The bombing of the Boston Marathon by Islamist terrorists
was the first successful terrorist bombing in the United States since before the
September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks and was the act of terrorism that
inflicted the most casualties since then.
The Ft. Hood Massacre in 2009,
although not an act of terrorism because it targeted a military base, was the
act of violent jihad that caused the most fatalities.
The bloody
bombing, the subsequent killing of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology
guard in Cambridge and the terrorists’ shootouts
with and attempting bombing of law enforcement officials in Watertown constitute the Battle of Boston in
the War on Terrorism. Note this battle
demonstrates, as has occurred in foreign states, that the war is not
necessarily fought by the military, but even by civilian police and other law
enforcement agencies, or even by ordinary civilians. Tips by civilians were critically important in
this case. The Boston bombers intended to carry out
additional terrorist attacks before they were killed or captured. The bombings and shootings were acts of violent
jihad.
The bombing
was carried out by Chechen-Americans, one of which was a permanent resident and
the other a naturalized U.S.
citizen. The movement for independence from
Russia for Chechnya , which
was brutally suppressed by Russian leader Vladimir Putin in two civil wars in
the 1990s, has evolved more into violent jihad, that is to say, it is now more
religious than political. Like Chechnya , the neighboring administrative regions
of Dagestan and Ingushetia continue to be
plagued by Islamist violence.
The
terrorists who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing claimed they were upset
over the American wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq . Such political claims are excuses for acts
that are unjustifiable. Targeting
innocent civilians for violence is not a rational response to political
decisions. The true motivation for the
terrorist attacks was Islamism. It is
only because the United
States liberates people instead of imposing
Islamism on them that they are upset. In
other words, it is not our invasions that upset Islamists and motivate them to
commit violent jihad, including terrorism, but our reasons, which are based
upon who we are. Indeed, the Boston terrorists falsely perceived the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as wars against Islam. Only Islamists who regard Islamism as true
Islam would perceive wars against Islamism and wars against Islam.
Other than
for security reasons, it is irrelevant whether the Boston Marathon terrorists
were aided by foreign terrorist organizations.
They were clearly inspired by foreign ideas of violent jihad, including
terrorism. Therefore, the Boston bombers
made themselves part of global terrorism, regardless of whether these enemies
in the War on Terrorism received any advice, training or assistance from
foreign terrorists, and regardless of the American citizenship of one of the
terrorists. Like communists who believe
in the violent overthrow of other governments and in using any means necessary
to further revolution and build socialism, Islamists believe in imposing strict
Islamic law by force. Therefore, they
are enemies at war with their country by virtue of their allegiance to those
ideas and their commission of any acts in furtherance of those goals.
The
terrorist attacks were successful in causing over 260 casualties, including
three fatalities, and in terrorizing many Americans, especially an entire major
metropolitan area, forcing the suspension of transportation, the closure of
businesses and the sheltering-in place of hundreds of thousands of residents
for most of a day during the pursuit of the terrorists, as well as terrorizing
many others around the world. The
terrorists, despite one being killed and the other captured, were also successful
in drawing attention to their goals.
However, they were unsuccessful in their goal of intimidating the U.S. into
giving into their demands. In short, as
is usually the case, the tactic of terrorism was successful, but the strategy
was a failure.
The controversy over whether to
give the terrorist his Miranda warnings reignites the debate over whether
Islamists terrorists are at war with us – and therefore whether we are
necessarily at war with them – or if these incidents are criminal matters that
are better handled by law enforcement and criminal prosecution. The mindset of treating Islamist terrorism as
a criminal matter was one of the reasons for the lack of a successful
counterterrorism strategy in the Clinton Administration. The Obama Administration seems to have
adopted a policy of treating the rest of the world as a battleground in the War
on Terrorism, but ignoring the fact that terrorists have been making America a
battleground. Moreover, its focus on
al-Qaeda in particular instead of Islamists in general minimizes the
threat. The practical effect of this
mindset in this case is to have cut short fruitful interrogation by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation prematurely instead of declaring the terrorist an enemy
combatant and continuing to interrogate him in order to learn of accomplices,
other explosives and weapons, training or inspiration, in addition to details
on how the terrorists carried out the attack and their additional plans. The terrorist still could have been
prosecuted in federal civilian court later.
The Administration also similarly cut short the interrogation of the
Christmas Day bomber, even though he was not a U.S. citizen.
It has widely been reported that
the American experience in the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq in the War
on Terrorism was beneficial to the providers of healthcare to the victims of
the Boston Marathon bombings, as medicine has developed methods to treat wounds
from improvised explosive devices used in the war of the kind used in the
terrorist attack in the U.S. The
knowledge gained in prosthetics will also prove to be helpful for the recovery
of the civilians who lost limbs.
No comments:
Post a Comment