Endless terror.

When the topic of the Iraq war comes up, John McCain keeps repeating a certain phrase to summarize what he believes the consequences of a premature US withdrawal will be:

"They (Al-Qaeda) will follow us home."

In other words, McCain believes that our troops in Iraq are holding back the tide of Islamic terrorism, and if we pull out, the fanatics will be free to invade our country and wreck havoc on the good citizens of the United States. John McCain is an intelligent, experienced policy maker and an American hero, but I have to say that this is a ludicrous statement. I don't call it ludicrous because I believe Al-Qaeda doesn't want to attack the United States, which would be equally ludicrous, but because it represents an antiquated view of war which simply doesn't apply in any way to our clash with Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that all Al-Qaeda needs to commit an act of terrorism on our soil is just one fanatical suicidal/homicidal maniac willing to blow himself up in a public place. Our military presence in Iraq in no way precludes an attack at home. It all comes down to the very nature of our enemy. If Al-Qaeda were a traditional standing army, with the goal of taking and occupying American territory, people like McCain would be absolutely right; fighting them on their own turf would almost certainly stop them from invading our country. After all, what sane military strategist would consider launching a major offensive on an enemy country if the forces of that country were overrunning their defenses at home?

But Al-Qaeda isn't a traditional standing army. It's a loosely knit, de-centralized group of terrorist cells scattered all around the world. They don't need some kind of central command center in Iraq to launch an attack on America. Al-Qaeda didn't even have a significant presence in Iraq until we came there. At the moment, Al-Qaeda is sending terrorists to Iraq because they want to kill Americans in Iraq. If Al-Qaeda wanted to kill Americans in New York, Boston, or Omaha, they could send terrorists to New York, Boston, or Omaha. They're not an army, they're not concerned with holding territory, and they're not going to get "stretched-out" or "over-deployed" if they send a handful of guys to blow themselves up within our borders. Al-Qaeda attacks don't require massive regimented formations of soldiers, they just require a couple of Islamic nutcases with cell-phones, fake IDs and homemade bombs. Quite frankly, I don't think our current strategy of "keeping on the offense" against terrorism, to quote Rudy Guiliani, really does a whole lot to protect us from terrorism. Are we killing terrorists in Iraq? Yes. Are groups like Al-Qaeda able to replace members as fast as we kill them? Yes. Can they attack us, whether or not we "stay the course" or "cut and run" in Iraq? Yes.

The problem is that politicians from both parties seem to be in an old-war mindset. They view Al-Qaeda as a new Nazi Germany that we can defeat on the battlefield using overwhelming force. If only it were as simple as that. In reality, Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations are completely different from the enemies our nation is used to dealing with. There aren't many clear options for America to take in the battle to counter radical Islamic terrorism, and without an honest inquiry into the issue, none will be discovered. Personally, I think a good start would be to ask "How can we diminish the appeal of radical Islam around the world?" rather than "How can we destroy a specific organization?". There will always be radical Islamic organizations, just as there will always be Nazi organizations, but there may be steps that the West can take to make sure that radical Islam becomes a rejected fringe of society in the Middle East rather than a popular movement. We can kill as many terrorists as we want, but as long as a steady stream of young radicals remains ready to take their place, the "War on Terror" is just treading in water.

In the last presidential election, George W. Bush came pretty close to the mark when he said the following about the "War on Terror":

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

Eventually, after enduring intense media scrutiny, he retracted the statement. Too bad. Despite how unpopular that kind of statement may be, it represents something far closer to the truth than the official party rhetoric. The heart of Islamic terrorism is a set of ideas, and no matter how hard you try, you can't destroy ideas. You can destroy governments, dictators, and armies. You can only marginalize, counter, and reduce the attractiveness of ideas. In the future, can we hope to better protect our country against terrorism and reduce the influence of radical Islam? Perhaps. But we can never make our country completely safe, or completely eradicate radical Islam. As in the "War on Drugs", there can be no victory in the "War on Terror". Heads of State can sign a proclamation of unconditional surrender. Terrorism can't.