I’m not sure what I can say that won’t be more than a little redundant but I feel compelled to bring wade into it again. A jihad against Western nations and western culture was declared in 1996 – it called for all westerners in Muslim nations to be attacked. In 1998 the jihad was broadened to call for attacks on the west around the globe. The declared intent was to drive western governments and western individuals of all stripes totally out of Muslim territories.
The western nations basically ignored the jihadi call and attacks began, becoming constant and escalating in scope and number of casualties. As would be expected, in many areas the call for religious jihad quickly became subsumed by political ambition. Chaotic governments, massive corruption and sectarianism in those same Muslim nations quickly led to individual leaders and groups leveraging the call to jihad as a device to establish their own political power. The jihadi banner simply provided recruiting clout and legitimacy. Many of the recruits themselves were true believers, quite willing to sacrifice themselves. There is nothing particularly new about that, the declaration of end times and a call to aid God in bringing them “now” had plagued apocalyptic religions of all stripes. The threat of suicide attacks is certainly not restricted to ISIS or even those waving the black flag.
http://warisboring.com/articles/paris-and-garissa-the-islamic-state-and-al-shabab/
The thought that the west is simply in a war with ISIS and that bombing them into submission in Iraq and Syria will win that war is simply wishful thinking. Its fair to say the Taliban in Afghanistan was bombed to pieces, yet Afghan jihadi’s continue to join attacks on the west both inside and beyond their borders. Destroying ISIS financial base would be a positive move, and much more meaningful. That’s why this weeks combined US gunship and A-10 operation against ISIS tankers is tactically far more important than Russia flying strategic bombers into Syria to pretty much indiscriminately pound ISIS held towns.
To get to my point, the key term that should be discussed – and which you have not heard in the media at all, possibly since its a military term – is interdiction. Cells will continue to form and plot, as they have since the 1970’s – whether they are driven by the Palestinian issue as they were then, by leaders using them to strike soft targets to maintain their own credibility or by true jihadi believers is a moot point. However the tactics used to interdict such attacks are well known and proven, I discuss them at length in Surprise Attack. In 2001 the US had warnings just as the French did last month, the failure was in launching a broad, successful interdiction.
The fundamental problem is that the attackers continue to operate under a declared state of war, and overall the west up to this point has not responded with the appropriate legal declarations to act against them before the fact as combatants rather than after the fact as criminals. Those legal measures are required to allow truly successful interdiction, that’s why they are brought into play during a declared war. It’s not a matter of not knowing what to do, it’s a matter of having the resources and legal authority to do it. To some extent the US has embarked on at least some measure of that, in the “gray warfare” we describe in Shadow Warfare. That works to some extent overseas where you can put American military under title 50 code but it does not work domestically. Actually the US may even have done better domestically than Europe, in a pragmatic response to 9/11. Europe and France in particular appears not to even have gone that distance
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/europe/paris-terror-attacks-intelligence-failures-robertson/index.html
Yet even in the U.S., with all the fear mongering and political posturing, Congress has taken no measures to establish a legal and monetary framework for a proactive defense to interdict attacks. Such measures demand certain unpopular steps – such as profiling. Think of fighting a war without profiling your attacker….you don’t catch serial killers without it, and you don’t stop jihadi’s before they attack.
And in terms of legal authority and funding….Congress has passed no Authorization for Military Force since that of 2001 – and that is legally limited to only the 9/11 attackers. Congress has demonstrated no will to even discuss the new requests submitted by the Obama Administration, which are themselves far too focused, addressing no threat simply ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
I know this sort of talk is unpleasant but the simple truth is that these attacks are not going to go away, there is no absolute safety (actually there never has been) and either you do all you can to disrupt and interdict attacks or….it’s actually a choice, but at this point we are making that choice strictly by default.

Advertisements

About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

2 responses »

  1. Carter Dary says:

    Hi Larry,

    Agreed with above! Got a question. I watched a Netflix film which claimed to have certain knowledge of the 2nd shooter in the JFK attack. This Aussie claimed it was a Secret Service man who fired accidentally from an AR15 in the follow-up car. What’s your take?

    Carter Phone call possible? 608-413-0169

    • Hi Carter, I’m pretty sure that Netflix special goes back to the book and later the video regarding the Secret Service agent in the follow up car mistakenly shooting JFK fatally after a shot or two from Oswald. Unfortunately that has been repeatedly debunked and the books author and his publisher lost a case filed by the Agent. Film clearly shows him not to be in the possession of the rifle when they have him grabbing and mishandling the weapon… Stu went so far as to bring that to the attention of the video producers but it was pretty clear that was of little concern to them. Of course its a story that will never die now…sigh. A call would be fine but either after 4 or this evening would be best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s