Teaching graduate students about
homeland security is a curious job. We may go months with the media ignoring
terrorism, while it focuses entirely on crime, immigration issues,
environmental hazards and natural disasters.
In fact, the Obama Administration did its best to eliminate the term
“terrorism” early in its tenure, substituting “workplace violence” and “man
caused disasters.” And until recently, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson. has been so quiet that some have
questioned whether his department should be eliminated.
But then reality always intrudes. We
have an undeniable terrorist event, and suddenly the airwaves and internet (and
legacy print media) are full of “experts” writing on the subject. The good news is that sometimes the authors
really are experts, and what they write or say really is worthwhile.
And so it has been recently. Atop
the flood of dreck published about “violent extremism,” float a handful of very
insightful articles and interviews about Islamic terrorism and the danger it
poses. This posting will highlight six such sources.
The first is a Charlie Rose television interview with Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (USA, Ret), former director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency. He speaks from more than a decade of
experience chasing individual enemies to kill or capture them. His thesis is
that we have completely misunderstood Islamic extremists in general, and ISIS
in particular. He concludes that while there are many peaceful Muslims in the
world, and in fact Islamic allies in our fight, there is a core of many
millions who are motivated by their religious beliefs to conquer the world and
destroy us in the process. To defeat this very serious threat, we must
recognize it, call it by its proper name, organize an allied response, and mount
an effective US response – both within our government and within our nation.
Even more importantly, we must press “moderate Muslims” to craft and advance a
narrative that counters the Al Qaeda/ISIS version of religious duty. And
finally, we must understand the failure of the “nation-state” model in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya and elsewhere. Our strategy
is to advance a political solution that will no longer work in a significant
part of the world. We are trying to promote democracy and honest government. What we are getting is corruption and ethnic
discrimination. Many overseas, cheated
by their own governments, see ISIS as promoting a viable alternative. To end
the threat, we must solve that problem. Flynn’s interview offers an
uncompromising analysis of our failure to see truth, and use accurate language
to analyze and combat our enemies.
Secondly, I strongly recommend anotherRose interview, this one with Michael Morell, former deputy director of the
Central Intelligence Agency. (click)
He delivers the clearest explanation I
have seen anywhere of the growing instability in the Mideast. Virtually every state in the region is
wracked by internal conflict. Many of the various internal opponents have split
with their governments and are supporting opposing groups in other
countries. Thus the discussion of the
“root cause” of terrorism leads to wrong conclusions unless you understand
there are many overlapping causes, and they require multiple, layered, and
coordinated solutions. The center of these challenges lies, Morrell maintains,
in Iran, which is determined to re-establish the Persian Empire as the
political and religious center of the region, and perhaps of the world. This intent threatens the US (Iran has killed
more Americans than any other current opponent), and the US threatens Iran in
return. But deescalating these counter threats will not be easy (unless we
simply surrender), because the Iranian vision of the world demands the
reduction of US power and presence. The
implications of this analysis are sobering.
Third, anybody who has followed the news recently
knows of the debate over President Obama’s apparent inability to use the words “Islamic”
and “terrorist” in the same sentence. An
answer now dominating the discussion is provided by Graeme Wood in the March
2015 Atlantic. In an extended
essay that provides a definitive response to the President’s reluctance, Wood
asserts: “The Islamic State is no mere
collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered
beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.” That
is, ISIS (and those who build on the same model) are most certainly Islamic in
the 7th century sense of the word. They may not be the only
legitimate version of Islam in the world but they represent a sizable minority view. To
the millions who follow them or a similar vision, their beliefs do represent a
legitimate interpretation of the Islamic faith, and thus carry the emotional power
of religious duty. The implications of this conclusion are dire. Adherents
expect to fail and perhaps die, but thereby do their duty by ushering in a new
divine order. Killing them all will be exceedingly difficult. Convincing them
without killing them will be nearly impossible.
Those put off by the length of
Wood’s essay can find an excellent summary of his work by Peggy Noonan .
Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal (as a good capitalist publication) wants
to sell you access. But the short version of Ms. Noonan’s summary is that ISIS
is very Islamic, in a medieval sense.
The solution is not invasion and occupation (because it is too risky, not
because it is unjustified). The solution
is a “slow bleed” of ISIS through air strikes, while hoping that it will become
a failed state. What to do if that hope does not materialize is never made
clear.
The final debate de jour (with long term importance) is over
the “root cause” of terrorism (or in the Administration’s preferred prevarication,
“violent extremism”). I think the Administration spokesperson recently
excoriated for connecting violence to a lack of jobs deserves a break on this
one. Clearly she did intend to make a more sophisticated point that the
violence was the product of a range of conditions, from Western oppression to a
lack of economic opportunity. The
problem is that her broader point is demonstrably false as well. While attention to this claim is new, the argument
itself is not. For a point by point refutation of the idea that anyone but the
terrorists are responsible for their behavior, it is hard to beat this decade
old essay by David Meir-Levi . His response
is powerfully presented and carefully cataloged. I will not attempt to
summarize as the reader needs to see the weight of the argument as a whole.
Another suggestion, more current and
less strident, comes from Ira Straus, a former Fulbright professor of political
science. As he provides
his own summary of his own article, I will merely repeat: “There we have, in a nutshell, the root causes of Islamic terrorism.
Its primary bases for recruitment and support: Islam and Islamism. Its
secondary safe spaces and aids in radicalization: the non-Muslim Left, and the
Western media and intelligentsia. Its economic base: oil.” But lest you assume this is merely an
anti-Muslim screed, please note what hero Straus cites as offering the best
solution: “President el-Sisi of Egypt. In
his speech at Al-Azhar University, the world’s most respected institution of
Islamic learning, he demanded that Islam expurgate [the claims of terrorist
justification] from its ideological doctrines and practices.”
And there you have it – a wealth of
mostly new deliberations on Islamic terrorism and its causes. What we would all
like is for this issue to go away so we can return to our more mundane studies
of hazards and natural disasters. Unfortunately, these speakers and authors
suggest (correctly I fear) that’s not
likely to happen any time soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment