By Patrick BAHZAD
IRA graffiti in Northern Ireland
With the frequency in "lone gunmen" attacks – or attempted and foiled attacks – increasing ever more since the start of this year, it may be time to highlight certain patterns that have become apparent and represent potentially crucial challenges for societies in Western Europe. The paradigm shift regarding both qualitative and quantitative aspects of Islamic terrorism is now clearer than ever before to law enforcement and officials, but the implications of this shift still needs to be emphasized, as there are possibly tough choices ahead of us.
Back in the 1990s, when Western Europe and France in particular were first targeted by groups whose members would later be sucked into the maelstrom of global Jihad, it was fairly easier for law enforcement to identify potential threats. Admittedly, the number of individuals on watch lists was much smaller, leaving counter-terrorism with more resources to monitor activities. But Islamic radicals were still operating genuine cells, and their leaders or logistics experts were often foreigners having been allowed into the country as political refugees. They did not blend into civil society and stuck to their own. Once infiltrated, which happened usually quite quickly, it was only a matter of time before these groups were taken apart by law enforcement, generally before even staging an attack.
Changing patterns and profiles
Those days are gone. Jihad and Islamic terrorism in the West has become an entrepreneurial activity for a underclass holding a grudge. Basically, people are now being groomed or grooming themselves into ticking time-bombs, waiting for a reason to go into self-destruct mode. The crux is, there is no single pattern that fits this new type of terrorism. Too many variables have blurred the line for a simple grid to allow us singling out dangerous individuals from the general population.
Some people cry "racial discrimination" and "ethnic profiling" when they hear targeted surveillance and increased monitoring of certain groups, facilities or web sites. The truth though is that about 30 % of the individuals on the continent's terror watch lists have a fully European (Caucasian) and often domestic background. Another 30 % is made up of European nationals having an immigration background that has nothing to do with the Middle-East or North-Africa. These are mostly second generation immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, but also from the Caribbean or South America, who have been won over by radical Islam through years of indoctrination in desolate suburbs that are now strongholds of Salafi beliefs, or during a prison stay in which they chose to join the most powerful "brotherhood" in European jails, the Islamic radicals. Only 40 % approximately of security risks – depending on the country – have a Middle-Eastern, North African or Asian background.
Given this breakdown of potential candidates for "Jihad" or "Hijra", it seems difficult to argue that a more targeted approach to surveillance would be tantamount to "racial profiling". Individuals of interest may have a Caucasian, African or Arabic/Asian background. That is about ¾ of the world population as far as skin colour is concerned. They may be men or women, which is 100 % of the world population. They will also probably be aged 18 to 35, even though terrorists higher up the food chain are older, and there have been isolated cases of so-called "lone wolf" attacks by individuals way over 50. Again that is about ¾ at least of the world population.
The truth is – sadly for law enforcement – there is no simple profile for singling out dangerous individuals. This is a development that has not made it into the general public's awareness, but anybody sitting on a train and worrying about that suspicious looking Middle-Eastern guy might as well have a good look at the pretty blonde two rows behind him or the neat looking Italian guy in his suit and tie … This simple fact is not a message intended at spreading fear and paranoia. Quite the opposite, when the terrorist could be anybody, it might as well be nobody and there's no reason to single out members of an ethnic or religious group, based on some vague assumptions.
Better awareness
What may be called for, if we are to face more and more of these attacks in the months and years to come, is a better awareness among average citizens, not checking for people's faces and appearance, but paying attention to behaviour and actions. Do we have to brace ourselves for an Israeli type of normality ? It may be too early to tell, but the writing is on the wall, there's no doubt about that. Under no circumstances however should we let our way of life be dictated by those who are out to disrupt and destroy it. There's a price to pay for freedom and democracy, and that price is not just exerted on those willing to serve and defend those values.
Freedom and democracy also means we can't let the terrorists drive a wedge in between "us", as the Western and Christian centre of gravity of our societies, and more recently arrived fellow compatriots of Muslim faith. That is exactly what groups such as Al Qaeda in particular want to achieve. Convince the Muslim population in the West they will never be fully accepted, they will remain second-class citizens indefinitely, they will always have to struggle against bias and prejudice, and should thus embrace the only culture and religion that is truly theirs: Islam, in a Salafi/Wahhabi version that is totally alien to large numbers of Muslim Europeans.
As for the "Islamic State", despite all its claims calling for the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate, it seems content for now to unleash waves of "lone gunmen" who have been recruited mostly through Internet crowdsourcing. The messages arguing for continuous attacks against any type of target in the West are being repeated over and over on ISIS social media, but the fact of the matter is, ISIS has much less traction getting its ideological and religious message across than the Salafi charities and fundamentalist Islamic NGOs, whose work is based on the assumption of a gradual and long term shift within Western society.
Refusing the Terrorists' terms
Objectively, there is a division of labour between the various Jihadi franchises and radical Islamic groups, but the left hand does not necessarily know what the right hand does ... What this could mean in the long run, is difficult to assess. Possibly, Al Qaeda – reinventing itself for yet another time – will survive the "Caliphate" and carry on the fight. Possibly, both groups will merge at some point into a new hybrid of Jihadi revivalism. Possibly also, the "Islamic State" will absorb whatever is left of Al Qaeda at a certain point, thus bolstering its credentials with fundamentalist and well respected clerics endorsing its message.
Be that as it may, fracturing Western societies and alienating the largest possible part of its Muslim minorities will still feature high on their global agenda of conquest, whether through the means of conversion and proselytism or through sheer force and coercion. This aspect of the fight against radical Islam must not be forgotten: even though recent attacks may have been directed at military recruitment centres, trains, newspapers or Jewish supermarkets, the underlying process at work is that of "revolutionary warfare" 2.0, mixing an Islamic revivalist insurgency, 1970s style left-wing terrorism and massive online recruitment propaganda.
The aim is not just to hit the State, strike fear into the minds of ordinary citizens but – in the long run – instigate a climate of violence and counter-violence, with law enforcement engaging in an ever increasing cycle of measures that will be presented by the terrorists as unfair reprisals against ordinary Muslims in the West. At the heart of any revolutionary war is the struggle for the people, not the territory, and in this case it is a struggle for the hearts and minds of Muslims in Europe and North America.
What groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda are aiming for, is to present Muslim communities with a reversal of the dilemma that was expressed so eloquently by George W. Bush: "you're either with us or with the terrorists". Well, that is exactly where these people want us to go, because they know perfectly well that once they will have divided those Muslim communities from within, and driven a wedge between them and the rest of the population, they will have a field day quelling internal dissent, standing up to the State, making more and more demands and escalating the political fight into a military one, if their demands aren't met.
Bracing ourselves for a long term struggle
Realistically, they have no chance of succeeding, but the nuisance they could become and the level of violence that could be induced is immense. At this point in time, things may look more like a religious version of the left-wing terrorism of the 1970s. Small groups of extremist and their ideologues calling onto their followers to attack States that have been discriminating their people. Yesterday, it was "fascist" States oppressing the workers. Today it is the "Crusaders and Jews" waging a war against the true followers of Muhammad.
No doubt, there is a fraction of our youth that will be receptive to this message. And their background, as is already apparent, will not be rooted in a fundamentalist Islamic up-bringing only. Sometimes, it will be young people from liberal, middle-class families, who will fall for this message, as the enablers and recruiters in the Middle-East are perfectly aware of the romantic appeal there is in the West for rebellion and revolution against injustice and oppression.
There are enough of these disoriented, misguided and lost young people who might buy into a grand cause, worth fighting and killing for, all in the name of a greater good. Again, this should raise our awareness as to the scale of the issue and help us avoid any indiscriminate focus on whole communities. It is specific individuals, whatever their background is, that need to be monitored, based on the more and more complex profiles and patterns that law enforcement manage to establish in order to read these people. If we miss out on this paradigm shift and on the requirements this represents for society as a whole, we may find ourselves in a position where the still marginal – but worrying – attacks of today will give way to a totally different dimension of conflict.
Al Qaeda theorists have often used the concept of the "long war". They saw their struggle not as a short-term, high-intensity conflict at the end of which they might emerge as the winning side, but as a slow process of highs and lows which would inevitably lead to victory. It was left unsaid whether that victory would materialize in 10, 50 or 100 years. The timeline was secondary, it was the outcome that mattered. Although ISIS has not been very vocal about its long term strategy lately, probably because they already have a State to run and have more than enough on their plate, earlier strategic papers of the organisation also clearly show the commitment and willingness to a long term goal, the worldwide Caliphate.
Northern Ireland "Troubles" as a possible model for future conflict
This concept of the "long war" is no Al Qaeda prerogative. In fact, it wasn't even invented by the Jihadis, but was forged by military strategists of the Provisional IRA in the mid-1970s, as an alternative for their inability to reach a decisive victory against a superior military. The idea was to wage a war of attrition against the British State, causing as many deaths as possible in order to create a demand for concessions among the British people, organise bombing campaigns targeting economic and financial infrastructures in the United-Kingdom, foster a climate of insurgency in areas with strong support for the IRA, thus making these places ungovernable and turning them into "liberated" areas, gain large support for the cause through national and international propaganda, and bolster the image of the IRA fighters by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers.
This strategy was later replaced by the concept of "the armalite and the ballot-box" in which the military wing of the Irish Republican movement (i.e. the Provisional IRA) and its political wing (the "Sinn Fein" party) would work basically as two sides of the same coin, keeping on the military pressure and maintaining a certain degree of violence, while at the same time offering to negotiate a political settlement. One could argue however that both strategies were actually complementary, or that the latter could only have been implemented as a logical follow-up to the former's failure.
The analogy between the IRA's tactics and the agenda of the Jihadis doesn't stop with their commitment to fighting a "long war". There is enough analytical evidence now to suggest that what radical Islam has morphed into, at least in the West, is a multi-dimensional nexus combining elements of the 1970s leftwing and ideologically based terror groups with the kind of ethnic/nationalist narrative best embodied by the Provisional IRA or, to a lesser degree, the Basque separatists from ETA.
Now of course, there is no certainty that these similarities will be reflected in events on the ground. History doesn't repeat itself, but similar causes have a tendency to produce similar effects, and this should be a warning to all of us. What the "Troubles" meant for Northern Ireland is no secret: 30 years of civil war, plenty of anti-terrorism laws, the emergence of a police and surveillance State, a structural under-development and high poverty level … and casualties in excess of 50 000 for a population roughly equal to that of Maine.
Obviously, we're not there yet and there is still plenty to do to avert such a catastrophic scenario. Decision making is important however – "governing is anticipating", as they say in French. And hitting the panic button - going into overdrive - could be as irresponsible as carrying on as if nothing had happened. Either way, if we get it wrong, we'll be one step closer to the prospect of a terrorism campaign and a level of violence such as it was embodied by the Provisional IRA … on a continental European scale.
Limits and significance of the worst case scenario
Of course, there are a number of limits to the analogy with the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland. On the surface, these differences seem striking. Their relevance though is largely influenced by our perception of current events and threats. When talking about Islamic terrorism in the West, or about the expansion of radical Islamic views (such as Salafism or Wahhabism), the general consensus is that this is a phenomenon "imported" into the West by foreign agents, i.e. the terrorists and their ideologues.
But again, the figures mentioned above regarding the evolving profiles of suspected Islamic radicals prove this perception wrong. Today, the West (and in particular Western Europe) is exporting homemade Jihadis ! They flock to the Middle-East to build the "Islamic State" that has been promised by the self-declared new Caliphe or they turn into domestic terrorists, more commonly designated as "lone gunmen" seemingly acting with no outside help, and strike their own State, kill their own compatriots.
The perception of the Islamic threat as being alien to our countries is dangerous. Certainly, the enablers, recruiters and ideologues are based thousand of miles away, but the dispensable footsoldiers in this clandestine war are Westerners. Born and raised in the West. Long term legal residents. Sons - and daughters - to ordinary, working-class or middle-class families. That is the most basic element in the equation we have to solve.
All too often, we still see Islamic terorism as a mirror effect of Western intervention in regions where we shouldn't be. But this relation between foreign adventures of Western powers and the "blowback" effect this may have through terrorist attacks is mostly a feature of the late 1990s and early 2000s. It may still be valid to a certain degree, but it is not indicative of what the future holds for us. Remaining prisoner of that vision is like fighting yesterday's war all over again, instead of preparing for tomorrow's.
It's hard to properly govern when CENTCOM is lying to the President:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/world/middleeast/pentagon-investigates-allegations-of-skewed-intelligence-reports-on-isis.html
--bks
Posted by: bks | 26 August 2015 at 10:56 AM
PB
True or False: one of the best way for the governments of Western countries to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks against its citizens is to end US lead military campaigns in the Middle East. In other words, end long term occupations in the Middle East that don’t appear to promote US national security interests.
That “strategic option”, if you will, does not appear as viable in Northern Ireland. Ulster Protestants call Northern Ireland home.
Posted by: Johnny Reims | 26 August 2015 at 11:05 AM
Maybe the President should commission SST to draft "opinion" reports about the ongoing campaign against ISIS :-)
I had a good laugh when I heard we had killed 10 000 ISIS fighters in the last twelve months. If we're getting into the same "body bag" metrics as in VN, I see this as an ominous sign.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 11:15 AM
JR,
True and False. The US may have created a climate with its operations in Afghanistan and especially with the invasion of Iraq (what a blunder !), but what US long term occupation is there to end today ?
Besides, you are restricting the problem to the correlation between US intervention in the ME and Islamic terrorism in general. The Jihadis however have an agenda in which this is only used as circumstantial evidence justifying attacks.
Take that away, and they will come up with other reasons: the 'Charlie Hebdo' massacre, did it have anything to do with invasion or occupation ? No ! The attacks in Copenhagen against the Danish cartoonist ? No !
US strategy and foreign policy may be instrumental to the Jihadi propaganda machine, but it is far from being the main reason for justifying attacks. Whether or not the US should nonetheless exit those regions is a different question, but don't read too much into the relation between US action and Jihadi reaction. We are way past the point where there was a close link between those two things.
In that sense, I can't agree with your statement about the "strategic option" in Northern Ireland either, for a simple additional reason: European Muslims are at home in Europe too. Some might not consider it home, just as Catholics in Northern Ireland didn't consider the State to represent them, but they have no intention of going anywhere.
The comparison is quite telling I think, and certainly works on several levels. The limits are the possibility of a political settlement, because the Catholics advocated mainly for equality, then unification with the South and finally the possibility of an electoral process potentially ending in unification.
What room is there for a settlement with the Jihadis ? What do they want that we could give them without compromising what we stand for ?
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 11:27 AM
The English could have ethnically cleansed Ulster - a true and tested method in history - and expelled all Catholics to the South.
That would have ended their problems there permanently - in as much as any human action is permanent.
Before them, the victors of World War II did the same in Central Europe, NAZIs did it during World War II, USSR during her existence, Turkey and Greece in 1921 and so on and so forth.
The comparison with Northern Ireland is not apt in my opinion because the issue there was one caused by the recession of the imperial boundary of Great Britain.
The Irish Catholics were living in their own ancestral places, only the boundary of the states had moved.
Like the Duran line, the borders between Iran and Azerbaijan or Iran and Afghanistan.
The Muslim communities in Europe are labor immigrants - like Turks in Germany - or imperial detritus like those in UK and France - or economic refugees across Europe.
Their existence is an inconvenient fact - much like that of the Iranian Jews - to all doctrinaire Muslims who cannot accept that a Muslim is better off living Europe (or anywhere in North America) than any Muslim country that you care to mention.
The Jihadists, however, are willing to do something about this unpleasant fact (to them) - evidently.
I think the sentiment that the United States (and I suppose by now the Diocletian States) as well as Israel are out to destroy Islam had been there for decades but confined to a very small minority of Muslims.
[I should know, I spoke with Arabs and Pakistanis - to name a few.]
In my opinion, what has changed is that this fringe opinion became more popular, specially perhaps after the US-Iraq War in 1991.
I was struck by an opinion expressed on a US Television station in 1997, by a Kenyan Muslim, after the Al Qaeda attacks on US embassies in East Africa: "Osama bin Ladin is fighting for Islam."
At that time, I concluded that US was in real trouble with respect to the world of Sunni Islam.
The subsequent US-Iraq War of 2003 and George Bush's conflation of enemies of Israel with those of US, in my opinion, only aggravated an existing problem but did not cause it.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 11:52 AM
BM,
Some of what you say makes sense, especially regarding how the US (and the West) is perceived in parts of the Muslim world and by a small but determined and increasing number of Muslims, including in the West.
Your Northern Ireland narrative is very debatable as a counter-factual. I'm rather inclined to believe it would have played right into the hands of the IRA, because it would have extended the conflict may more into the Republic of Ireland and would have made sure those Catholics that didn't support the IRA definitely would have.
Also , defining the "troubles" in Northern Ireland as linked to the recession of imperial boundaries is ludicrous !
In that sense, I think you are fundamentally mistaken about the nature of the comparison. NI seems perfectly apt to me as a benchmark for a possible "worst case" scenario, at least regarding tactical and operational aspects I mentioned.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 12:03 PM
Ok. Thanks for the reply (as well as Babak's comment). I see now. You are arguing that NI is a worst case scenario.
I have always viewed the Northern Ireland analogy more apropos to the "troubles" between Israel and the Palestinians, contra West in general and Islamic jihadists.
Ulster Protestants, if memory serves, rely on the Star of David to make the point that Northern Ireland is their land – their religious homeland --and of course they have always sought support from Great Britain and the SAS. GB’s support, in turn, did lead to some horrific IRA sponsored terrorist attacks in GB that I am not sure would have occurred on “that land” otherwise, although that is open to speculation.
My bloodlines include (but not limited to) both Catholic Irish and Ulster Protestant for the record. But both groups seem to claim that Northern Ireland is their land.
I don’t know if Muslims in Europe (particularly West of the Diocletian line!) make the same claim but they may indeed.
Based on Blowback theory and additionally, placing the Northern Ireland analogy in the above context, it seems to me that jihadists of various persuasions, whether connected to reality or delusions, may have a greater incentive to sneak across the Rio Grande these days, just like the IRA crossing the Irish channel at night.
Regardless, it does seem to me that the US should protect their borders and ports to a greater degree.
Posted by: Johnny Reims | 26 August 2015 at 12:33 PM
Interesting you use the north of Ireland to compare this to. PIRA invested a lot of time and energy in looking for what were called "lilly whites" to carry out actions. Lilly white meaning they had no association with the IRA or Republican circles. AQ has done the same with reports surfacing for years of attemps by AQ to recruit white westerners who could be used as operatives that could work underneath the radar.
As to no go areas and these sort of tactics, the IRA did this well. Areas of South Armagh were so dangerous to British troops that at times they had to helicopter their trash in and out of places like Crossmaglen.
I think things could move in this direction eventually, but it would require a drastic improvement in training and coordination. It would also require networks and a move beyond the lone wolf model. With many jihadis coming back from wars in the Middle East, it is entirely likely. Years down the road will the US be seeing attacks like the "Warren Point" attack? Worst case scenario indeed, and I am not at all confident that Americans will deal with things as the Brits did.
The issues in Ireland far pre-date the British Empire as it later became. Irish Republicans talk about the issue going back to Norman invasion of Ireland with songs about Strongbow and his role in the invasion.
One looks at the north of Ireland with Sinn Fein in power and an agreement that has a mechanism for an electoral based unification of Ireland and relative peace. The jihadis have no end game that ends with them in government and a mechanism for peace. Tiocfaidh ár lá, as the mural above says, is indeed on its way if you talk to main stream Republicans.
The Norman invasion of Ireland started in 1169. Now that is a long war.
Posted by: Abu Sinan | 26 August 2015 at 12:37 PM
Patrick Bahzad,
I hope to have something useful to contribute to the fascinating ongoing discussions your invaluable posts are provoking when the nose is not as close to the grindstone as at present.
However, I cannot resist one 'sour grapes' remark.
At least if the jihadists attempt to assassinate David Cameron, and narrowly fail, so that those killed and crippled are relatively insignificant people, we won't have to ask ourselves:
'What is it this time? Semtex from Gaddafi, funding from Boston – or both?'
More seriously, there is a major problem of political leadership. It is symptomatic that Tony Blair managed at one and the same time to have a messianic enthusiasm for making Britain 'multicultural' by facilitating open-door immigration, and also to dragoon a reluctant party and country into collaborating in a messianic project to turn Iraq into a U.S. and Israel-friendly democracy. In the end, ironically, this helped do for his party.
I knew some quite significant 'New Labour' figures reasonably well. Commonly, some of the reasons why they could not understand the kind of catastrophe an invasion of Iraq was liable to precipitate had to do with their ignorance of foreign cultures, and inability to grasp that if you don't have any knowledge of other societies, you should take the trouble to listen to those who do.
However, many of these people find it intensely difficult to get to grips with what actually happens in places like Rotherham – or indeed a wider world beyond the confines of a largely metropolitan elite. Life as lived in much of Britain is not quite as different from less fortunate countries as people want to believe.
As to David Cameron, a relevant point is that he apparently greatly admires Tony Blair.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 26 August 2015 at 01:05 PM
Patrick! IMO this is one of your most brilliant and thoughtful posts [and comments]!
What most Americans will never admit is that aid to the IRA by American-Irish was both generous and necessary to keep the IRA from destruction. This safe-haven and funding assistance not unlike other current assistance to various Islamic radicals. But since 9/11/01 funding from the US for terrorism has largely dried up [N.B. there was major funding center for MENA terrorism in Norther Virginia]. And the numbers of radicalized American citizens has remained far less than 24,000 IMO.
Thanks for your hard work on this blog.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 26 August 2015 at 01:18 PM
The Irish are part of the same civilization; not so Arabs and Israelis.
There the situation resembles that of Hindus and Muslims in India; 2 civilizations in one state.
Which, in my opinion, will not last - just look at USSR.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 01:20 PM
Done usually under the rubric of fund-raising for the Fraternal Order of Firefighters or some such.
Did any UK PM ever complain to a US President about that?
Do you know?
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 01:27 PM
The worst case scenario for EU states is what is transpiring within Israel and within Kashmir at the present time.
Northern Ireland would be a comparative paradise.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 01:29 PM
Sir,
I reiterate my humble suggestion that you should submit your excellent work to French-language venues.
Posted by: toto | 26 August 2015 at 01:55 PM
PB
Here is what I am trying to determine. In your analysis based upon the NI scenario, are you arguing that US military and financial support of Israel – particularly the policies of Likud Zionism that are aimed at creating a Greater Israel – increases or does not increase the risk of Jihadist terrorist attacks against US civilians?
I have always assumed – perhaps mistakenly – that Great Britain’s military support of Ulster Protestants increased the likelihood of IRA terrorist attacks against civilians of GB, across the Irish Sea. And, moreover, George Mitchell’s plan, once implemented, decreased the risk of IRA attacks against civilians of GB.
Unfortunately, George Mitchell could not achieve the same result in ME.
And, admittedly, my analysis is based upon analogizing NI to the “troubles” in Israel and not as an analogy to West vs. Jihad more generally, particularly in Europe. And in both scenarios – Ulster and Israel -- those making claims to the land have sought protection from an Imperial Power.
Regardless, I understand much better now the "worst case" analysis about which you write and, like others, appreciate very much your contributions and look forward to more of the same.
Posted by: Johnny Reims | 26 August 2015 at 02:17 PM
Johnny Reims,
To refer to 'Great Britain's military support of Ulster Protestants' is perhaps just a tad oversimplistic.
The television current affairs department where I worked in the late Seventies and early Eighties was rather closely involved in making programmes about the Northern Irish situation. Our principal consultant was a leading nationalist journalist, Mary Holland. A colleague of mine, Sean McPhilemy, was a Northern Irish Catholic married to a Northern Irish Protestant.
Later, he would be involved in prolonged legal battles relating to a programme he made, and a book he wrote, making allegations – I think correct – about a 'shoot to kill' policy directed against the IRA.
However, I vividly recall asking him and his wife at dinner one night what would happen if the British Army left.
His view was that the Protestants would decide what areas they could realistically expect to hold, and use familiar methods. Stage I, gentle warning, Stage 2, kill a few, and then if people don't take the hint ...
When I asked what the Southern Irish would do about it, he didn't appear greatly impressed by their prospects against the Protestant militias.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 26 August 2015 at 02:50 PM
Johnny Reims,
Even if we accept that the NI troubles had very different cultural and political features and implications than the current Jihadi upsurge, could we also and separately accept that the Jihadis could be using the NI troubles and the IRA actions therein as a source of tactical and strategic advice and inspiration? Thereby making a study of the methods used by the various NI players useful to anticipating Jihadi methods and crafting counter-methods and pre-emptive underminement over the long run?
Posted by: different clue | 26 August 2015 at 03:13 PM
Is my understanding correct that the LIKUD is dominated by those raised mainly in the USA?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 26 August 2015 at 03:51 PM
DH,
What you describe in relation to New Labour, Tony aka "puddle" Blair and events in Rotterham is commonly refered to in the dictionary as "schyzophrenic" ... I guess that is also the best comprehensive description of most our countries foreign policy.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 04:31 PM
DC
I think I am supporting your view but, from what I can tell or at least am trying to determine, I may have changed, and actually enlarged, the parameters of the NI analogy that PB presented. I am factoring in the relationship between Ulster and Great Britain as it may “rhyme” with the relationship between Israel and US. IRA tactics against GB – pre Mitchell plan -- may suggest tactics that will be used against US or at least suggest that the US mainland indeed is a target, as GB was an IRA target pre Mitchell.
By enlarging the parameters of the NI analogy – if I have done so – then I am suggesting that there, indeed, is a correlation between US FP in ME – particularly its support of Likud -- and attendant risks to US civilians (and military for that matter) in US and around the world. If you want to extrapolate, the greater the overt support for Likud’s Greater Israel policies, then the greater the risk of blowback.
This conclusion relates back to my first question to PB written above.
Posted by: Johnny Reims | 26 August 2015 at 04:33 PM
Kashmir is an interesting example, you're right.
Regarding Israel however, I'm afraid we're looking more and more towards an South African development.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 04:33 PM
JR,
I added some explanations to my piece, following this comment of yours.
What transpires from your post is - I think - a misconception of what we're dealing with: Islamic radicalism and terrorism is not a foreigne threat anymore in most our countries. It has morphed into a domestic threat, spread by domestic terrorists, i.e. citizens of the country they are attacking.
Herein resides a fundamental difference to what we knew just about 10 years ago, and thus the analogy to NI seems all the more relevant if you list the common features between the period prior to the "Troubles" and the pre-insurrectional state some areas are known for today.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 04:38 PM
JR,
I tried answering the questions you raise in your comment by adding a few lines at the end of the piece. Hope that explains what I mean.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 04:42 PM
Is it the same in the US as in Britain where we appear to have happily agreed to the building of mosques funded by Saudi Arabia? And do not these places therefore proseletyse the very version of Islam which we should NOT be encouraging?
Posted by: Bryn P | 26 August 2015 at 04:43 PM
bryn P
I am quite familiar with the UK. IMO the US imposes far more police surveillance on such mosque communities while it is at the same time a lot more accepting of Muslims. The British do not seem to consider anyone other than themselves to be white. That is not the case here. Arabs I worked with in the UK often told me that the English did not consider them to be White. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 26 August 2015 at 05:17 PM