesman for all Muslims.
Iran itself barely figures in the letter. Instead, Mr. Ahmadinejad focuses on U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the Bush administration's "moral corruption," or as he puts it, the administration pursuit of "darkness, deceit, lies and distortion."
Students of recent Iranian history will recall that the "crime" most often used to justify a death sentence by Islamic Republic revolutionary courts during the early years of the revolution was "corruption on Earth." This was how the regime simply eliminated its opponents or those who rejected absolute clerical rule.
Media commentators in the U.S. have picked up on the "public relations" side of the letter. Mr. Ahmadinejad calls on the U.S. to bring the troops home from Iraq, to cut off support for Israel, and to stop "kidnapping presumed opponents from across the globe" and holding them in secret prisons. He even has some advice for the new Democrat majority in Congress: bend to the Muslim agenda, or you will be tossed out of power.
Mr. Ahmadinejad repeatedly tries to appeal to Americans as people of faith, who share Islamic values. "We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people," he drones. "Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine."
Certainly, Americans are aggrieved by the unnecessary killing of innocent civilians, which is why most of us have little sympathy for Palestinian imams and political leaders who teach their children to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up Jews.
Mr. Ahmadinejad can't help but trot out his old anti-Semitic saw, claiming "the Zionists" control America "because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors."
But to focus on these parts of his letter, however silly and objectionable, would be to miss the main point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the Hugo Chavez of the Persian Gulf. He knows he soon will have his finger on the nuclear trigger.
Citing from the Koran at the close of his letter, he says that if Americans "repent" of their "injustice," they will be blessed with many gifts. "We should all heed the divine Word of the Holy Koran," he says.
The context of this particular verse (28:67-28, Sura "Al-Qasas," or The Narration), is very clear. It follows a graphic description of destruction and devastation that will befall those who fail to repent of their injustice, i.e., support for Israel and refusal to adopt Islam.
It also sets out the terms of the traditional Muslim warning to the enemies of Allah. "And never will your Lord destroy the towns until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses." This is precisely what Mr. Ahmadinejad does in his letter.
Dump George W. Bush, allow the Muslims to destroy Israel, and adopt Islam -- or else you will be destroyed. This is Mr. Ahmadinejad's message.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" (Crown Forum) and president of Middle East Data Project, Inc.

Bush Meets With Top Iraqi Shiite Leader in Washington
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4, 2006 – The United States is committed to working with the Iraqi government to make it capable of securing Iraq from the extremists seeking to derail the young democracy there, President Bush said here today after meeting with a top Iraq Shiite leader.

"I told him that we're not satisfied with the pace of progress in Iraq and that we want to continue to work with the sovereign government of Iraq to accomplish our mutual objectives, which is a free country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself; a free country which will serve as an ally in the war against the extremists and radicals and terrorists," Bush said of his meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Bush thanked Hakim for his commitment to a unity government and his strong position against the murder of innocent Iraqis. Elected and society leaders must reject violence for Iraq to become a unified democracy, Bush noted.

Hakim said his conversation with Bush focused on how to advance the Iraqi government, because the issues at stake in Iraq are important to the region and the United States. Solving the problems in Iraq requires coordination between the U.S. and Iraq on the security, political and economic fronts, he said.

"The U.S. interest, the Iraqi interest, the regional interest, they are all linked," Hakim said through a translator. "Therefore, it is very important when we deal with this issue we look at the interests of the Iraqi people. If we don't, this whole issue could backfire and could harm the interests of the region, the United States, and Iraq as well."

Iraq's problems have to be solved by Iraqis, Hakim said, but the leaders welcome any efforts that could enhance the democratic reality in Iraq and protect the constitutional role of the country. He noted that Iraq has already gone a long way toward democracy, and the liberation of Iraq has required sacrifice from Iraqis, Americans and coalition forces.

Iraq now has a government that is determined to combat terror and violence, and believes in the unity of the country, Hakim said.

"We will work very hard and seek all forms of cooperation at the international level and the regional level in order to defeat terrorism that is trying to use Iraq as a base in order to sabotage the future of that nation," he said.

Related Sites:
Transcript of Remarks