It’s Monday morning, so if you’re not in the mood for a heavy topic, that’s understandable. You might want to postpone reading this article until Tuesday. If not, then read on.
In somewhat simpler times, mutually assured destruction (MAD) was a mindset shared by America and the Soviet Union that served to keep the peace. Leaders of both countries knew that it was futile to launch a first strike because the enemy would retaliate before the aggressor’s missiles reached apogee. Under that scenario, no one wins. As a result, the last half-century has not seen a nuclear war. But as time marches on, the concept of MAD is becoming obsolete when radical Muslim extremists are thrown into the mix. Death is no longer a rational deterrent.
Consider three questions.
1. Is nuclear terrorism really a threat?
- President Obama convened a global summit on nuclear terrorism in which he stated that this is the greatest danger currently facing the United States and the international community.
- Adm. Eric Olsen, head of US Special Forces, told the Senate Armed Services committee on March 16 that the threat of extremists acquiring and using chemical, biological or nuclear arms “is greater now than at any other time in history”.
- Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden told a Time magazine reporter in 1998 that acquiring weapons of mass destruction “for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty.”
- Chuck Freilich, the former Israeli deputy national security adviser and fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School said that “…Islamic extremists view all non-Muslims – and even Muslims that don’t adhere to their strict reading of Islam – as infidels, or kufar, who must be killed for the sake of Allah. Indeed, al-Qaeda and its followers have proven their willingness, if not desire, to murder and die in order to obtain their ultimate goal of creating an Islamic Caliphate.”
2. Can Islamic terrorists really obtain nuclear weapons?
It has been speculated that terrorists could obtain nuclear weapons from either Iran or Pakistan. Although Iran may not possess nuclear weapons at the moment, no one disputes that they are well on their way to becoming a nuclear power within the near future. Pakistan, on the other hand, holds approximately 125 nuclear weapons today, placed in disparate locations designed to keep the arsenal secure. The security of these weapons, however, is up to interpretation.
3. Is the Obama administration doing everything it can to protect Americans against a nuclear attack on US soil?
Terrorists know that the Obama administration refuses to enforce border security with Mexico without passage of amnesty for the estimated 12 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. Conservatives believe that Obama has put potential ethnic votes ahead of national security interests. That assertion is particularly troubling considering reports that al Qaeda and Hezbollah are now entering the US from Mexico.
- They are spending tens of thousands of dollars to smuggle in a single terrorist.
- The Mexican embassy in Beirut was caught selling visas to enter Mexico for $3,000 apiece.
- Southwestern states have begun noticing Farsi tattoos of Mexican gang members in prison.
Is it reasonable to speculate that one tenth of one percent of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country may have terrorist organizational ties? If so, that potentially could represent 12,000 foreign operatives. Yet Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists that she does not have any “credible information” on terrorist groups operating along the border. No surprise there.
The threats from Islamic terrorists on our own soil could very well escalate in the weeks and months ahead due to several reasons.
- Israel may attack Iran, in which case, the US will be held accountable.
- Obama has publically announced his plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, which signaled a victory to Muslim extremists.
- Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, says there are ongoing efforts to negotiate a political settlement with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Again, this signals a victory to Muslim extremists.
- President Obama and other progressives, including New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, have publically commented that Muslims have every right to build the Mosque named Cordoba House near Ground Zero. Unfortunately, they have virtually ignored the controversy surrounding the secret financing or the inflammatory statements against the US made by its principle proponent, Feisal Abdul Rauf. It is reasonable to assume that Cordoba House, if built near the worst terrorist attack in US history, will be a powerful symbol of victory to terrorists throughout the world. There is a reason it is called Cordoba House.
At the end of the day, the economy, partisan politics and campaign jockeying, which dominate so much of our media, will become meaningless in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion on United States soil. Under that reality, the psyche of the American public will be consumed by fear. The focus will shift from ideological differences to the basics of survival. And regardless of which party controls the House or Senate, Americans will hold Barack Obama accountable. Why? Perhaps Wall Street Journal author and former Democratic pollster Patrick H. Caddell summed it up:
“Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. “
Like I said, its Monday.