September 27, 2011: Talk of al Qaeda being destroyed, or not, 22 years after its founding misses sight of the fact that there are, and have been, many other similar organizations. Al Qaeda is not unique. Islamic radical groups are nothing new. In fact, Islam initially spread due to the efforts of murderous zealots, who offered mercy (and tax breaks) for those who converted. All that has changed in 1,500 years is the technology, and declining unity among Islamic radicals. So it’s expected that al Qaeda would decline, while also evolving into something else. Until some fundamental problems with Islam are solved, Islamic terrorists will keep reappearing. The last decade of fighting Islamic terror has cost the West over a trillion dollars, and the Islamic world several hundred billion. The result has been some fundamental changes. The most important one is a growing belief among Moslems, especially Arabs, that all their problems are caused by internal flaws, not external factors (colonialism, Christian “crusades” and so on.)

That may be enough to break an ancient cycle of death and destruction. It starts among young Moslem men, when Islamic terrorism periodically becomes fashionable. This time around, it's a coping mechanism for failure. Consider what has happened in the last century. More than half a century after the Arab world once more became free (first from centuries of Turkish rule in 1918, then a few decades of European supervision), the truth has sunk in. While the rest of the world prospered during the last half century, the Arabs are still uneducated, unproductive, poor and ruled by tyrants and kings. What are young Moslems to make of this?

Blaming the Jews has accomplished nothing, except to provide more opportunities to fail. Supporting al Qaeda (with money and volunteers) produced the September 11, 2001 attacks. Westerners don’t like to dwell on that fact that the TV images of those attacks had young men dancing in the streets all over the Arab world (much to the chagrin of some of their elders, and embarrassment of their governments). But the response has led to an even longer list of failures. Not only was al Qaeda, and similar organizations, revealed to be mindless murderers of innocent Moslems (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other Islamic nations), but these Holy Warriors proved embarrassingly incompetent when fighting the Crusaders from the West. American troops suffered far fewer casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan (where the casualty rate was actually a third of what it was in Vietnam) than in earlier wars. While pro-terrorist web sites loved to feature videos of roadside bombs going off and American troops getting shot at, more embarrassing were U.S. videos of Islamic terrorists being caught in the act, and bombed or shot up. Worst of all were those videos, taken by American UAVs or helicopter gunships, which showed terrorists trying to plant roadside bombs, which suddenly blew up the terrorists because of improper handling (or construction.)

One of the little discussed tragedies of Islamic terrorism is the fact that most of those it attracts are the least capable recruits. Islamic terrorism is not only an act of extremism, but also of desperation of those who have few other prospects. It's an international organization because Islam, in general, has not been amenable to taking advantage of new technology and economic opportunity, except for cable TV and the Internet. That's why the Moslem world has lagged so far behind the rest of the world in the last century. Religious leaders are reluctant to discuss the possibility of Islam being part of the problem, although many educated Moslems are becoming more aggressive in seeking out cultural problems, and proposing solutions. Terrorism is not seen as a practical way out by most Moslems, but the threat of retribution by Islamic radicals makes it difficult for most Moslems to speak up about the problem. Keep in mind that most of those terrorized by Islamic radicals are Moslems, not infidels (non-Moslems).

International terrorist organizations are nothing new. They have existed since the 11th century. The first one, back when the world was a smaller place, was the Hassassins (or "hashasheen") of 11th century Iran. Back then, a minor noble with a grudge, and excellent organizational skills, created a network of suicide assassins that were used for many decades until the Mongols came along and destroyed their “impregnable” mountain fortress. The Mongols were annoyed, not frightened, by suicide assassins. Back then, annoying the Mongols was almost always fatal. Our current crop of suicide terrorists do not provide a single fortress to go after, so the Mongol approach of overwhelming force applied to one objective will not work. But the fearless Mongol attitude towards terrorism should be remembered.

By the 19th century we had the first modern international terrorist network; the anarchist movement. This was one of the several collectivist movements to come out of the 19th century (along with the more lethal radical socialism of the fascists and communists.) Anarchists believed that "property is theft" and a hundred years ago were killing quite a few crowned and elected heads of state (including U.S. president McKinley) to get their message across. Bombings were also used, against capitalist targets (like Wall Street, where thirty were killed by a 1920 explosion.) Most Anarchists were peaceful (if loud), and the small radical faction had plenty of places to hide. Many innocents were imprisoned and several executed in the mania to suppress these terrorists. None of these efforts succeeded. What killed the anarchist movement and its radicals was old age (the original 1890s crop was not completely replaced), police action (some were caught), improved working conditions, and, finally, Stalin (who ordered the communists to kill their Anarchist allies to eliminate rivals during the Spanish Civil war.) There are still a few anarchists left, but most are academic twits who would rather preach than act, or street thugs who take their anarchy literally, more for thrills than anything else.

Religiously inspired suicidal radicals are not new, but they have, in the past, usually appeared in the form of large, organized, groups. Think the original armies of Islam (led by men who knew the Prophet Mohammed personally) or the Crusades (instigated by popes). Religions do not like fanatics, as they are usually heretical as well, and difficult to control. Such is the case with most of the current crop of Islamic radical terrorists. The religious beliefs of these murderers are condemned by the mainline Islamic clergy. But if you attack these radicals, you inspire a feeling among many Moslems that Islam itself is being attacked. Just as the anarchists hid among working class people who did not agree with anarchist ideas, so do the Islamic radicals seek refuge among Moslems. This is why the anarchists did not hurt working class folks (at least not on purpose) and the Islamic radicals try to spare Moslems (again, with mixed success.) But the people get the message. These radicals may be SOBs, but they are OUR SOBs.

And then there's the faith angle. The terrorists play this one well, for they do believe they are on a sacred mission. But most other Moslems do not agree with the terrorists. Yes, there is resentment against the West, and even more resentment against the dictators and autocrats that run most Moslem nations. Anti-terrorist efforts are just going to have to live with this. The religious angle has been more bark than bite, and when you are dealing with terrorists who have so much blood on their hands, it doesn't take a theologian to figure out whose side God is really on.