The arrest of 17 people in Canada on terrorist charges underscores, across the West, a growing sense of dread and inevitability that is rooted in the homegrown nature of the threat. But what do we really know about these killers among us?
We know, of course, the broad outline of their all-encompassing fundamentalism, and we have some vague ideas about Al Qaeda as a decentralized network of cells in many countries that seeks to acquire chemical, biological, and perhaps even nuclear weapons. We also know their leaders’ long-term goals: seize power in Muslim countries and attack the Western states that support secular regimes in the Islamic world. Finally, we also know that the leaders of this fanatical tide are few, but now have the sympathy of millions of ordinary Muslims.
There have always been fanatical individuals ready to die and kill in the name of their beliefs. But they seem far more dangerous nowadays as a result of technological advances that have “democratized” bomb making. After all, as the London and Madrid bombings demonstrated, a cell phone is all that is needed to time an explosion – or a series of explosions – with deadly efficiency.
Our freedoms and social fluidity also contribute to the threat. People move about the globe cheaply and with relative ease. Immigrants can establish themselves in new societies, and in democratic states they can live completely free of supervision. Our freedoms are their tools.
So how do we fight such an amorphous enemy?
President George W. Bush has demonstrated one way not to do it: his invasion and occupation of Iraq show that directly attacking Muslim states only fuels fanaticism. Of course, civilized countries should not give up the fight against extremist Islam because of the bloodshed in Iraq; but we must recognize that war, occupation, and forced submission to military power have merely caused mass humiliation and resentment among many ordinary Muslims – emotions that are then channeled into terrorist networks. Prime Minister Tony Blair can loudly proclaim that the London bombings of July last year are unrelated to Britain’s participation in the Iraq war, but the terrorists themselves, once arrested, said exactly the opposite.
Indeed, here is how one of the Madrid bombers described the psychological preparation to which he had been submitted: his leader “made us watch DVDs showing pictures of war in Iraq, mostly pictures of women and children killed by American and British soldiers.” There is also no shortage of images of abused prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison or the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which have likewise done more to recruit new adherents to Islamic fanaticism than any sermon in a radical mosque.
Simply put, bombs dropped from several thousands meters do not kill less indiscriminately than explosive charges placed in train cars. Acknowledging this is not to excuse terrorism, but it is a first step toward understanding terrorism’s underlying causes, and thus toward their elimination.
Above all, it is to acknowledge that democratic societies must use both political and police tactics in confronting fanatical terrorists. Politics is necessary for the simple reason that occupying armies and police cannot force hundreds of millions of Muslims to shed their hostility.
Political action implies actually leaving Iraq quickly and finding a fair solution to the Palestinian conflict, which in turn requires ending the occupation of all Palestinian territories. Of course, extinguishing these hot spots will not erode the fanaticism of diehard and suicidal activists; nor will it rid us of the avidity and hatred that is so evident among the leaders of Islamic rage. But it will deprive them of the masses of sympathetic Muslims who view the fanatics as the only people seeking to defend “Islamic” values and oppressed Muslim peoples.
Policing is the second part of any effective strategy. Greater efforts at infiltrating terror networks are needed, as is a deeper knowledge of the social structures created by the terrorists, in order to block their financial support. This may mean eliminating shadowy “tax havens,” tapping phone lines, and identifying individuals considered highly dangerous. Police actions must be merciless, even if this means more controls and surveillance. It is precisely to prevent the development of a collective security fear that we need to alter the equilibrium between security and freedom.
While the European Union lags behind the US in terms of conventional weapons, its capacity to fight terrorism is probably higher. For historical reasons, Europe benefits from a political maturity that has allowed it to avoid Bush’s Manichean worldview, which has merely reinforced, rather than undermined, the enemy’s fanaticism. Moreover, for geographical reasons, Europe also benefits from a better knowledge of Arab and Muslim countries and extensive familiarity with their populations.
The West can and must prevail in this fight and in the defense of the values that it cherishes. It might even find, along the way, a new and urgently needed motivation to reinforce its fraying unity.
The arrest of 17 people in Canada on terrorist charges underscores, across the West, a growing sense of dread and inevitability that is rooted in the homegrown nature of the threat. But what do we really know about these killers among us?
We know, of course, the broad outline of their all-encompassing fundamentalism, and we have some vague ideas about Al Qaeda as a decentralized network of cells in many countries that seeks to acquire chemical, biological, and perhaps even nuclear weapons. We also know their leaders’ long-term goals: seize power in Muslim countries and attack the Western states that support secular regimes in the Islamic world. Finally, we also know that the leaders of this fanatical tide are few, but now have the sympathy of millions of ordinary Muslims.
There have always been fanatical individuals ready to die and kill in the name of their beliefs. But they seem far more dangerous nowadays as a result of technological advances that have “democratized” bomb making. After all, as the London and Madrid bombings demonstrated, a cell phone is all that is needed to time an explosion – or a series of explosions – with deadly efficiency.
Our freedoms and social fluidity also contribute to the threat. People move about the globe cheaply and with relative ease. Immigrants can establish themselves in new societies, and in democratic states they can live completely free of supervision. Our freedoms are their tools.
So how do we fight such an amorphous enemy?
President George W. Bush has demonstrated one way not to do it: his invasion and occupation of Iraq show that directly attacking Muslim states only fuels fanaticism. Of course, civilized countries should not give up the fight against extremist Islam because of the bloodshed in Iraq; but we must recognize that war, occupation, and forced submission to military power have merely caused mass humiliation and resentment among many ordinary Muslims – emotions that are then channeled into terrorist networks. Prime Minister Tony Blair can loudly proclaim that the London bombings of July last year are unrelated to Britain’s participation in the Iraq war, but the terrorists themselves, once arrested, said exactly the opposite.
BLACK FRIDAY SALE: Subscribe for as little as $34.99
Subscribe now to gain access to insights and analyses from the world’s leading thinkers – starting at just $34.99 for your first year.
Subscribe Now
Indeed, here is how one of the Madrid bombers described the psychological preparation to which he had been submitted: his leader “made us watch DVDs showing pictures of war in Iraq, mostly pictures of women and children killed by American and British soldiers.” There is also no shortage of images of abused prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison or the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which have likewise done more to recruit new adherents to Islamic fanaticism than any sermon in a radical mosque.
Simply put, bombs dropped from several thousands meters do not kill less indiscriminately than explosive charges placed in train cars. Acknowledging this is not to excuse terrorism, but it is a first step toward understanding terrorism’s underlying causes, and thus toward their elimination.
Above all, it is to acknowledge that democratic societies must use both political and police tactics in confronting fanatical terrorists. Politics is necessary for the simple reason that occupying armies and police cannot force hundreds of millions of Muslims to shed their hostility.
Political action implies actually leaving Iraq quickly and finding a fair solution to the Palestinian conflict, which in turn requires ending the occupation of all Palestinian territories. Of course, extinguishing these hot spots will not erode the fanaticism of diehard and suicidal activists; nor will it rid us of the avidity and hatred that is so evident among the leaders of Islamic rage. But it will deprive them of the masses of sympathetic Muslims who view the fanatics as the only people seeking to defend “Islamic” values and oppressed Muslim peoples.
Policing is the second part of any effective strategy. Greater efforts at infiltrating terror networks are needed, as is a deeper knowledge of the social structures created by the terrorists, in order to block their financial support. This may mean eliminating shadowy “tax havens,” tapping phone lines, and identifying individuals considered highly dangerous. Police actions must be merciless, even if this means more controls and surveillance. It is precisely to prevent the development of a collective security fear that we need to alter the equilibrium between security and freedom.
While the European Union lags behind the US in terms of conventional weapons, its capacity to fight terrorism is probably higher. For historical reasons, Europe benefits from a political maturity that has allowed it to avoid Bush’s Manichean worldview, which has merely reinforced, rather than undermined, the enemy’s fanaticism. Moreover, for geographical reasons, Europe also benefits from a better knowledge of Arab and Muslim countries and extensive familiarity with their populations.
The West can and must prevail in this fight and in the defense of the values that it cherishes. It might even find, along the way, a new and urgently needed motivation to reinforce its fraying unity.