Know Thy Enemy:

Defeating the Islamic Jihad

 

Melvin E. Kriesel

Colonel Melvin (Buzz) Kriesel has an extensive record of military service overseas including the Canal Zone in Panama, Vietnam and India. He has commanded many different types of units, including Army Airborne, Special Forces, Military Intelligence, and Psychological Operations. He has served as an attaché to various embassies, and as military advisor to Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan and Ambassador William B. Saxbe.

President Bush declared war on terrorism immediately after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Regrettably, the terminology he used to declare war has complicated our struggle from the outset. Bound by political correctness and “tolerance,” the President did not clearly define the enemy we are fighting. This violates a principle of war taught by Sun Tzu in 510 B.C., “Know Thy Enemy.”

Our enemy in this war is not “terrorism.” We cannot attack terrorism, because there is no state or political entity by that name. In other words, it is impossible to declare war on an enemy’s weapons, tactics or strategy—they are formless concepts.

Here is the reality we face. We are at war with Islamic extremists who have declared a Jihad (Holy War) against us. They are using terrorism as a psychological weapon to counter the overwhelming military and economic might of the West.

The warriors in this struggle go by many names—Mujahideen, Shahids, Salafiyya, and other Islamic terms. Other names include Islamists, Jihadists, Wahhabists and recently, Islamo-fascists. Whatever you choose to call them, they have global reach and their numbers are increasing.

Confronting the Jihad is complicated by the difficulty of estimating the number of Muslims who directly or indirectly support the militants. In any case, we are dealing with some very large numbers. The population of Muslims across the globe is estimated at between 1.2 and 1.5 billion. If a global conflict with Islam were to occur the numbers of warriors available for Jihad is immense.

We should have realized that we were at war with the Islamists at least 25 years before September 11, 2001. However, we chose to ignore the probing attacks we were receiving. We now recognize 9/11 as our modern Pearl Harbor. At 8:46 a.m. on that terrible September morning, we lost over 3,000 men and women to the enemy. This closely approximates our casualties at Pearl Harbor at the beginning of WW II.

There are another parallels to WW II that may apply to our present struggle with the Islamists. A modern Dunkirk in the Middle East may occur if the terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in Iraq force a withdrawal of our forces before stability is restored to the country. Bloodied by our experience in Iraq, we may conclude that the job of democratic nation building within the bloody borders of Islam is too hard. This loss of political will may compel a complete withdrawal from the Middle East. Another Holocaust could result as Jews in Israel are slaughtered in a genocidal Muslim rage and Christians are cleansed from the region.

Is this an extremist scenario? Perhaps. However, part of the scenario is already taking place in Egypt where Coptic Christians are under a genocidal assault by the Muslim Brotherhood. In other parts of the Muslim world, Islamic rage is killing thousands of Christians: in the Indonesian Molluccas (islands) where violent Muslims have killed over 5,000 Christians in the past decade and driven an estimated 500,000 people from their homes; it is occurring in the Sudan and Pakistan where the murder of Christians living under shari’a government is routine; in Nigeria, and Kenya where Muslims are killing Christians who are resisting the establishment of shari’a (Islamic religious law and government) in those countries. These are only a few of the nations experiencing violent assaults by radical Muslim extremists.

The problem of locating and destroying the widely dispersed, highly decentralized forces of the Jihad is proving to be extremely difficult. Mounting an effective defense against their operations is equally challenging if not impossible. This is because their attacks do not have traditional military objectives. They are instead, a part of one of the deadliest psychological warfare campaigns ever waged.

The PSYWAR campaign has the global objective of generating a mass movement within Islam against the West. The enemy’s near-term objective is to destroy Israel and drive U.S. forces from the Middle East. His ultimate objective is the establishment of shari’a in target countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and, eventually, the world.

We should have known that this war was coming. On February 23, 1998, the Jihadists gave the world a clear warning of their intent to attack the West. On that date, a fatwa (religious ruling) signed by Osama bin-Laden and the principal leaders of the Jihadist “base,” formally declared Jihad against Jews and Crusaders—the Crusaders being Christians generally but specifically, the United States as the leader of the West. Few Americans have read or even heard of this fatwa. The media and academia largely ignored the fatwa as just another rant by Islamic extremists even though it foretold 9/11 and outlined the Jihadist strategy.

The terrorist bombing of a train in Madrid, Spain on March 11, 2004, is a perfect illustration of the effectiveness of psychological terror in this struggle. The bombing in Madrid was an immense human tragedy, with more than 200 killed and over 1,000 wounded. It was also a disaster for the Western world. This single incident led to the defeat of Prime Minister Aznar by the Socialists in Spain as well as the subsequent pullout of Spanish soldiers from Iraq. It is a classic case of psychological defeat and a shameful act of appeasement. It also confirms Jihadists’ contempt for the weakness and the cowardice of the West and encourages further attacks aimed at the very heart of Europe.

The Spanish electorate is not alone in failing to grasp the simple fact that we are engaged in a death struggle with radical Islam. That simple fact, broadly denied by the media and academia, makes us supremely vulnerable to our enemy’s use of terror weapons against us. Unless we understand whom we are fighting and why he is attacking us, we will be defeated.

Broadly speaking, this is war of ideas. It is a struggle for the minds of men who are willing to bear any sacrifice for their distorted faith—even suicidal death. If we are unable to discern the political and psychological centers of gravity in this conflict, we risk an insurgent mass movement within Islam of epic proportions. Noted scholar Samuel P. Huntington has described this potential conflict in a Clash of Civilizations. Huntington’s book should be required reading if for no other reason than that he predicted 9/11. He also forecasts a profound struggle within Islam as moderate Muslims struggle to recapture their faith from the extremists. Regrettably, and as predicted by Huntington, the extremists seem to be winning.

There are those who disagree with Huntington and argue that his thesis is exaggerated and too alarmist. However, terrorist trend lines indicate that Huntington is correct in his pessimistic assessment of the threat we are facing. As we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East, the virulent hatred and intolerance of militant Islam makes it an extremely tough, resilient enemy. It is also obvious that the cultural clash that pits Islam against the West is now occurring. We may even be in the early stages of an Islamic mass movement that is likely to increase in religious fervor and violence.

Most moderate Muslims continue to strenuously maintain that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. They maintain that the extremists do not represent the majority of Muslims who only want to live in peace. This may be true; however, non-Muslims are beginning to argue that Islam has an ingrained militancy—that ultimately, the religion lends itself to militant extremism. Others point to the violence that accompanied the early history of Islam’s spectacular expansion. A tendency to violence may also be inferred from the bloody conflicts now occurring throughout the Muslim world.

It is therefore difficult to deny that modern Islamic extremism indicates that Islam has a dark side that is being exploited by the leaders of the modern Jihad. It can also be shown that these deeply ingrained tendencies relate directly to two militant trends that converged in Egypt and now find expression in al-Qaeda as the “base” for all modern Islamist movements.

The first of these militant trends is that which derives from the teaching of an 18th Century fanatic by the name of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, who preached in a remote region of what is now Saudi Arabia. Significantly, Wahhab married the daughter of a local chieftain by the name of Ibn Saud. Ibn Saud lent his name to what would become the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This formed a religious/political alliance that lasts down to the present day—one shielding the other in a deadly marriage of religious and political convenience.

Ibn Abdul Wahhab was fanatically puritanical in his fundamentalist beliefs. He also proclaimed Jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam declaring

Jihad is the ultimate manifestation of Islam . . . it is a furnace in which Muslims are melted out and which allow the separation of the bad Muslim from the good one.

He declared Jihad a religious duty for all Muslims and condemned all enemies as polytheists who have no right to live. This set the stage for much of the cruelty and terror practiced by Wahhab’s present day adherents known collectively as Wahhabi.

Today, militant Wahhabism is the official religion of Saudi Arabia. Funded by Saudi oil revenue, Wahhabism is in a period of aggressive expansion across the Muslim world. A Wahhabi directed, Saudi financed, building boom has resulted in thousands of new mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools) under construction or recently completed in countries that stretch from the northern edges of Africa to the eastern islands of the Philippines. This funding and support often creates madrassas that become factories for the creation of suicide bombers and religious cannon fodder for al-Qaeda and its associated Islamic groups.

The Wahhabi movement is also strong in the West. It exists in the mosques of London, Paris, Bonn, Madrid, Rome, and in North America’s streets and prisons. We are learning from captured converts that militant Wahhabism is the central Islamic doctrine used to find converts in the West.

The second militant trend is the Salafist movement. It melds with and supports the Wahhabist inspired Islamic Jihad. Like the Wahhabi, the Salafists seek to return Islam to its earliest roots or to the Islam practiced by the first two generations of Muslims. The Salafists join the Wahhabi in a shared conviction that they are the only true Muslims; all other forms of Islam are shirk or unbelief. Unless you profess their brand of Islam you are a polytheist and an apostate and must be converted or killed.

The Salafists also believe that shari’a and the principles of religious law must replace secular law in all Muslim states and societies. (The implementation of shari’a is now the driving force behind Muslim violence in the Sudan, Kenya, and Nigeria. It can be expected to manifest itself throughout Europe and North America as growing Muslim communities demand their own shari’a-based religious courts and jurisprudence.)

The movement directing the Salafist Jihad is the Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) that originated in Egypt in 1928. A schoolteacher named Hassan al Banna formed the Ikhwan. Al Banna declared that violent Jihad is the means Muslims must use to establish a shari’a-based society.

Sayyid Qtub, a radical Islamist theologian, later refined al Banna’s doctrine and focused it on direct appeals to violence. Qutb formally declared that there could never be peace with the West. He also taught that all existing Islamic states and their rulers were not true Muslims but pagans who must be destroyed. He called for Jihad against all rulers in the Middle East and against society in general.

Qtub led several unsuccessful attempts to assassinate Egyptian Leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser finally cracked down and arrested Qutb and many of the Ikhwan ringleaders. They were hanged in 1966.

Nasser’s crackdown forced the Muslim Brotherhood underground. It survived by splitting into a number of associated extremist groups. One offshoot, the Gamma al Islamiyya, produced Ayman al-Zawahiri, the half-mad, but brilliant fanatic and associate of Osama bin-Laden. Al-Zawahiri was closely associated with the Gamma leader, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Together they successfully plotted the assassination of Anwar Sadat and directed the brutal massacre of 66 tourists at Luxor in 1997. They also began a genocidal attack on Egyptian Coptic Christians that continues today.

Where are they now? Al Zawahiri is hiding some place in Northeastern Afghanistan with a $25 million price on his head. Sheikh Omar is sitting in a federal penitentiary in Missouri after being convicted of masterminding the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

It is important to remember that we are fighting a war with a radical faction within Islam that seeks our complete overthrow. Their numbers are growing despite our efforts to interdict their operations and destroy their cells. Be assured, they will not cease operations until they are either completely destroyed or until moderate Muslims come forward to unequivocally reject the Jihad they are being called to support.

Military operations directed by timely intelligence is crucial to winning the war. However, there are other, equally important actions we can take to deny the Islamists the shari’a-based world they are seeking to establish.

First, we have been largely ineffective in countering the Jihad messages being sent by Islamic fundamentalist to Muslims around the world. This is because our diplomacy apparatus is in complete disarray. Margaret Tutweiler, who headed the Office of Public Diplomacy, recently resigned. Her departure will not impact our diplomacy offensive, as there is none worthy of the word “offensive.” This comes at a time in our history when there has never been a greater need for effective information operations.

Unfortunately, the United States Information Agency formed to fight the Cold War was disestablished by the Clinton Administration in 1999. It should be reactivated to lead this campaign. Our diplomacy offensive should also connect directly with target audiences in the Muslim world. This can be done by such things as training more Arabists, Arab speakers and public relations specialists oriented on the Muslim world, by increasing scholarships and visiting fellowships for Muslim academics, by building U.S.-sponsored libraries and information centers throughout the Muslim world, and by translating more Western books into Arabic. Until this is done, we are at the mercy of al Jazeera and can only watch as support for America continues to erode.

Secondly, we have to protect and give a voice to moderate Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere, who want to speak out against their violent co-religionists. This includes Muslims within our own borders. Moderate Muslims in particular must be called upon to reject the hatred and violence being directed against Jews, Christians and other religions. In other words Muslims must begin to demonstrate that Islam is a tolerant religion as proven by deeds as well as words. They can begin by demanding that mosques and madrassas cease preaching the extremism of the Wahhabi sect before it completely infects their faith.

Finally, the commission created to investigate 9/11 must face a truth that they (and our congressional leaders) have been reluctant to confront. The commission should connect the dots that lead to illicit Saudi Arabian monetary and logistics support for the men who conducted the attacks of 9/11. The involvement of the Saudi government in 9/11 should be completely investigated and their actions, if complicit, revealed to the American people and the world.

To conclude, we are in a global war with Islamic extremism. The Islamists are putting us to the test in Iraq. They do not seek to turn Iraq into another Vietnam. They are trying to turn Iraq into another Afghanistan and do to us what they did to the Soviet Union—force a humiliating withdrawal. We simply must not let that happen and withdraw in the face of adversity as we did in Beirut and Mogadishu.

A majority of Americans understand something the pundits are reluctant to recognize—the war in Iraq is directly linked to the global war with militant Islam. If we end up losing in Iraq it won’t be because the American people were too soft or unwilling to stick with the President when the going got tough. They also understand what former statesman Dean Acheson meant when he said,

No People in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.     Ω

“Who can forget those so-called ‘experts’ who said our military buildup threatened a dangerous escalation of tensions? What kind of fool, they asked, would call the Soviet Union an ‘Evil Empire’?”—Ronald Reagan