Putting a Terrorist’s Capture in Context

by | Mar 6, 2003 | POLITICS

While one might have concluded that the weekend arrest of Sept. 11 attack coordinator Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a fundamental blow to America’s enemies, such a conclusion would be a grievous mistake. Attorney General John Ashcroft, citing the capture, boldly testified before Congress that the United States is “winning the war on terrorism”. White House […]

While one might have concluded that the weekend arrest of Sept. 11 attack coordinator Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a fundamental blow to America’s enemies, such a conclusion would be a grievous mistake.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, citing the capture, boldly testified before Congress that the United States is “winning the war on terrorism”. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, referring to Mohammed’s capture, said: “It’s hard to overstate how significant this is.” President Bush dubbed the catch “fantastic.”

There’s no doubt that it’s better to capture a terrorist than not. But nabbing a top terrorist who planned the Sept. 11 attack is far from a decisive advancement toward victory.

Mohammed’s next attack may already be planned. According to a Feb. 26 intelligence report obtained by Newsweek: “[Mohammed] has directed operatives to target bridges, gas stations, and power plants in a number of locations, including New York City.”

Given Islamic terrorist tactics, the benefits of catching top terrorists are limited. This week, ABC News reported that terrorists videotaped the Twin Towers in preparation for the Sept. 11 attack in 1997. Most experts agree that major terrorist plots, particularly Al Qaeda’s plans, are in the pipeline for years.

Real progress — the type that would merit the claim that we are winning the war — means hitting the enemy at their power source: the states that sponsor Islamic terrorism. While Ashcroft, Fleischer and Bush are congratulating themselves on a job well done, the axis of evil once denounced by the President is rapidly adding to — and threatening to use — their arsenals.

Two of the three states named by Bush as an axis of evil — Iran and North Korea — now possess nuclear weapons, which North Korea routinely threatens to use against the United States. Recently, four North Korean MIG fighter jets intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the Sea of Japan— and one fighter reportedly locked its firing radar onto the American plane.

The only axis of evil nation which has not yet developed nuclear weapons, Iraq, has been granted over a year to hide its weapons, prepare for a U.S. strike, and launch unmanned aerial vehicles — according to U.S. authorities — to spray toxic chemicals and biological agents over American cities.

When informed by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice of Mohammed’s capture, President Bush reportedly exclaimed: “That’s fantastic!”

The President’s unbridled enthusiasm for such small steps is revealing. Like Attorney General Ashcroft’s proclamation that we are winning the war, the Bush Administration has overestimated the capture of a high-ranking foot soldier while neglecting — for 18 months — to strike even one of the enemy’s sponsoring states.

Picking off top terrorists one by one will not win this war. As one Taliban fighter scoffed, when asked by the Associated Press to comment on Mohammed’s capture: “There are lots of people who can do his work.” As there were before Sept. 11, 2001, there are also plenty of sinister states that sponsor Mohammed’s acts. The proper measure for winning the war is whether those states, not individual terrorists, have been stopped. Now, *that* would be fantastic.

Scott Holleran's writing has been published in the Los Angeles Times, Classic Chicago, and The Advocate. The cultural fellow with Arts for LA interviewed the man who saved Salman Rushdie about his act of heroism and wrote the award-winning “Roberto Clemente in Retrospect” for Pittsburgh Quarterly. Scott Holleran lives in Southern California. Read his fiction at ShortStoriesByScottHolleran.substack.com and read his non-fiction at ScottHolleran.substack.com.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Related articles

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest