Islamism and the West: A new reign of terror

SYRIA-CONFLICT
A ripped picture of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad hangs in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa following the fall of the city to the Islamic State on March 5, 2013. Raqqa is now the capital city of IS. (Photo credit MOHAMMAD AL-HUSSEIN/AFP/Getty Images)

The sight of Brussels in continual “lockdown” is a sobering glimpse of the future. The tenuous contract between freedom and equality is on a slippery slope equality’s way and we are all becoming equally enslaved. The cause of the imbalance is Islamism, the largest threat to “western” (a word that has no geographical meaning as modern Chinese and Indian people aspire to be the “West” as much as Americans and Europeans) civilisation and dealing with it will become the thorniest global issue over the coming decades if not centuries. I don’t know why we are so surprised at this as 9/11 showed in horrific live global pictures the extent Islamists are prepared to go. It is war, where we like it or not, and whether we recognise or not who the “enemy” is.

It is also a problem that is not going away anytime soon, regardless of how well the West “copes” . While random easy target attacks with guns and bombs are not as as wicked an economic problem as the effects of climate change with its catastrophic results to the planet, the outcomes posited by Islamism are a more potent and direct threat to centuries of science and innovation. The notion that climate change is a fraud is easier to defeat as the weight of scientific evidence becomes insurmountable in the 21st century. But even supporting science or calling our times the heuristic “21st century” is inimical to Islamic terrorists.

Terror is an overworked word but is accurate to describe the sense of fear crucial to the work of terrorists. The notion is not exclusive to Islamists and is as old as human society. The power of ancient Rome was enforced by terrorism of its own people while the French Revolutionary Reign of Terror enshrined violence as a political right. State terrorism was a core tactic in both world wars, especially the second as en essential element of the Total War mentality leaders saw as necessary for victory.

In the late 20th century, terrorism became associated with non-state actors in asymmetric battles against the power of the state. Growing up in the political complexities of Ireland it was easy to see how one person’s freedom fighter was another person’s terrorist. But central to the strategy of all of these groups was that soft undefended targets were legitimate within the confines of their “wars”. In particular tourism and tourists became targets, both as a easy mark and also as symbols of the mass consumption that defined western society.

Islamists have taken this strategy to the next level in their battles against the West. The idea that tourism becomes unsafe and therefore untenable is a central concept in their war. You are a legitimate target whether you are in a hotel in Bamako, a beach in Tunisia, a rock concert in Paris, a pub in Bali or a plane over Sinai. The activities that mark out daily routines are slowly denormalised and with them, the assumptions that drive life in the West.

Terrorist actions are inescapably political, a fact the West prefers not to understand. Neither side in the traditional left-right divide of western politics understands how to deal with the problems posed by asymmetric warfare. The right is quicker to see Islamism’s threat but its simplistic solution of keeping Islam out and “closing the borders” belongs to less mobile times. The West is post-Christian and imposing a religious solution on secular societies has no chance of success. The borders are a hangover from the 19th project of nationalism and nationalism has few answers to global jihad.

The  other side practices its own stupidities. So determined is the liberal-left to prevent the effects of divide and conquer promoted by the right, it is blind to the causes of Islamism preferring not even to speak of the religious dimension that drives its actions. Their reluctance is understandable, not wanting to drive an artificial wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. But ignoring causation will never address the problem. The fact IS supporters practise their religion in a way that horrifies most liberals does not make it any less Islamic. When a British Muslim intellectual states it is lazy and wrong to say Islamism has nothing to do with Islam, she is castigated by non-Muslims as a Zionist in disguise. But as she argues, “the repugnant creed of the Islamic State is certainly related to Islam – but it is also inimical to Islam”.

It is not just Islamic State that is the problem, though they have succeeded in their avowed long-term media strategy. Jihadis view themselves as warriors against western imperialism and across the world Islamist groups invoke Allah to drive murderous projects. Boko Haram in Nigeria is even more bloodthirsty than IS, and the aim of their project is reflected in their name which means “western education is forbidden”.  It mounted 453 attacks in 2014, killing 6644 people – “the most deadly terrorist group in the world”.

There are others in similar guise across the Muslim world: Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb  (ALIQ) in northern Africa, Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQIP) in Yemen, Al Shabaab in Somalia , Islamic State, Al Qaeda and their proxies in the Middle East, Taliban armies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Lashkar e Toiba in Pakistan and India, Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia and Abu Sayyef in Philippines. They have a ready stream of adherents and are well-funded and well organised often by supposed “allies” of Western nations. The Salafist and Wahhabist strains of Islam, as practiced by some Gulf nations, Saudi Arabia in particular, are utterly intolerant and want only a world in their image. They can only be defeated by the populations in which they live.

There are no easy answers for the West. Media castigation of Muslims in their midst sells papers but is counter-productive. Military intervention is catastrophic and must be avoided. Even a peacekeeping mission has the potential to be badly misunderstood. Democracy has not taken root in Muslim countries and authoritarian regimes – backed by western nations for their own cynical purposes – have hollowed out civil societies. Jihadism with its easy illusion of divine sanction has filled the void, with a simplistic message often compelling to those disenfranchised in the west as it is to Muslims.

Islamic State must be allowed to be seen for what is it: A cruel, despotic and capricious regime that gives its elite a lucrative regime from smuggling oil, drugs and other contraband aroind their black economies. Those that live under IS and other intolerant Islamist regimes need time to find out the dictum that democracy is the worst possible way of organising the world – apart from all the others. Whether the people under Islamist flags ever get to see that, depends on the politics of the West: the right avoiding weapons and bigotry and the left not avoiding reason and rationality. We are a long way from both and the war goes on. IS and their ilk have much room to grow before they being destroyed by their own absurdities.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s