To describe the two-term Presidency of George W. Bush as ‘conventional’ is like calling Hurricane Katrina a ‘light drizzle’.  While passions remain high on both faces of the political coin, it is impossible to properly understand his actions and legacy so close to his tenure in office.  As time goes on, and the Obama administration begins to distance itself from its predecessor, the true impact of George W. begins to crystallize. A self-described ‘war President’, his lasting implications are in the field of national security and counter-terrorism.  Stripped down from all bravado, ego, politicization, posturing, and blunders, George Bush bequeathed to America one lasting and priceless reality.  Against all odds, and partially brought about by repeated failures, his administration managed to entangle the once global al Qaeda in to the national and ethnic divisions that entangle us all.  In other words, he placed the pan-Islamic terror organization in a time machine, pressed fast forward, and brought them to the modern age of the nation-state.

Compare this statement:

“We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed. We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers.” – Osama bin Laden October 2001.

With these:

“It [Iran] caused itself and the Shiites following it a historic disgrace. The signs of this stab will remain vivid in the Muslims’ memory for a very long time. The strange paradox to which I would like to draw attention is that despite the fact that Iran permitted the Crusader troops to enter Iraq, recognized the agent government there, and pushed its militias to participate in this government’s army, security services, and police force.” – Dr. Al-Zawahiri 200

“The leadership of Hamas government has committed an aggression against the rights of the Islamic nation by accepting what it called… respecting international agreements.  I am sorry to have to offer the Islamic nation my condolences for the [virtual demise] of the Hamas leadership as it has fallen in the quagmire of surrender.” Dr. Al-Zawahiri 2007

These statements offer a clear insight in to the (d)evolution of the global jihadi movement.  Once committed to a global, transnational identity, al Qaeda and its followers have become embroiled in inter-Muslim conflicts and rivalries.  While Bin Laden once sought to sooth Sunni – Shi’ah divisions, al-Zawahiri now openly exploits these differences to incite Sunni-inspired jihad across the region.  Similarly, the working relationships that formed as a unified opposition to Israel (Hamas, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran, and al Qaeda) have begun to dissolve.  It seems that while bombs and bullets can kill terrorists, only politics can kill an ideology. 

So what has caused these divisions?  Is it directly related to the policies of the Bush administration?  Ironically, I believe that it is George Bush’s failures that have given America this opportunity.   Critics accused his measures as draconian, outdated, and more befitting the cold-war period.  These characterizations have been proven accurate, as America has yet to defeat al Qaeda and its sympathizers.  What the critics failed to see, however, is that while his strategy was ill-equipped to defeat the global jihadi movement, George Bush managed to compartmentalize the movement in to units that are now far easier to confront.  Simply put, because GWB stubbornly refused to confront his enemy as a global movement, he forced it in to the boundaries of the modern nation state.  Terrorists once bent on global domination are now embroiled in Talibani resistance, Hamas vs. Fatah power struggles, and the Iraqi insurgency.

Had he chosen the other option, and ‘gone global’ as many were advocating, ponder the possible outcomes.   Terrorists that have been drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame would have remained in their home countries, plotting further attacks against American interests.  Sunni al Qaeda and Shi’ah Hezbollah would have remained united against Israel.  The working relationship between Iranian leadership and al Qaeda leadership would have increased the likelihood of a nuclear-armed terror cell. 

George W Bush set out to defeat al Qaeda, and in that mission he has failed.  Yet his failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced the jihadi movement to think, act, and fight as if it were a nation-state. Drawn to various locations and causes, such as the Taliban controlled region of Northwest Pakistan, these terrorists are now easier to locate, track, and kill.  This is the second act in the west’s fight against al Qaeda.  While GWB might have played the well-meaning but mistaken leader in Act I, he has set the stage for the final showdown.  

Israeli authorities successfully diffused a ‘massive’ car-bomb in the northern city of Haifa on Saturday evening.  Over 100 kilograms of explosives were found, more than five times the amount necessary to level a municipal bus or truck.  The automobile was parked outside a mall, and appears to have targeted civilian shoppers as they entered or exited the building. 

What troubles counter-terror officials most is how this vehicle, reportedly stolen from East Jerusalem, was packed with explosives and relocated to Haifa without detection at various checkpoints.  Israeli officials repeatedly hail the West Bank barrier as a major factor in reducing terrorist activity within the Jewish state, but are worried a sophisticated new cell has found ways around such obstacles. 

Fortunately for local officials, the bomb was found and diffused after an apparent failed detonation.  Explosive materials, ball bearings, and other evidence have been taken from the scene.

It is unclear as to whether or not the attempted bombing was related to the new government coalition led by right-wing Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu.  While the new Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that he will be a ‘peace partner’ with the Palestinian authority, skeptics remain cautious as to the merits of this claim.  

American law enforcement expects, and often receives, an extremely high level of cooperation from various Muslim communities throughout the United States.  Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, Egyptians; most are well integrated within their local communities and establishments. As a result, the threat of domestic terrorism is often lower in the US than in other western nations with a more radicalized Muslim minority, such as the United Kingdom or France.  However, one particular segment of an isolated community is beginning to trouble counter-terror officials; recent immigrants from Somalia. 

A recent hearing, conducted by the Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee, was troubled by increased recruitment of Somali-American youth by al-Shabaab.  According to the State Dept., this terrorist organization is well armed, strategically sophisticated, and enjoys extensive relationships with other al Qaeda affiliates. 

“Over the last two years, individuals from the Somali community in the United States, including American citizens, have left for Somalia to support and in some cases fight on behalf of al-Shabaab,” said Senator Lieberman.

Concerns over al-Shabaab began late last year.  Shirwa Ahmed, a Somali-American was radicalized in his home state of Minnesota, and then sent to Somalia where he killed himself and 29 others in a suicide bombing.  More distressing than the involvement of an American citizen, is the fact that he was approached, recruited, and radicalized not in Somalia, but in the United States.

State Dept. officials are attempting to determine the causes of these recent developments.  Why is the Somali community more susceptible to recruitment than other local Muslim minorities?  Experts contend that the Somali community is more isolated than others because of more recent waves of immigration (primarily throughout the 1990s, after American intervention in the region), and less adaptability towards the American way of life. 

The greatest concern to law enforcement agencies, more than those radicalized individuals leaving the United States, is these same individuals returning with the intention of conducting terror attacks.  The majority of these youths are American citizens, and travel between the US and Somalia is hardly restrictive with proper paperwork and familial requirements. 

The only way to combat this threat is to eliminate the problem at its root cause.  Unlike Saudi youth living in Riyadh, or Egyptian youth in Cairo, the US Government has the opportunity and obligation to reach out to the American-Somali community, and ensure that if fundamentalist recruitment is taking place, they all have a shared investment in approaching local authorities. 

Over the past week, two new polls have been released which paint an interesting picture of opinions and attitudes within the Muslim World. First, a New York Times poll asked Muslims all over the world whether they felt as if they were ‘thriving’, ‘struggling’, or ‘suffering’.

Out of 14 countries (ten predominately Muslim nations and four western nations), American Muslims were among the most satisfied populations, with 41% feeling as if they were ‘thriving’ and 3% feeling as if they were ‘suffering’. That is the third highest satisfaction rate, behind only Germany and Saudi Arabia, and the second lowest dissatisfaction rate, behind Saudi Arabia. This contrasts sharply with the United Kingdom, where a mere 7% feel as if they are ‘thriving’, and 93% either ‘struggling’ or ‘suffering’.

The Second poll, released by World Public Opinion, focuses specifically on the Islamic World. It gauges the attitudes of average citizens and their opinions towards U.S. military presence and suicide attacks. The poll finds that while an overwhelming majority rejects attacks on civilians, a strong majority supports Al Qaeda’s goal of removing US troops from Muslim land; with majorities in several nations favoring attacks on US military personnel.

These findings are interesting in that they represent the clear split between Muslims living within the Muslim world, and those living in some western countries, mainly Germany and the United States. For instance, of those polled in Pakistan, only 1% believe a strong US military presence is beneficial to their lives. However, 89% of Pakistanis believe that they are either ‘struggling’ or ‘suffering’.

Even France, with high levels of Muslim dissatisfaction ranks above Morocco, Iran, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan. What this suggests, is that while Muslim populations fair better outside the Muslim world, there still exists high levels of animosity towards the very societies within which they thrive.

The reasons and motivations vary. Leaders inside the Islamic World often use the United States and West as a scapegoat, diverting dissatisfaction away from local regimes. The United States too shares a good deal of the blame; no one appreciates uninvited guests. Yet there exists opportunity in these polls, for if these populations, separated by some Islamic Curtain between the Muslim and Western worlds, were to reconcile, all would be better off.