Bank robbers rarely use suicide bombers. Forgers don't declare war on
capitalism, democracy and modernity. Kidnappers rarely behead their victims
without asking for a ransom. And when they do ask for ransoms, only rarely
do they demand infidels submit to the will of Allah instead of asking for
unmarked bills.
These incandescently obvious observations illuminate, in a small way, the
resplendent stupidity of the notion that we should treat members of al-Qaida
like run-of-the-mill criminals.
Al-Qaida's business plan is to make money and kill people in order to impose
a global caliphate of Islamic rule. The Mafia's business plan is to make
money in order to ... make money. Murder is, as Tony Soprano might say, the
cost of doing business. Murder for al-Qaida is the business (and if you die
in the process, you get to spend eternity at an Islamic Bada-Bing Club).
Of course, al-Qaida's aims are also political. Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, one of
the founders of the jihadist movement that became al-Qaida, put it this way
(I'm quoting from Lawrence Wright's definitive history, "The Looming
Tower"): "We shall continue the Jihad no matter how long the way, until the
last breath and the last beat of the pulse - or until we see the Islamic
state established." And remember, Azzam was humble in his aspiration. He
wasn't after the global caliphate sought by many Islamists. He merely wanted
the entire Middle East, the former southern republics of the Soviet Union,
Bosnia, the Philippines, Kashmir, central Asia, Somalia, Eritrea and Spain.
Whether you call them terrorists, Mujahideen or a radical faction of Up With
People, the simple fact is that what commonly goes by the label "Islamic
terrorism" is not a merely a criminal enterprise. The profit motive didn't
bring down the World Trade Center.
I know this is obvious to many. But it clearly isn't obvious to everyone.
For the nearly six years since 9/11, conservatives have complained that
liberals see the war on terror as a law enforcement problem, not a military
or strategic one. Liberals often respond by calling this a straw-man
argument employed to make Democrats seem weak on national defense.
Continued... |