TERRORISM

Just over forty years ago, history’s first and only attack by Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalists against Russian nationals occurred with surprisingly little fanfare. There was no media coverage of the incident. The Russian government did not call international attention to the issue, nor did it seek assistance from other countries or from the UN.

The Russian government simply responded, in its own best interest. After taking enough time to develop a thorough understanding of their Islamic adversary, Russian officials quietly authorized quick, decisive, and forceful action. Not military action, however … rather, an action that has effectively and consistently guaranteed the physical safety of Russia (its land and its population), against fundamentalist terrorism, for more than four decades.

Although Russia has suffered instances of internal civil strife, involving its own Islamic population within some of its satellite states, no terrorist attacks by foreign Islamic fundamentalists -- no Middle Eastern “jihads” -- have occurred on Russian soil or against Russian nationals in over forty years. Clearly understand that point … Russia’s responsive action directly, effectively, and appropriately addressed the specific issue of religion-based terrorism. Undeniably, that action worked.

Russia’s response to the initial attack was carried out by its primary intelligence organization. The KGB, a professional unit vaguely equivalent to America’s CIA, sent teams to several Islamic strongholds around the Middle East. Shortly thereafter, the (occasionally dead) bodies of Islamic leaders began to appear in local garbage dumps. The bodies had been carefully and precisely mutilated. The mutilations were skillfully performed in a ritual manner -- including branding, castration, and hog fat, among other things -- that shattered the most basic tenet of Islamic fundamentalism’s erroneous “jihad” faith.

Where Westerners generally dread open warfare, Islamic fundamentalists actually desire militaristic action. Wholesale violence -- with its consequent destruction of property, disruption of families, loss of life, shattering of social structures, and dissolution of governments -- is considered horrible by civilized minds. But warfare is Islamic fundamentalism’s concept of an easy and highly desirable gateway to heaven.

Because of a ridiculous misinterpretation of the Q’Ranic term “jihad,” fundamentalist Islamic adherents devoutly believe that a “warrior’s death” (including martyred or suicidal death) earns specific rewards such as honor, entry into heaven, and a harem of virgins. Their expectation of reward is heightened for efforts against a particularly hated non-Islamic, infidel enemy such as the US. Conversely, a non-warrior’s death is considered dishonorable, and earns punishment.

Most Western Hemisphere citizens have difficulty understanding such a violent and hate-driven mindset, and they generally dismiss it or deny its existence as “illogical” or blandly “just not possible.” Few Westerners (outside Russia’s “think tanks”) adequately grasp the sincerity and strength with which such vehement beliefs are held by Islamic believers. But that mindset is truly the core of Islamic fundamentalists’ everyday existence.

Russian intelligence analysts realized that such a depth of belief could be both a laudable strength and a distinct weakness. Those analysts were also realists, who were aware of a simple but powerful and universally applicable law of human nature. When the cost of an action becomes higher than the participant is willing to pay, that action will not be taken.

The analysts, rather brilliantly, determined the exact type and extent of “cost” that their Islamic adversaries genuinely considered “too great.” That specific excessive cost was not “David-vs-Goliath” warfare (which the Islamic radicals really consider a prized opportunity for martyrdom). Rather, it was the loss of heavenly reward. The KGB coldly and efficiently applied that knowledge, with immediate and permanent results.

Although they respect and/or fear very little else, Middle Eastern cultures do respect strength of will. Russia’s chilling resolve and ruthlessness are unquestioned, and to Islamic fundamentalist minds, the Russian message struck home with horrific clarity: “We will send you directly to hell.” Since that explicit demonstration, Islamic radicals have been well behaved toward the Russians. Although the KGB’s actions are coldly distasteful (or outright repugnant) to most Americans, the Russians obtained four decades of peace and security in exchange for a quick, if ethically questionable, investment of about a half-dozen murders and the disruption of about two dozen other lives.

Now contrast that Russian efficiency to America’s gunslinger approach. At a cost of billions of dollars, years of lost productivity, 45,000 dead Iraqis, 2,800 dead Americans, political and societal upheaval in both countries, and strained relations with other world powers … the US has thus far accomplished exactly nothing in the way of realizable behavior modification of Middle Eastern Islamic radicals (that is, actual deterrence of terrorism attempts and martyrdom efforts).

About four decades ago, the US entered the VietNam Conflict, despite being ill-prepared to do so. America, laboring under an abysmal ignorance of its opponent, engaged the North VietNamese military, who were experts in guerilla warfare. American forces initially attempted to conduct that jungle war with the same outlook (using the same equipment, tactics, communications, logistics, personnel training, and weaponry) with which the Allies had fought Germany on French farmland, a quarter century earlier. America’s earliest VietNam Conflict results were, not surprisingly, militarily and socially disastrous.

However, American political leaders (civilians) have forgotten history, thus dooming the US to repeat it. The current administration suffers from a 1,500 member hierarchical monstrosity of a White House staff (in comparison, President Kennedy had a staff of 60!). That huge and inept bureaucracy has been completely unable to timely provide the necessary input -- accurate and honest information -- that any Commander-in-Chief requires in order to make intelligent decisions. Thus, America has entered another eerily VietNam-like conflict. The similarity includes suffering an identical and inexcusable ignorance of its new opponent. And worst of all, the fighting is manifestly … and unforgivably … on the enemy’s terms.

The American public has yet to understand the religious and ecstatic zeal with which Islamic radicals welcome militaristic conflict, or why the fundamentalists commit increasingly severe acts of worldwide terrorism. But if Americans received sufficient education about Islamic fundamentalism, and were subsequently given the opportunity to specifically choose between 1) the dubiously effective “conventional force” loss of thousands of American lives, or 2) use of the type of force that Islamic radicals actually understand and respond to … the results might be intriguing.