Betting
National Security on a Theory
IPT News
February 24, 2015
|
|
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the
first of your friends to like this.
 The debate
over whether it's a good idea to use phrases like "Islamic
extremism" in fighting global terrorism took center stage last week as
the White House hosted a summit to discuss what it generically calls
"violent extremism."
In a speech last Thursday at the summit, President Obama
explained his rationale for eschewing references to terrorist groups'
Islamist ideology.
"Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for
legitimacy," he said. "They try to portray themselves as
religious leaders -- holy warriors in defense of Islam. That's why ISIL
presumes to declare itself the 'Islamic State.' And they propagate the
notion that America -- and the West, generally -- is at war with Islam.
That's how they recruit. That's how they try to radicalize young people. We
must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie.
Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek.
They are not religious leaders -- they're terrorists."
So accurately describing their ideology, or calling the terrorists
"jihadists" grants them undo legitimacy as true representatives
of the faith, the argument goes. The current policy aims to deny them that
mantle.
That's a theory. But there's a key question no one seems to be asking:
Does it work?
This is a continuation of a policy instituted during President George W. Bush's second
term, meaning it has been in place for more than seven years. If it is
indeed the right, best policy, advocates should be able to point to
tangible evidence to show its value.
Arguably, the Islamist ideology has never been more popular, given the
flood of foreign fighters making their way to Iraq and Syria to join the
Islamic State, or Boko Haram's endless reign of terror in Nigeria. Hamas
still enjoys strong support despite following policies which bring
devastation to the people of Gaza.
And there is no mistaking the religious motivation driving these groups.
Hamas is an acronym for the "Islamic Resistance Movement." Boko
Haram translates roughly to "Western education is
sinful." And the Islamic State has a whiff of religious affinity.
The Atlantic this month devoted 10,000 words to explaining the core Quranic
ideology, with an emphasis on an apocalyptic prophecy, which drives the
Islamic State's brutality. It "follows a distinctive variety of Islam
whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy,
and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior," Graeme
Wood explains.
That's more challenging when that belief system is deliberately kept out
of deliberations.
Jeffrey Bale, an associate professor who studies political and religious
extremism at the Monterey Institute of International Studies'
Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies Program, called the continued emphasis
on avoiding references to Islamic doctrine by Western leaders and pundits
"absurd."
The policy has "not had any discernably positive impact on dealing
with the threats that such groups pose," he said in an email to the
Investigative Project on Terrorism. "On the contrary. The simple fact
is that it is the Islamists, not Muslim moderates, who are winning the
struggle for ideological hegemony throughout much of the Muslim world, and
that Obama's efforts to positively 're-set' relations with the Islamic
world have completely failed ... In short, there is no evidence that this
constant pandering to Islamist activists, these embarrassing efforts to
whitewash Islamic history and doctrines, and the foolish insistence that
jihadist groups have 'nothing to do with Islam' have had any beneficial
effects. They have mainly served to confuse Western citizens about the
extent and nature of the Islamist threat."
Maajid Nawaz, a former radical who now tries to combat the narrative
which fuels Islamist terrorism, argues the avoidance policy could be making
things worse for everyone, including Muslims. In recent social media and
television appearances, Nawaz, a co-founder of the London-based Quilliam Institute,
calls it the "Voldemort Effect."
Islam is a religion, he writes. Islamism is the attempt to make the laws
of the religion supreme over a society. That's the ideology that must be
defeated, but that "cannot happen if you refuse to recognise it
exists," he wrote in a social media post addressed to Obama that he
signed "a constantly betrayed liberal Muslim."
If we dare not say its name, in other words, it can become more
frightening to its foes and more alluring to prospective recruits.
In a recent appearance on Fox News, Nawaz expressed concern
that this self-censorship actually makes life more difficult for the
overwhelming majority of Muslims who reject terrorist brutality displayed
by the Islamic State, Boko Haram, al-Qaida and others.
Non-Muslims in the West "they're just petrified," he said,
"and that can lead to even more anti-Muslim hate crime. Because if
they are unable to pinpoint specifically that we're dealing with the
Islamist ideology, in their ignorance they blame all Muslims. And of course
then all Muslims face a backlash. So I think it's better if we wish to
protect mainstream Muslims from anti-Muslim hate crime to name the very
specific ideology that we're talking about, which is Islamism, and
distinguish that from Islam the faith.
Nawaz is offering a theory, just like the people who advocate the policy
embraced by the Obama administration. There's a key distinction, however.
As he describes in his autobiography, Nawaz helped recruit
followers to Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which dreams of a global caliphate and has been called a
"conveyor belt" for jihadist terror. He knows which messages
worked and which did not.
Some American Islamists showed last week that the Obama message is not
working. They have criticized the White House summit as hostile toward
Muslims despite the verbal contortions invoked to avoid that very reaction.
 If we're
going to focus on extremist violence, they argue, the bigger threat to America is from
right-wing, anti-government movements. It turns out the Department of
Homeland Security is concerned about violence from "sovereign
citizen" movements who believe they are exempt from state and federal
laws.
But it would be wrong to talk about that, Linda Sarsour and Deepa Iyak wrote Feb. 17 in The Guardian.
"One thing is clear: the federal government's one-note approach to
countering violent extremism fosters distrust and hostility towards Muslim
communities while disregarding threats to Americans' safety from racist
hate groups in the country."
There is a key distinction, however. For the most part, sovereign
citizen attacks are smaller scale, often erupting in what should be routine
encounters with law enforcement officers. CNN cites a 2012 example
involving a Louisiana traffic stop that led to a shootout between police
and a father and his son.
What Islamist terrorists want, what they urge followers to carry out, are mass casualty attacks
that can target specific groups deemed to have offended Islam or simply any place where many people gather.
The United States has rigidly followed a policy, going at times to uncomfortable
lengths, to avoid putting a religious label on terrorism clearly driven
by a rabid adherence to centuries-old Islamic theology. The uninterrupted
flow of new recruits to the Islamic State indicates that the policy has not
had the desired effect.
"American policymakers do not yet understand Islamism or what
persuades young Muslims to join Jihad: sincere religious devotion based on
the core texts of Islam, in particular early Islam's politicized and
aggressive period in Medina (compared to Islam's spiritual and ascetic
period in Mecca)," Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, writes in Time magazine.
"How does one tackle misguided religious devotion of young Muslims?
The answer lies in reforming Islam profoundly—not radical Islam, but
mainstream Islam; its willingness to merge Mosque and State, religion, and
politics; and its insistence that its elaborate system of Shariah law
supersedes civil laws created by human legislators."
For the West, the sanitized language and tap-dancing around the issue
makes it impossible to fully understand the enemy's motivation, writes Robert R. Reilly, a senior fellow at the
American Foreign Policy Council.
"You cannot go into a war of ideas without understanding the ideas
you are at war with. Yet, throughout the two speeches, [Obama] never
mentions the substance of the enemy's ideas once," Reilly writes.
"...This is like saying, in World War II, that we were fighting the
Nazi ideology, but never mentioning the thoughts of Friedrich Nietzsche,
Alfred Rosenberg or Adolph Hitler. Or, during the Cold War, saying we are
fighting the ideology of Communism, but never mentioning the ideas of Karl
Marx, Lenin, or Stalin."
Rather than continuing to do the same thing and hope for a better
outcome, perhaps it is time to listen to the Muslim reformers asking for a
more honest, tough love approach. Terrorists are committing acts of
barbarism daily in the name of Islam. That doesn't mean all, or even most,
Muslim see the same commands in their faith.
It might delegitimize terrorists more to emphasize how most of their
victims are fellow Muslims, and to clearly draw the lines between the
terrorists and the hundreds of millions of Muslims who reject their
savagery.
It's a theory, anyhow.
Related Topics: Islamist
Censorship, Islamist
terrorism, countering
violent extremism, President
Obama, ISIS,
Boko
Haram, Jeffrey
Bale, Maajid
Nawaz, Voldemort
Effect, Linda
Sarsour, Deepa
Iyak, Ayaan
Hirsi Ali, Robert
R. Reilly, Islamist
Censorship
|
Print
Send
Comment
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment