Saturday, March 08, 2008
Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad
Andy McCarthy, the anti-terrorism analyst who prosecuted "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other WTC I bad guys, has written a memoir of that early battle in the war with Islamist jihad, Willful Blindness. It is an exploration of the many ways in which we are stepping on ourselves in this war, including within the federal government and in our conception of the enemy. From the Publisher's Weekly write-up on Amazon:
In this annotated retrospective, the prosecutor responsible for leading the investigation of Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and others involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing dissects the miscues between federal agencies that led to that event while laying bare the challenges facing the war on terror today. The pre-1993 comedy of errors begins with the CIA's decision to funnel arms and money to Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war and continues with inexplicable lapses of communication between the State Department and immigration officials (despite having been placed on a State Department terror watchlist, the sheikh travels freely to the United States). The most enduring oversight, however, at least from McCarthy's perspective, is the refusal among academics and political leaders to confront fundamentalist Islamic tenets, the 800-pound gorilla that is somehow always in the middle of the room when terror strikes. The jihadist philosophy that guided the Blind Sheikh is traced through generations of Islamic thinkers to the Prophet Mohammed himself.
Regular readers know that I think that Andy McCarthy dissects the legal and ideological issues that influence the post-9/11 world more clearly than any other analyst writing for a popular audience. I strongly suspect his book will be regarded as an important contribution to the argument over the prosecution of the wider war regardless of who wins the White House in November. Since it ships on Monday, it is not too early to place your order through the link below!
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Mar 08, 03:24:00 PM:
Back when that cult commited that sarin gas attack on that tokyo subway they were run by some religious fanatic who certianly wasnt a christian or of islam
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Mar 08, 03:53:00 PM:
TH: I am sitting here watching what has to be one of your favorite movies (and that of the old buzzcut set) "Khartoum" (with Charlton Heston). This scene with Laurence Olivier (The Mahdi) in blackface, with kinky hair, exhaulting the faithful to jihad would make a great anti-Obama commercial. Just digitize put his head (in turban) on Olivier's--it'll be great!!!
Just kidding...
By , at
Sat Mar 08, 05:06:00 PM:
The tag on Obama, soft on Islam and Terrorism because of his racialist hatred for America, is a solid one. It makes him not merely unelectable but a disaster for the Democratic Party.
His Pastor's belief that "whites deserved 9/11" and "America had it coming" is repulsive to most voters.
As for Aum, they certainly showed that non-state terrorist groups can be deadly.
But consider the constant NYC plots from 1993 onwards and the escalation of aims is clear by Muslim terrorists. Yusef aimed to topple one tower onto the other killing 50,000 people. He believed that America would simply crumble because he also viewed America like Wright (and Barack Hussein Obama) a "racist and evil" enterprise.
The Media, Dems, Liberals, and most Republicans also did not want to confront the growing Muslim jihad menace because it threatened their PC multiculturalist view of the world. And would require replacing it with a belief that America is better than other cultures, needs defending. And because it is better will always be the target of Jihad. Which cannot be stopped by business as usual low-level, pc infected criminal prosecutions.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Mar 08, 10:17:00 PM:
Anonymous:
I needed this rant to remind me that no matter how much I despise Hillary, there are always bigger douchebags out there. Enjoy retirement with Dick Cheney come November hehehehe.
By , at
Sun Mar 09, 04:06:00 PM:
...comedy of errors begins with the CIA's decision to funnel arms and money to Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war...
I'm not familiar with the whole body of Andy McCarthy's ouevre, but this one sentence just reeks of total cluelessness.
To begin, I don't think it was CIA idea to "funnel arms" into Afghanistan. Support to resistance against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was the cause celebre all through 1980-s. Everyone was on board, starting even with Jimmy Carter.
More importantly, this myth that US support to the mujaheddin fueled the rise of Al Qaida really needs to be discredited. The rise of Al Qaida occured because the US completely abandoned Afghanistan after Soviet withdrawal. This point is very important, because it's quite possible the the US is about to repeat the same folly in Iraq.
Mujaheddin were not Al Qaida or Taliban. Many Afghan warlords that US has supported later became sworn enemies of Al Qaida and Taliban, Shah Massoud being the most celebrated example. The real problem was there were too many warlords and they couldn't come to terms with each other.
After Soviets withdrew and Americans departed, Afghanistan fell prey to protracted Civil war between those warlords. In time, Taliban emerged as a credible popular movement to re-unite the country and stop the warlord predations. Yes, there was a positive side to the Taliban movement. However, it was corrupted by Wahhabist ideology and bin Laden money, and allowed Al Qaida to establish bases in Afghanistan.
The same thing could happen to such popular movements as 'Anbar awakenings' in Iraq. That's why US military presence and constant engagement is so important right now. There is no telling which direction 'Anbar awakening' could take without restraint and guidance that US military presence imposes in Iraq. Chuck Shumer pontificating how 'Anbar awakening' has occured "in spite of US" simply doesn't care to learn what he is talking about.
So if there was an error, it was that Afghanistan was left completely without American support and guidance.
