In this blog I explore the two defining goals of Islamic terrorist organisations. Hemorrhage and Radicalisation. I will look at the two in some depth, and cover how they are and should be countered.
As everyone discusses the Norwegian terrorist massacre I thought I would return to the more well known terror campaign. It is Islamic terrorism that has defined the early 21st century and it is our incapacity to control, suppress and effectively eliminate Islamic terrorism that has revealed an endemic and critical weakness in modern Western society.
It was popularly exposed in November of last year in the pro-Al Qaeda magazine 'Inspire' that the primary goal of the modern Islamic terrorist organisation is to hemorrhage the West. To, at minimum cost, maximise the damage dealt at minimum relative cost. The sad fact is, it is an extremely effective strategy. Aviation security alone in the United States is now at over US $5bn annually. Considering Al Qaeda relies substantially on economic support from sympathetic organisations, let alone could match the 5bn dollar security program at airports, the hemhorrhage campaign is an undeniable massive success.
Because counter-terrorist airport security has two essential purposes. One to stop international terrorists from gaining access to domestic targets, whether by hijacking or bombing the plane, or simply getting safely through the destination airport and into the target city. Two to stop domestic terrorists from hijacking or bombing a plane. That's an incredible amount of money at tax payer expense which is going to combat just one method of terrorism (aviation based).
I'm not actually arguing that aviation security should be reduced. This is the inherent problem in combating hemorrhage tactics. The game was started by Al Qaeda and the rules are set by Al Qaeda. They have an inherent advantage. So while the US economy is facing a debt crisis and deep cuts are being made an many areas of government it still bleeds against the threat of future terrorism.
Just how much is all this security, and even the military occupations helping? While true that terrorist attacks that are successfully thwarted are not really measured, at least not publicly, it is not actual data that matters. It is public perception. The longer that there is more fear of a terrorist attack in the public consciousness, the closer we get to actually losing. Suicide terrorism is extremely effective, and this is something Robert Pape notes in his excellent exploration of this form of terrorism. The longer we are unable to effectively, comprehensively and more importantly, publicly eliminate terrorist organisations, the closer we get to pulling out of the Middle East and allowing the Taliban to possibly develop a new Iran in the long term. Because lets not forget, it is a Sharia Law Caliphate from Papua New Guinea to Albania to Morocco that is the grand scheme and wet dream of most Islamic extremist organisations.
The other aspect of the Islamic Terrorist organisations is radicalisation. Radicalisation is everywhere, from the Madrasah, to the Mosques, to University campuses. This is not to sound like a latter day McCarthyist, but to simply accept that invariably, this campaign is less visible and yet just as successful as hemorrhage.
Extremist Islamic citizens, sometimes backed by organisations, sometimes not, set up online forums exclusively for those sympathetic to them and share pro-Al Qaeda news, etc. spreading the ideology to each other and radicalising one another. Command of social media can even be as straightforward as YouTube videos leading to terror attacks. Radicalisation is a lingering, subtle accomplice to the hemorrhage which we feel much more directly.
Yet, this is the chink in the terrorist cell network armour. Audrey Kurth Cronin points out in her article in the International Security Journal that one of the key ways past terrorist organisations end is if they no longer have anyone to pass the cause on to. Essentially, while radicalisation is an essential part of the campaign to spread fear and improve chances and frequency of attacks in the West, it is also the crucial weakness. If there is no one that Islamic Extremists can 'pass the baton' to, then the cause dies.
Invariably, the most crucial aspect of this is deradicalisation. To date, none have been so comprehensive in their proposal for deradicalisation as the Quilliam Foundation. This think tank composed of reformed radical Islamists released a UK-centric but comprehensive wishlist for fighting and opposing radicalisation.
Without willing recruits Al Qaeda simply cannot spread its franchise, and with sympathetic Muslims not volunteering extremist organisations simply could not afford many casualties. They would be starved, and we would be bled.
Nobody pretends that this would be a simple task, least of all myself. The path to winning the war against radicalisation would be long, arduous, even expensive. It would be controversial, as it would involve combination government and independently backed efforts to persuade people of one point of view to another, and it requires patience, because the path to deradicalisation isn't as simple as posting blogs like this and having people be swayed, it involves developing an entire ideology, an Islamic ideology that is non-secular and non-extremist to provide credible alternatives to disaffected Muslims, and give them a path away from Al Qaeda.
There is no war on terror without a war on radicalisation.
So your solution is another war on yet another noun! This is not a religious war but a political one where religion is the motivating (or unifying) factor.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very telling that the first thing people thought of when Norway was attacked was Norway's intrusion in Afghanistan; their role in the recent Libyan attacks. What a subconscious admission of guilt!
Look at it from an individual point of view, the only people that walk the streets gripped by fear are the criminals and those who have wronged others; if you have a clear conscious you rarely walk around with eyes on the back of your head or worried half to death that someone is going to kill you taking out the rubbish.
The only way to stop radicalisation is first and foremost to stop the unconditional support of Israel and their quest to forcefully (and illegally) grab every millimetre of Palestinian land; Bring Israel to account and recognise that they have the world’s last apartheid system (with full support of US and AUS, etc). Remove all Russian troops from Chechnya; Let Afghanistan and Iraq solve their problems internally (full and unconditional withdrawal); Apologise for all the abuses, the terror imposed on the people of Afghanistan/Iraq instead of deflecting blame to dumb foot soldiers. Don’t lie - Pretending to spread democracy by a state supported terrorist campaign on innocent people (drones/cluster bombs/chemical warfare) to cover for your intentions to steal natural resources – people are not stupid they know US’ intentions. I see no difference between state based terrorism and religious terrorism – maybe that the state based versions have much more sophisticated marketing campaigns that can fool the masses. While one group uses a book to bring together its people the other uses a flag both ideas just as dangerous and fanatical.
"Apologise for all the abuses, the terror imposed on the people of Afghanistan/Iraq instead of deflecting blame to dumb foot soldiers. Don’t lie - Pretending to spread democracy by a state supported terrorist campaign on innocent people (drones/cluster bombs/chemical warfare) to cover for your intentions to steal natural resources – people are not stupid they know US’ intentions".
ReplyDeleteIf drones were not used, it would be the army, if cluster bombs weren't used, it would be conventional bombs. No, that isn't a 'terror' campaign and given that the US army and its allies invest significant amounts of money into nation building, then it actually appears to me, to be an honest campaign to deradicalise the population, since one of the common traits of a Jihadist is that they know nothing else, giving them carpentry skills so they can settle down with a career seems fine to me.
Not to mention the fact that Afghanistan's people have in part embraced the Allied forces. What do you think will happen to them when we leave? Because the Taliban wont be forgiving them, that's for sure.
Don't think for a second that massively picking up and running away is anything but exactly what the Extremists want. You see, one of the major reasons that the Jihadists resent the Americans is that as soon as the Soviets left, the American support left too. Did not help rebuild, did not help repair, left them abandoned. This is covered in the BBC doco 'Quran and the Kalashnikov'. You think picking up and leaving immediately will do anything but justify that notion? Our job currently should be to demonstrate resilience and to help those who help us, and take risks by supporting us, while we simultaneously attempt to build a nation from scratch, from the inside out, strengthen Afghanistans national security capabilities and the state's capacity to resist attack.
'Let them resolve their own problems' is frankly, a little ignorant. It's not their problem, it's our problem, and running away with our tail between our legs just gets us in another war later, and betrays a large array of people who want the Allies to succeed and do what they can to help it do exactly that.
I find it frustrating that we are in a war, and critics finger point every time something goes wrong, every time there is a civilian casualty, every time there is a mistake, finger pointing and screaming the absolute failure or total immorality of our forces. Interestingly, even perennial critics of the US government like Chomsky have spoken out against that sort of behaviour. Unless he's changed of late, I rarely read him.
"I see no difference between state based terrorism and religious terrorism – maybe that the state based versions have much more sophisticated marketing campaigns that can fool the masses. While one group uses a book to bring together its people the other uses a flag both ideas just as dangerous and fanatical".
Unfortunately, this isn't state based terrorism. State based terrorism is what you saw from the French in Algeria, and from the Soviets in Hungary. Historically, state based terror never won the support of, nor worked for the better of the society they are supposedly committing terror on. The Americans and allies are simultaneously fighting a war, which involves military and military action, and building a nation, which involves tradespeople and educating the unskilled in trades. It is having mixed success in both areas, but success none the less, and it also has very little to do with radicalisation, just the opposite.
'The war on radicalisation' is, I admit, just a little poetic license on my part! It is not, however, 'just another war' it is a massive shift in priorities for first world and western nations looking to secure themselves in the long term. Your analogy about guilt is also incorrect as guilt has nothing to do with it! Everyone was uncertain of the Norwegian terrorist's motives and since Islamic terrorism is the primary source of major terrorist attacks, it's a deduction of likelihood.
ReplyDeleteNow to your Islamic extremist wishlist; It is not and should not be a responsibility of governments to change policies due to outside violence. Blowing people up and murder should not change government policy, on the principle that if it does, then it sets a precedent that that government can be controlled or influenced by violence and murder. Your wishlist below, I shall address in bits, but this applies to all of them.
"The only way to stop radicalisation is first and foremost to stop the unconditional support of Israel and their quest to forcefully (and illegally) grab every millimetre of Palestinian land"
I think wholly attributing blame on Israel for a lack of a two state solution is a massively misleading concept. I also think it's a whole other can of worms. Maybe I'll address my thoughts on it sometime.
"Bring Israel to account and recognise that they have the world’s last apartheid system (with full support of US and AUS, etc)".
"Remove all Russian troops from Chechnya"
That's just not viable in any sense of the word. I'm sorry, but if you're looking for a practical solution to radicalisation, the Chechen struggle, while genuine, is something that will not end. Russia will not surrender claims to those resources.
"Let Afghanistan and Iraq solve their problems internally (full and unconditional withdrawal)"
We went there because they had problems where the most powerful governance was the Taliban who were spending the tax money they got on terrorist organisations. Leaving them alone is what developed this problem in the first place. This solution is largely ignorant. The doctrine of Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri et al is a new Caliphate --they want to create an empire based on Sharia law that stretches over all countries with a significant Muslim population. They want to forge it out of Afghanistan and be aggressively expansionist. Leaving them alone just sends us to war later down the track, not to mention allows them total control over the education of all Afghanis, so rather than deradicalise, it specifically allows massive radicalisation in Afghani Madrasah, which funnily enough, is what spawned the problem in the first place during the Russian invasion.