Implosion (16 page)

The Threat of Al Qaeda and Other Terror Groups

The events of September 11, 2001, taught us the hard way that terrorism—especially from radical Islamic jihadists such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, but also from the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other non-state actors—represents a clear and present danger to the United States. Unfortunately, even after a decade of hot war with the jihadists, this is still true.

In
Inside the Revolution
, I posed the question “How many Radicals are there worldwide?” To find the answer, I looked to authors John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, who in 2007 published
Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think
. Esposito is a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University and founding director of the school’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Mogahed, herself a devout Muslim, is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. The book these two experts wrote presents the findings of “a mammoth, multiyear Gallup research study . . . the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done.”
[253]

The good news from their research was that approximately 93 percent of Muslims worldwide fit Esposito and Mogahed’s definition of a “moderate”—peaceable, nonviolent, and traditionally religious but unlikely to pose a threat to Western security interests. The deeply disturbing news, however, was that about 7 percent would be classified as Radicals. That is, they are supportive of anti-American and anti-Western terrorism, believe it is fully justified, and thus are sympathetic of and potentially helpful to violent Islamic extremists. Unlike the moderates, these people pose a serious threat to American national security and to our allies and interests worldwide.

While 7 percent may at first seem like a relatively small number, the implications of such results are daunting. Seven percent of 1.3 billion Muslims equals 91 million people. It may comfort some Americans to know that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are peaceful people. But it is far from comforting to know that 91 million Muslims are politically radicalized. After all, were these 91 million people to form their own country—the Islamic Republic of Radicalstan, for example—they would represent the twelfth-largest country on the planet, having about twice the population of Spain, nearly three times the population of Canada, almost ten times the population of Sweden, and more than twelve times the population of Israel. What’s more, some researchers say Gallup’s 7 percent figure significantly
underestimates
the number of Radicals out there, meaning there may be many more.
[254]

What does this mean for the U.S. in terms of national security? For one thing, if the U.S. and our NATO allies completely withdraw from Afghanistan before the country is secure and the government in Kabul is truly stable and capable of using its military and police forces to keep terrorists out of the country, Afghanistan could once again become a safe haven for our enemies. We must not take our eye off the ball. We must make sure the Afghan threat is neutralized.

The same is true of Iraq. In my view, President Obama made a serious mistake by pulling all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of 2011. He seriously failed in his negotiations with Baghdad to maintain an American presence. We certainly made progress toward establishing a peaceful, stable Iraq, but by withdrawing precipitously, I am concerned the Obama administration may have unwittingly created a political and military vacuum that the Radicals of Iran, al Qaeda, and elsewhere could exploit, leading to new threats in Iraq to us, our allies, and our national interests.

We should all be deeply grateful to our brave and heroic military and intelligence forces for killing Osama bin Laden and capturing numerous top operatives since 9/11. At the same time, we must remember that the al Qaeda terrorist network and similar radical Islamic groups remain a major threat to the national security and economic vitality of the United States, the State of Israel, and our Western allies. While al Qaeda in particular has certainly been badly damaged by U.S. and coalition forces in recent years, they are by no means defeated. Rather, they are doing everything they can to reconstitute themselves in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere around the world. They are building new alliances, recruiting new jihadists, raising more money, acquiring more weapons, and plotting new attacks. We must remain vigilant.

The jihadists, after all, no longer want to merely frighten us; they want to annihilate us. They are no longer interested in merely inflicting minor damage on planes, trains, buses, restaurants, malls, and other “soft targets.” Rather, they are plotting to inflict catastrophic damage on the U.S. and our allies. To accomplish their objectives, they are actively seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological, and nuclear—along with ballistic missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States. They are recruiting followers who are religiously and ideologically committed to helping them carry out their plans and ready to infiltrate the American homeland and set off catastrophic attacks from the inside.

In 1998, Osama bin Laden was asked whether al Qaeda had nuclear or chemical weapons. Bin Laden’s response was that “acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so.”
[255]
What was particularly troubling was that bin Laden made the statement the same year Pakistan tested nuclear weapons.

In the summer of 2002, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti-born spokesman for al Qaeda, posted the following statement on the Internet: “Al-Qa’ida has the right to kill 4 million Americans, including one million children, displace double that figure, and injure and cripple hundreds of thousands.”
[256]

In May 2003, al Qaeda unveiled a fatwa from a leading Saudi cleric that sanctioned the use of nuclear weapons against the U.S. and permitted the killing of up to 10 million Americans.
[257]

During his tenure as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet became convinced that al Qaeda’s top priority is to acquire nuclear weapons and detonate them inside the United States. In his 2007 memoir,
At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA
, Tenet wrote concerning his discoveries about al Qaeda’s intentions:

What we discovered stunned us all. The threats were real. Our intelligence confirmed that the most senior leaders of al-Qa’ida are still singularly focused on acquiring WMD. . . . Moreover, we established beyond any reasonable doubt that al-Qa’ida had clear intent to acquire chemical, biological, and radiological/nuclear (CBRN) weapons, to possess not as a deterrent but to cause mass casualties in the United States.
[258]

Terrorists’ acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a nightmare scenario that we must avoid at all costs. To prevent the worst from happening, the U.S. and other Western governments must constantly remain vigilant. After all, what these fanatics need most in order to accomplish their goals are Western ignorance, apathy, and lack of moral clarity. If the West can be lulled to sleep, the Radicals will have a much better chance of pulling off a series of attacks that make 9/11 pale by comparison.

The Pakistani Threat

When I was writing
Inside the Revolution
, I interviewed Porter Goss, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. For Goss, Pakistan stood near the top of the list of serious threats facing the United States. Pakistan, a country of questionable political stability, has more than one hundred nuclear warheads and many ballistic missiles and is a center for extreme Sunni fundamentalism. Should Radicals suddenly seize control of the country, or should the country disintegrate into chaos or civil war, Pakistan could in a matter of hours or days become the most dangerous country on the face of the planet.

I feel this is now the new Doomsday Scenario, if one of these nuclear weapons or this capability falls in the hands of irresponsible people who have declared that they want to wipe out our Western form of civilization because it is apostate. The all-too-possible nightmare of assassination, chaos, and anarchy in Pakistan could lead to the country’s nuclear capability falling into wrong hands. . . . It would be a disaster if the Pak military lost control of the serious weaponry in Pakistan—including WMD.
[259]

I couldn’t agree more. One can only imagine the horrible implications to American and international security if Pakistani nuclear weapons should end up in the hands of al Qaeda or the Taliban—or the Iranians. America—known to many Pakistanis as the “Great Satan”—would suddenly be in grave danger.

For the foreseeable future, therefore, Pakistan is a country we must watch closely.

Do Americans Have the Resolve to Remain Engaged?

What I have briefly described are just a few of the emerging threats facing the U.S. There are many more. On numerous fronts—but particularly in the Middle East—we face what Winston Churchill once called a “gathering storm.” Evil is rising, and we must confront it decisively, or we risk being blindsided as we were at Pearl Harbor in 1941 or on September 11, 2001.

Will American leaders—and the American people—have the resolve to stay focused on national-security issues and remain engaged in a hostile world when economic and social problems are so pressing here at home? Will we invest the time, technology, and national resources it takes to defend ourselves from cataclysmic, paralyzing, even decapitating attacks by enemy states and terrorist organizations, even when budget cuts are needed elsewhere?

I hope so, but to be honest, these are open questions at the moment.

Admiral Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made headlines in August 2010 when he publicly stated that “the most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” Mullen warned that if America’s debt continues eating up more and more of the federal budget, the Pentagon may not be able to fully and adequately defend the vital interests of the country. “The reason I say that is because the ability for our country to resource our military—and I have a pretty good feeling and understanding about what our national security requirements are—is going to be directly proportional . . . to help our economy,” Mullen said. “That’s why it’s so important that the economy move in the right direction, because the strength and the support and the resources that our military uses are directly related to the health of our economy over time.”
[260]

The following month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly agreed with Chairman Mullen. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary Clinton said, “Our rising debt levels (pose) a national security threat.”
[261]

Mullen and Clinton were right, of course. But that doesn’t mean the politicians will refrain from gutting the defense budget and calling it a “peace dividend.” I saw it happen when I first came to Washington in 1990 as the Cold War came to an end. I am concerned it will happen again.

What’s more, the winds of isolationism are moving across Washington and the nation. A growing number of Republican leaders have been calling for the U.S. to withdraw our forces as rapidly as possible from Afghanistan, echoing widespread sentiments among Congressional Democrats.
[262]

Interest in taking decisive action to stop Iran from getting or using nuclear weapons has been hard to find in Washington in recent years. I was particularly surprised to see Senator John McCain signal that the U.S. would not fight another war in the Middle East and imply that he would not support such a war. In a live television interview during the ceremonies honoring the tenth anniversary of 9/11, Senator McCain—a war hero, leading hawk, and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee—told Fox News Sunday, “I think we did the right thing there [in Iraq and Afghanistan]. But I also think we have learned a lot of lessons. And frankly, I don’t think you are going to see the United States of America in another war in that part of the world.”
[263]

Does that mean Senator McCain is ruling out any and all American preemptive military action to stop Iran from obtaining or using nuclear weapons? Does that mean the U.S. would not come to the defense of Israel if she were attacked by Iran or Russia or any other enemy? Does that mean the U.S. would not come to the defense of the democratic government of Iraq, were she invaded? Or defend our access to oil in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states? These are just a few of the scenarios that could warrant another war in the Middle East. No American wants another war in the region, but it was noteworthy to hear Senator McCain rule one out. If he wouldn’t support U.S. military action in the epicenter, how many in the U.S. Senate would?

Bottom Line

The Bible clearly indicates that there will be terrible wars and acts of terrorism and lawlessness in the last days. Could we see catastrophic wars or crippling terrorist attacks foisted upon the United States in the months and years ahead? Yes, this is very possible. Could such attacks cause or hasten the implosion of the U.S. as a world power? Yes, I’m afraid this, too, is possible. Indeed, even the constant threat of war and terrorism could, over time, lead to America becoming emotionally and spiritually exhausted, increasingly isolationist, or politically gridlocked. This, in turn, could cause us to become neutralized in terms of our involvement on the world stage, effectively leading to the end of the U.S. as the world’s only superpower. I shudder to think of the implications, but given our current trajectory, this possibility cannot be ruled out.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE NATURAL DISASTER SCENARIOS

While America could be suddenly and unexpectedly neutralized as a key world player due to financial implosion, an incapacitating war, or an unprecedented terrorist strike or series of strikes, these are not the only threats we face. In his sovereignty, God could choose to send natural disasters—be they hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, droughts, floods, volcanoes, pandemic diseases, or any number of other disasters—that would essentially neutralize us or render us unable or unwilling to engage in other global events.

Natural disasters continue unfolding one after another here at home and around the world as they always have. But have you stopped to notice that so many recently are described as “historic” and “unprecedented”?

• Eight of the ten most expensive hurricanes in American history have happened since 9/11. The worst was Hurricane Katrina, which nearly wiped out an American city and ended up costing more than $100 billion.
[264]

• Hurricane Irene made 2011 the worst year in American history for natural disasters, with ten separate catastrophes costing $1 billion or more.
[265]

• In 2011, America experienced the worst outbreak of tornadoes in nearly half a century.
[266]

• In 2011, Texas suffered the worst fires in the history of the state, amid the worst drought in Texas history.
[267]

• In 2011, Virginia—and much of the East Coast—experienced its biggest earthquake since 1875.
[268]

The fact that these events were “historic” or “unprecedented” in nature doesn’t necessarily mean they were all devastating in terms of lives lost. But that was the grace of God. What if he had decided to allow the United States to suffer disasters of the magnitude that Haiti or Japan or Indonesia or Chile or Pakistan suffered in recent years? What if he allows such disasters to happen in the near future?

Let’s take a moment and briefly look at a few worst-case scenarios.

The Threat of Earthquakes

As we have seen, Bible prophecy warns that earthquakes will occur in the last days. In Matthew 24:7, we read that “in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.” In Luke 21:11 we read that in the End Times “there will be great earthquakes . . . and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.” In the books of Ezekiel and Revelation, we also read of cataclysmic earthquakes that will shake everyone on the face of the earth and do damage beyond our worst nightmares.

The question is: Why does God send earthquakes? Let’s consider two reasons.

First, the Bible teaches that God often uses earthquakes to wake people up and get them to focus on him and on his only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. After the crucifixion of Christ, for example, God sent an earthquake to Israel:

Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,
“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”
that is, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” . . . And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

MATTHEW 27:45-54

Likewise, God sent an earthquake during the resurrection of Christ:

Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.” And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.

MATTHEW 28:1-8

God also sent an earthquake to wake up Roman government officials who were persecuting the believers and to draw one of them to Christ.

But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

ACTS 16:25-34

Second, God uses earthquakes to judge those who reject him. John Wesley preached a sermon in the mid-1700s titled “The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes.” In it he argued that “of all the judgments which the righteous God inflicts on sinners here, the most dreadful and destructive is an earthquake. . . . Earthquakes are set forth by the inspired writers as God’s proper judicial act, or the punishment of sin: sin is the cause, earthquakes the effect, of his anger. . . . Now, that God is himself the Author, and sin the moral cause, of earthquakes . . . cannot be denied by any who believe the Scriptures.” Wesley argued that “God waits to see what effect his warnings will have upon you.”
[269]

Wesley drew his case from the Bible. Consider these passages:

• “Thus I will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their iniquity. . . . Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place at the fury of the L
ORD
of hosts in the day of His burning anger” (Isaiah 13:11-13).

• “From the L
ORD
of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, with whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire” (Isaiah 29:6).

• “And in that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven” (Revelation 11:13).

Experiencing an Earthquake

Might God decide to humble America through a series of devastating earthquakes? It is a very real possibility.

Having lived on the East Coast of the United States all my life—upstate and central New York and the Washington, DC, area—I have never had any anxiety or fear about earthquakes like some folks on the West Coast have. Indeed, the first earthquake I ever experienced was the 5.8-magnitude quake that occurred in August 2011, while I was writing this book.

At first I thought our four sons were wrestling so hard that they were shaking the house. In fact, I was just in the process of shouting upstairs to them, “Hey, what in the world are you guys doing that’s making the house shake so much?” when food started falling out of the pantry and pictures tumbled off the walls and my young nieces who were visiting began screaming. Suddenly, we realized what was happening and gathered in the center of our home, away from any windows or things that could fall on us, and prayed. After about a minute, it was all over, and we thanked the Lord that it really wasn’t so bad after all.

The earthquake—whose epicenter was in rural southern Virginia—shook DC and New York City and was felt in twenty-two states. It briefly interrupted cell phone coverage in spots along the eastern seaboard, triggered evacuations of the White House, the Capitol Building, and the Pentagon, and closed many schools. The quake caused several cracks in the Washington Monument and other minor damage but—again by God’s grace—no serious injuries or fatalities. News reports called the quake “rare”
[270]
and “significant.”
[271]
It certainly was.
National Geographic
reported that “before this latest quake . . . the largest earthquake on record in central Virginia was a magnitude-4.8 [quake] that occurred in 1875, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.”
[272]

Curiously, on the same day, the
New York Times
ran this headline: “Rare Strong Earthquake Hits Colorado.” “The largest natural earthquake in Colorado in more than a century struck Monday night in the state’s southeast corner,” the
Times
reported. “The last known natural event of comparable size was an earthquake in 1882 in what is now Rocky Mountain National Park.”
[273]

I was grateful the effects of both were so mild, but I couldn’t help but wonder what would have happened if either of these earthquakes had had its epicenter not in a rural area but under a major American city.

Fearing the “Big One”

Americans living on the West Coast, in particular, fear the “Big One”—an enormous, even apocalyptic, earthquake that would devastate life and property on a scale previously unimagined.

In January 2010, CBS
Evening News
ran a story headlined “Haiti Revives Fears of ‘Big One’ in Calif.” The story noted that “the fault under Haiti is the same type as the San Andreas fault—the 800-mile-long scar slicing through California. Pressure has been building in the southern end near Los Angeles for more than 300 years. Scientists say the so-called ‘Big One’ here is not a matter of if, but when.”
[274]

In March 2010,
USA Today
ran this headline: “Chilean Earthquake Hints at Dangers of ‘Big One’ for USA.” “One of the really ‘Big Ones’ to shake the United States was a magnitude-9.0 earthquake along the Pacific Northwest coast more than 300 years ago, before the arrival of huge numbers of people and development, that sent a catastrophic tsunami to Japan,” the article reported. “Were something like that 1700 quake to occur today—and it certainly could, seismologists say—enormous destruction and loss of life would result in a region that is home now to big cities and millions of people. The magnitude-8.8 earthquake that rocked Chile and sent tsunami fears across the Pacific on Saturday—nearly seven weeks after the enormously deadly quake that destroyed parts of Haiti—serves as a vivid reminder of the perils posed to the United States by countless fault lines and shifting plates. ‘It’s not a matter of if, only of when an event like this strikes the people of the United States,’ says Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey. ‘Shame on us if we don’t prepare.’”
[275]

Such fears are grounded in historic reality. In 1906, a powerful earthquake rocked San Francisco, California, and triggered a horrendous fire. The quake—which some scientists say was magnitude 7.7; others say it hit 8.3 on the Richter scale—was felt from Oregon to Nevada. The damage was extensive. An estimated three thousand people were killed, some 28,000 buildings were destroyed, and nearly a quarter of a million people were made homeless. The cost of rebuilding topped $400 million, an enormous sum at the time.
[276]

What if the same quake occurred in San Francisco this year or next? “The ‘Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake’ is one of the strongest ever recorded on the North American continent,” noted a group of earthquake experts at the California Institute of Technology. “If a similar earthquake occurred in northern California today, after many decades of rapid urban growth, thousands of people would likely be killed and economic losses might be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Such an event would easily be the worst natural disaster in the nation’s history.”
[277]

What Is the Probability of a Catastrophic Earthquake?

Just how likely is it that such a devastating quake will happen in northern California again? “Because of extensive urban development in northern California since 1906, the strong earthquakes expected in the coming decades may be very destructive,” the CIT scientists wrote. “For example, a magnitude-7 earthquake occurring today on the Hayward Fault (a part of the San Andreas Fault system, along the densely populated eastern side of San Francisco Bay) would likely cause hundreds of deaths and almost $100 billion of damage. In 1999, the USGS reported that there is a 70 percent chance that one or more quakes of about magnitude 6.7 or larger will occur in the San Francisco Bay area before the year 2030.”
[278]