After war in Iraq, who comes next? - Deconstructing Terror

In the days that led up to the war in Iraq, the media and public officials focused much of their criticism on the proposed war on the boost that military action would supposedly give to terrorist groups. These critics argued that the mass casualties and images of American troops imposing checkpoints and other military procedures similar to those used by Israel in the territories would be sure to inflame the Arab street and drive scores of individuals to the side of the terrorists.

But, as the American noose on Baghdad tightens, there is significant evidence to suggest that Operation Iraqi Freedom will succeed in making Americans and the world safer from the terrorist threat. This was far from a guaranteed outcome, and the people responsible for the planning and implementation of the Allied battle plans deserve much credit for their fine work.

Terrorists, it is often noted, are a hazard to civilians worldwide because they can operate in any country in the world and do so with minimal organizational support. While this is an undeniable fact, it does ignore the actual functioning of most terrorist groups. It would be impossible for any government to thwart all terrorist attacks that are undertaken by small groups of individuals, such as the Oklahoma City bombing. Infiltrating such a small and tight knit group would prove nearly unrealizable, and it would also be unfeasible to expect the government to keep a check on every individual that could possibly be planning a violent attack, especially while safeguarding essential civil liberties.

The majority of terrorist attacks are not carried out by isolated groups, however, but by members of larger organizations. These groups require a stable base from which to centralize their activities, without which they will fail to maintain their strength. No major terrorist group has survived and successfully continued to carry out attacks without the protection and support of a state sponsor. If a terrorist group is constantly on the run, it is nearly impossible to centralize their activities and distribute the money and equipment essential to the functioning of the various cells of the group.

The War in Afghanistan was directly designed to disrupt the safe haven that the Taliban government was providing to al-Qaeda. The success in Afghanistan has severely weakened al-Qaeda by eliminating a base used for training, money distribution and centralized planning. With all of al-Qaeda's top leaders dead or on the run, the group has failed to carry out a major attack against America since Sept. 11.

A similar effect is being seen in Iraq. Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist group based in Northern Iraq with strong ties to al-Qaeda, has been decimated by the Allied troops. They have been chased out of their strongholds in the North and have fled across the border to Iran, seeking refuge from the American onslaught. Ansar's leaders are currently absconding, while many of its warriors are surrendering to Kurdish and American forces. Iran has shown evidence of an unwillingness to harbor these terrorist refugees, sending hundreds of individuals back over the border, without their weapons, to surrender to the Allies.

Iran's actions are telling. This is a country that is a member of the Axis of Evil and has sponsored scores of terrorist groups throughout the world, notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and Turkey and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Yet they are sending Islamic refugees to surrender to the Allied troops, instead of providing them with shelter and support as the members of Ansar had clearly expected would be the case.

The War on Terror can only succeed if there is a unified international front against terrorism. All nations must be forced to comprehend that supporting terrorist groups is never acceptable, and any nation that continues to support terrorism must be dealt with in an appropriate manner. The War in Iraq has proven the American resolve to fight terrorists and their state sponsors anywhere in the world, even without explicit international approval, because it is the right thing to do. The number of states sponsoring terrorists is dwindling, due in large part to the effectiveness of the American campaign. Simultaneously, the dire predictions of mass terrorist attacks resulting from outrage against the Allied campaign have failed to come to fruition. If this war can be completed with minimal civilian casualties and a destruction of a major state sponsor of terrorism, the only question that will remain will be: who's next?

Jonathan Snow can be reached at jsnow@jhunewsletter.com.