WarSclerotic

Inscribed on most flags representing terrorist groups under the al-Qaida umbrella is the following passage from the Quran, usually placed underneath two crossing swords: “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows.”

In reference, theorists on Islam often quote the words of the Prophet Muhammad, who said, “If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.”

Since the beginning of the previous century, Islamic thinkers who have been, and still are, frustrated by the state of the Islamic nation, occupied and exploited by foreign powers, have dealt with rejuvenating this operational code of Islam. These thinkers point to the strength and conquests of Islam in the times of Muhammad and his heirs as a model. In their view, Islam should rule the world, as it did in the past. These theorists, such as Sayyid Qutb, Hasan al-Banna and others, adopted in their writings and sermons the dominant Muslim view of today.

As it has weathered a series of suicide bombings and attacks committed by terrorist organizations, as well as warnings of impending attacks, the West has wondered whether Islamic terrorism is controlled by some central command, and if and how these Islamist groups intend to force Islam onto the world. Panic levels have increased, manifesting in full last week, when the U.S. frantically shuttered its diplomatic missions in the Middle East and North Africa following al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s intercepted attack order.

The Islamic worldview emanating from the al-Qaida school of thought and from the other Islamist terror groups provides clear answers to these questions, but Western leaders evaluate figures pertaining to radical Islam in a bipolar manner: With self-righteous, politically correct denial toward anything pertaining to Islamist terrorism, or by being overly aggressive and hysterically protecting “their behinds,” which led to the embassy closures and to bringing diplomats back home.

Radical Islamic theorists present a well-organized and thought-out guideline for how Islam will take over the world, combining violence, persuasion and seduction while terrorizing, demoralizing the “infidels” and primarily instilling fear on a global scale. Because Islamist extremists follow the same doctrine, with small variations in interpretation here or there, they are able to last in an environment of uncertainty by redefining the boundaries of their options.

According to the Islamist prototype, the manifestation of Islamic empowerment is to coincide with manipulations and intimidations, while constantly attacking the enemy and retreating from a permanent and viable military stronghold. The city of Medina, which was Muhammad’s base of operations and from which he attacked convoys to Mecca, and which he turned into a military state, is now the role model. Rumors of Islam’s growing power were used by Muhammad to frighten and isolate the infidels. Because this succeeded in the past, it will succeed in the future. This model is now the basis of Islamist terrorism’s operational plans, with varying degrees of being established in places like Afghanistan, Sinai, Africa, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and in the foundations of the Islamist enclaves currently taking form in Europe and the United States.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks all signs pointed toward an Islam growing in strength. Al-Qaida’s activists diligently worked to encourage waves of conversions to Islam in Europe and America, while its propaganda machine spread stories of the successes of terrorism, sparking a global panic. The events of the Arab Spring also signaled another upgrade to the Islamist success story.

The West, however, shook itself awake, perhaps a little too late, and radical Islam is on a frantic downward trend, at least in its own prognostications of imminent global dominance. The war currently being waged in Arab states is of a domestic Islamic nature, as evidenced by the situations in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon. Terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, which expected Western aid, are gushing blood in vain after the West has apparently decided that the risk they pose is worse than Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Al-Qaida, which is marking 25 years since its inception, is going through some tough days. Not a single achievement was attributed to the murderous organization over the past month of Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr or Sept. 11.

However, while the best Western minds are pondering the next great start-up idea, al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations are pondering their next target and how best to attack it. We must keep in mind that they are always doing this, without waiting for a command from Zawahiri. Every organization has a mandate to bomb and kill. The “problem” is that the West is currently managing to “interfere” with these plans. We are prone to thinking that without pre-emptive strikes to thwart terrorism there would be no terrorist response, but this not the case.

The Americans are in an absurd situation. On the one hand, they are grappling with moral questions pertaining to torture, surveillance and domestic intelligence gathering, where talking about Islamic terrorism is politically incorrect. On the other hand, once you have been burned you take greater caution. After the abuse and slaughter of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, not one U.S. defense official is willing to take a risk without seriously considering the warning signs. The U.S.’s decision to shutter its embassies and send diplomatic staff home perhaps served the aims of radical Islam even more than the aftermath of an actual terrorist attack.

Al-Qaida operatives in Yemen do not need the green light from Zawahiri to carry out an attack. The Americans never took similar measures in the past in response to real terror attacks. The Americans panicked, providing Zawahiri an unnecessary Islamic victory. Thus Zawahiri — through al-Qaida in Yemen, which already knew it was under American surveillance — successfully managed to fool the Americans and carry out a media attack using one of the prophet Muhammad’s core tactics: instilling fear.

It appears American security officials could not have conducted the situation differently given their circumstances. Knowing this, Zawahiri successfully exploited modernity through mass media and the Internet, manipulating at large and causing fear. Relying on his enemy’s help, he produced a winning anti-American media terrorist attack.

And we, who are stuck here forever in the Middle East against the “bad guys,” were left with the bitter taste of American double standards.