On Rep. Tancredo's plan for deterring nuclear terrorism

Thanks to Shloky, I came across Rep. Tancredo's comments for how he would go about deterring nuclear terrorism. According to The Denver Post, Rep. Tancredo, in Iowa, said this:

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature (nuclear) would be followed by an attack (conventional forces) on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo said at the Family Table restaurant. "Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do."

Shloky, rightly questions Rep. Tancredo's thinking, by asking, "this guy is paid 170,000 to think this..." To its credit, the State Department quickly responded, by stating that the "congressman’s comments were 'reprehensible' and 'absolutely crazy.'" This is not the first time that Tancredo has suggested this, as CNN's Political Ticker blog notes, he got in trouble for suggesting the same thing back in 2005. Dan at Tdaxp, responds to Shloky and says that Tancredo is right on this.

I disagree with Rep. Tancredo and Dan. I believe that the main premise of their argument, that terrorists can be deterred if we make it clear that we will attack that which is of most value to them (i.e. the Kaaba and other religious sites such as Mecca, Medina, etc.), is wrong. The reason is that to most Jihadists, the world as it stands now, it is in a state of fitna, chaos like that present before the arrival of Prophet Mohammed. In addition, the Muslims world, as Bin Laden and Zawahiri have argued since their movement began, is under occupation by the West, specifically the United States and so are its holiest sites. That was one of the stated reasons for bin Laden's campaign against the West in the 1990s. This was particularly true, given that at the time he declared Holy War on the US, the US had forces stationed in Saudi Arabia to deter Iraq's Saddam Hussein. With Hussein now gone, and American forces in Iraq only miles from Islam's holiest sites, an additional threat the existence of those sites is unlikely to deter al Qaeda. The reason for this is that the holiest sites of Islam are already under occupation by proxies of the West, and threatened by American forces stationed in Iraq, hence al Qaeda is already fighting (as they see it) to not only liberate their homeland from the West and its proxies, but also Islam's holiest sites. In short, given the state of the world as it now stands, it is likely that they would rather see these sites destroyed than have them under continued occupation.

In addition, Bin Laden has said many times that his main mission in targeting the US and its allies is not so much to bring them down, but rather to incite the Muslim masses to action, to rise up and fight for their Muslim homeland and for the word of Allah. As such, any attack on Islam’s holy sites rather than diminish bin Laden would achieve for him, that which he has sought for so long; a means of inciting the Muslim masses to Jihad. The reason for this, is that an attack on Islam's holiest sites, or the threat of an attack, would be seen by the larger Muslim world, not as a threat against the Jihadi minority, but as an affront and threat to the very survival of the Islamic world. In short, it would prove bin Laden's argument and fulfill his goal, a goal which has so far proved elusive even with our invasion of Iraq.

While Muslims are angry at the US for a myriad reasons, ranging from our support for Israel and our invasion of Iraq to American support and acquiescence to the continued oppression of Muslims in the Middle East and beyond under the thumb of the various dictators and autocrats in the region (i.e. the House of Saud, Hosni Mubarak, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, etc.), to date, most of these have refused to heed Osama's call to Jihad. Although there has been an increase in Jihadi terrorism, and recruitment, it still remains a minority within the Muslim population. Threaten Islam's holiest sites, and that calculus is likely to change, dramatically.

A strategy as outlined by Rep. Tancredo would essentially achieve everything that Bin Laden has sought and would amount to the US shooting itself in the foot. Additionally, as Tdaxp himself pointed out, Mecca is already being destroyed, but not by the West. Instead, it is being destroyed by one of the most influential religious sects in the Jihadi movement, the Wahhabis. The Wahhabi movement is known for its austere religious interpretations, and how these fall almost perfectly in line with those of extremist groups like al Qaeda. As such, even threatening the destruction of Islam's holiest sites, may not prove as much of a deterrent as Rep. Tancredo or Dan hope for. The reason, the Wahhabi's would likely welcome their destruction as sites that have the potential for inspiring idolatry. In essence, we achieve that which al Qaeda wants (incite the Muslim world to Jihad), and the Wahhabi movement is already doing with little gain for us. Given that most Muslims do not subscribe to either sect or the beliefs that underpin them, this means that we are threatening to destroy the most important and holy sites in Islam in response to two radical minority groups, inciting millions of moderate Muslims from North Africa all the way to Southeast Asia, ultimately achieving that which we are trying to prevent.

Instead, we need to focus on marginalizing al Qaeda, and even the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. We undermine al Qaeda by addressing the grievances they conveniently use to garner support for their movement. That means, moving to end our occupation of Iraq in a responsible manner, and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a fair manner. It also means pushing the monarchies, autocrats, dictators in the region, not only those who oppose us like Assad in Syria or the Mullah's in Tehran, but also our allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Egypt to move to reform their political and economic structures to either regain legitimacy from their own populations, or give way to more legitimate governments.

At the same time, we can use the Wahhabi's destruction of Islam's holy sites against them. The West, and its moderate allies in the Muslim world can begin a campaign to save Mecca and Medina, to restore and protect the historical temples, buildings and Tombs (including that of Mohammed himself) for posterity. That would essentially put the onus on the Wahhabis and the House of Saud to respond to the concerns of Muslims throughout the world, in the same manner as Israel was forced to respond to the high rise development of Jerusalem and its recent restoration of shared holy sites. This would also bring us a step closer to fulfilling one of Ralph Peter's recommendations in his article, Blood Borders; the establishment of an Islamic Vatican City, where all Muslim sects would have a say in the running and maintenance of Islam's two holy cities, thereby moderating the more extremist within the religion. In short, highlighting for the world the problems with Jihadist and Wahhabi ideology, undermines them both based on their actions and provides Muslims with a better alternative. Our threatening to destroy Islam's holiest sites makes us the enemy. Our protection of these sites, and calls for reform, so long as we don't dictate the shape that reform will take, makes us allies to the millions of Muslims that want a better life for themselves and their families.

Finally, we should take the lesson Sunnis learned from the destruction of the holy mosque in Samarra. Following that event, and though the culprit was AQI, all Sunnis were blamed and targeted by the various Shiite militias and death squads that rose up to protect Shiite holy sites. After that bombing, Ayatollah Sistani's calls for moderation and restrain fell on death ears, and militias and their radical leaders increased in popularity and prominence (as did sectarian killing). An attack, or even a threat to attack Islam's holiest sites, is likely to elicit the same response, only this time it will be from not only Sunnis but also Shiites against the West and it won't be just the Jihadists were are already fighting anyway, but Sunnis and Shiites (including those living in the West) who have up until now ignored Osama's call for Jihad. The way I see it, that is far from the victory we are trying to achieve.

Update

Someone may question me on why I come down on Rep. Tancredo, but not on Sen. Obama for suggesting that he would strike inside Pakistani territory, specifically the NWFP/FATA, if intelligence warranted it. The reason I did not dwell on Sen. Obama's comment as much as I did on Rep. Tancredo, is that I consider the latter's far more damaging. In addition, I agree with Sen. Obama, to an extent.

It's become painfully clear that al Qaeda has reconstituted itself within Pakistan's NWFP/FATA, where, away from the reach of American forces in Afghanistan they have had the time and space to rebuild training camps and establish a base for operations. It is also clear that the truce signed by Gen. Musharraf with the tribes did not work, and that unless he takes active steps to deal with the terrorist threat within his territory, it is incumbent upon us to take action. That said, it is true that Pakistan's internal politics are complicated, however, large part of the problems facing the General are of of his own making. That, however, is the subject of another post.

Moreover, striking in the NWFP and FATA can be legitimately be framed as striking against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and not all Muslims. Although, the prospect of attacking inside Pakistan is not something I'm looking forward to (for many reasons) I think it is something that (much like the current administration) we need to keep in consideration even as we try other means of getting Pakistan to act more proactively against the al Qaeda threat within their territory.