By Patrick Bahzad - repost from August 26th 2015
IRA graffiti in Northern Ireland
With the frequency in terrorist attacks – or attempted and foiled attacks – increasing ever more since the start of this year, it may be time to reflect on 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, 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.
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 and ISIS 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.
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, it will merge with ISIS at some point, forming a new hybrid of Jihadi revivalism. Possibly also, the "Islamic State" will absorb whatever is left of Al Qaeda, thus bolstering its credentials with fundamentalist and well respected clerics endorsing its message.
Refusing the Terrorists' Terms
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", despite the obvious discrepancies between both situations. But 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 operational elements of the 1970s leftwing terrorism, a utopian/ideological construct conjuring up an idealized end-state (whether that is a “unified Ireland” or an “Islamic State”) and an ethnic/religious narrative strong enough to mobilize a broad base.
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.
Limits and significance of the worst case scenario
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.
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 Caliph or they turn into domestic terrorists, 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 new equation we have to solve.
All too often, we only see Islamic terrorism as a mirror effect of Western intervention in regions where we shouldn't be. In truth, there is a link between foreign adventures of Western powers and the "blowback" effect this may generate. But, would this mean we wouldn’t be attacked if our governments didn’t do stupid things abroad ?
The answer to this is a clear NO. That explanation of foreign involvement as the main trigger for domestic acts of Islamic terrorism is outdated. It may still be valid to a certain degree, but it is in no way 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.
"who have been won over by radical Islam through years of indoctrination in desolate suburbs that are now strongholds of Salafi beliefs..."
It is my impression that Saudi money and Saudi-educated preachers have played the main role in this. Is that correct?
If so, a logical long-term counterstrategy would be to invite the present ones to leave, and not to take any more.
Posted by: rkka | 18 November 2015 at 11:28 AM
Assuming the terrorists are ideologues of some sort how soon before criminal elements conduct such ops for purposes of BLACKMAIL? Or are they doing so already? See movie BLACKHAT!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 18 November 2015 at 11:32 AM
Patrick,
How are they defining "terror" in Europe? When they kick around those stats in the US they dilute the numbers of Muslims and immigrant terrorists by expanding the definition of "right wing terrorist" to "Ron Paul fan".
Posted by: Tyler | 18 November 2015 at 01:24 PM
Patrick Bahzad,
This was one of the best of your – immensely illuminating – series of posts on SST.
A few – rather pessimistic – observations, in the light of events since it was written. At least in Britain, it is not helpful that large elements of the 'liberal elites' do appear unable to grapple with what is happening.
On Sunday, the 'Financial Times' had a column from a 'contributing editor', the historian Simon Schama, entitled 'a proclamation against Isis, the party of death'. The subtitle was: 'Our citizens need an inspiring statement of just what it is we must defend, writes Simon Schama.'
Looking at the comments pushed me back to an exchange on the BBC programme 'Question Time' last month, in which Schama told the journalist Rod Liddle:
'Do not presume to lecture me about the inadequacy of an emotional response to mass human suffering. Go back to your journalistic hackery and talk about outcomes, and turn your suburban face away from the plight of the miserable.'
(See http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/15/bbc-question-time-rod-liddle-simon-schama_n_8308108.html .)
I have some sympathy for the paper's deletion of my comment, because it was written in a state of fury.
But my comparison of Schama to a member of the French aristocracy before 1989 was not simply silly.
There is a very large section of 'middle British' opinion which was always deeply unhappy about mass immigration – out of view, Enoch Powell has continued to have a large following. People who think like this have repeatedly been told by 'liberal' elites that there was no problem accommodating cultural difference, that they were simply backward and obscurantist, etc etc.
If one looks at comments on stories in the 'Express', 'Mail', or 'Telegraph', there is now an absolute seething fury. Hardly entirely surprisingly, people who were all along sceptical about mass immigration feel both acutely threatened and triumphantly vindicated. This is, moreover, not a simple party matter. While Blair is widely and intensely hated, Cameron is commonly referred to in the 'Express' as 'Camoron' – and I won't go into what is implicit in the description 'Porky'.
It is increasingly common to find admirers of Putin, who say – at least he is a real leader, who sees it as his job to look after Russians: why can't we have a leader who sees it as his job to look after the British (or the English, depending on who is writing.)
As it happens, Schama, the child of Jewish immigrants, left for the United States a long time ago. The paper for which he works, which used to be a great traditional British institution, was sold to Nikkei in July.
His comment is actually intensely arrogant. It was the use of 'suburban' as a sneer which did me – among other things, it made me think, go back to New York, and let us have a discussion among people whose hearts are in this country.
But it was also intensely stupid. Commonly, what terrorists want to do is to polarise. Conditions in Britain at the present time are very favourable to polarisation. Actually limitation of immigration is clearly a necessary, if not sufficient, precondition to containing it.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 18 November 2015 at 01:31 PM
DH, did you save a copy of your deleted comment?
Schama's sole redeeming feature is that he inspires people like this ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCQrnSQ4rTo
Posted by: rjj | 18 November 2015 at 03:29 PM
An excellent comment IMO so thanks again DH! I read Simon Schama's book REVOLUTION concerning the context of the French Revolution and aftermath. Oddly your comment reflects his view of that important revolution in which he believes the lack of unit of French elites was its cause not the degradation and impoverishment of the peasant class.
What is being overlooked in MENA IMO and the Arab Spring is that environmental degradations over the 20th Century was to some degree masked by oil and gas production in that area. Low energy prices and population growth seem to unstated factors in the social turmoil in MENA. Religion might not be Lenin's opiate of the masses but a stimulant to turmoil.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 18 November 2015 at 03:45 PM
There is a YT cottage industry of amateur Schama spoofs. I think this one deserves a decent production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ADsCpTFkY
perhaps an apology is in order for frivolous posts, but I really don't understand how anyone could take the man seriously.
Posted by: rjj | 18 November 2015 at 03:58 PM
When a religion switches from opium to meth, things can get crazy.
A bit deeper point may be the insidious nature of growing fault lines within Western countries. A nation's culture broken into contending pieces can weaken consensus response to severe threats.
One aspect that may deserve more attention is the rise of the suicide weapon system. The rise of the constructed human cruise missile is daunting to process.
Posted by: ked | 18 November 2015 at 06:19 PM
The clown and the truth
Posted by: glupi | 27 November 2015 at 02:31 AM