Rethinking Terrorism
November 29, 2009 · By Martin Street
This post isn’t as timely as I’d have liked, but it’s taken a while to bang these ideas into shape.
Let me begin by getting right to the point: we aren’t fighting a war against terror. We’re fighting a war against jihadism.
This may seem like nitpicking, or even wilful obfuscation, as terrorism and jihadism are often used interchangeably. Allow me to explain why I think it‘s an important distinction worthy of further consideration, since I also believe that this distinction is already being made in a way that suits our enemy more than it helps our cause.
A couple of weeks ago a Fox News poll came out showing that some 61% of young people in the US didn’t see the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist attack per se, but as a killing spree. Conservative bloggers responded with anger and disbelief. To them it was obvious that Hassan was a terrorist. That the American public was getting it wrong was the fault of liberal media bias and the Obama administration’s overall failure of leadership regarding defence and security.
While media bias and government incompetence aren’t helping, I respectfully disagree with this conclusion. There are two other factors exerting an influence: terrorism is too broad a term for the enemy that we face; and we as journalists, pundits and interested citizens have not been consistently clear about the way that the label domestic terrorism should be applied. These two problems go hand in hand.
I recently had a discussion wherein it was pointed out that the key difference between terrorism and ordinary mass murder (as inappropriate as that formulation may be) is the motivation of the perpetrator; specifically, mass murderers have unclear (ie. crazy) motivations, while terrorists clearly seek to change government policy or existing social norms. This is roughly the formula given in America’s Title 18 (criminal code) definition for domestic terrorism.
Here’s the problem: we aren’t really interested in identifying terrorist motivations that don’t relate back to jihadist goals.
Let me illustrate with two examples. When James von Brunn shot up the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, it was a pretty clear cut case of domestic terror, but committed progressives and conservatives were mainly interested in disowning his Nazi ideology and foisting it on one another. And when Dr. George Tiller was shot in his church, it was hard to see it as anything but a violent statement against the social norm and public policy status quo for abortion. It was terrorism, but mostly what progressives and conservatives wanted to hash out was the attempt by some to use the incident to smear all pro life activists as potentially violent reactionaries.
It’s understandable why the terrorism angle was mostly ignored in these cases: these were one-off events perpetrated by lunatics. It doesn’t really matter that they fit the terrorism bill; people generally understand that there’s no way to predict or control the actions of the hidden time-bombs who live among us. It’s something that we will always have to live with unless we submit ourselves to unbearably draconian intrusions into the most private parts of our lives. This would be no better than submitting to the jihadis’ will.
Conspiracies, on the other hand, can be broken. We can infiltrate and intervene, and take action to eliminate our enemies. This is one half of the War on Terror that we are fighting. This is the half that prevents future 9/11s, the half where we are succeeding.
Aside from the relative ease of proving multiple homicide, authorities face with Hassan the problem that, without solid evidence of a conspiracy, it will be difficult to prove a terrorist motivation at the time of the Fort Hood massacre. Regardless of his prior statements, his email correspondence, his business cards, his questionable charity, or his yelling the Takbir, Hassan may in fact end up beating a terrorism rap, should the prosecution even try to bring that charge.
But in the bigger picture what’s more important than legally proving that Hassan fits the definition of a terrorist is the undeniable acknowledgement among the general public that he was clearly inspired by the jihad against the West. People must readily recognize that he remade himself into a jihadi, an agent of an ideology dedicated to the eradication of our modern world. They must also recognize that it is this ability to inspire from a distance (through the actions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al) that allows jihadism to spread faster and more effectively than any previous form of terrorism could ever draw and train recruits.
And so the second and more challenging half of our war is to remain vigilant and to see jihadism for what it is, without bogging down in the broader problem of identifying what makes a terrorist. It is the jihad’s ability to spontaneously create new self-guided agents that makes it different from every other form of international terrorism that ever came before. It is the jihadi’s uncommanded allegiance unto death to the goal of the jihad that makes him different from every other form of domestic terrorist. It is the ideology of the jihad that binds them, and it’s this combination of inspiration and self-recruitment that poses the greatest threat to our way of life.
President Bush, when called upon by history to fight the War on Terror, had the difficult task of identifying an ideological threat without appearing to start a war against a religion. He used the term terror instead of jihad to avoid inciting a backlash within the Muslim diaspora, to avoid potentially making a bad situation much, much worse.
In so doing he chose a generalization that is proving to lack focus in the long term, while also failing to maintain it’s intended rhetorical cover. It’s clear to me that we’re only focusing on jihadist terror and I have to believe this is clear to young Muslims as well. These are young people who may be trying to decide which side of this war they want to be on. Perhaps we can sway them to our side, perhaps not, but I have my doubts that continuing to beat around the rhetorical bush* will help our case.
Generalizing about the enemy we’re fighting has had a downside, and it’s working to the enemy’s advantage. While we stick with terms that have outlived their usefulness sixty percent of young Americans may have lost sight of what we’re really up against. Our enemy and it’s future agents have not.
*That’s a cliché only; no pun intended.
(Thanks to the comments section at AoSHQ. You know who you are.)
Yup exactly.
Just what I was saying to my Bro, it’s the theology that creates the terrorist that we need to fight.
I’m not sure to state that we are not fighting a war against terrorism, but a war against jihadism is particularly clarifying.
Vague declarations like the “War on Terror” or “war against jihadism” don’t make for particularly good policy. It’s the same basic formulation as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, or the war on whatever particular ill a politician wants to cast as an elusive existential foe.
Right now, we (Canada) are participating in an eight year old war in Afghanistan. We should probably figure out what, precisely, we’re trying to do there and craft policy accordingly. Beyond that, defense policy should focus on keeping Canadian’s safe. Fighting an ill defined “war” against nebulous philosophical bogeyman is, potentially, a distraction.
Please consider the possibility that the malaise that causes Muslims to engage in holy war is not unlike the motivation for destructive riots, pogroms and votes for left-wing parties. Envy and perceived victimhood may be the reasons why individuals are drawn to join mobs and other _get even_ movements. Jihad is the Muslim’s call to self-examination and correction according to the Koran and, it seems, also a call to spread Islam by force. That opening, left by Mohummad himself, has permitted low esteem individuals like Hassan to act out his frustrations under the imprimatur of his religion – not the first time that was done.
Jonathan,
I agree that wars waged against ideas and social problems are vague and prone to atrocious failures. Unfortunately we`re confronted with ideas and social problems that will lead us to much deeper problems if we allow them the room to fester. Our best option is to confront them and nip them in the bud. The alternative is to do as little as possible and hope the situation improves. (Is that a false dichotomy?) Personally, I think the latter option has already won out; we`re already heading down that road. Let`s hope the power of our collective pacifist impulses wins out and we progress unhindered into a better and brighter future. I look forward to admitting I read the situation wrong.
I think `the war against jihadism is distracting from our efforts in Afghanistan` if that is what you mean, is a red herring. Our efforts to prevent jihadist terror at home are non-negotiable in any event, regardless of the wars we`re fighting overseas.
Calling Hassan and his ilk bogeymen doesn`t help that effort. Hassan could have been stopped were it not for his commanders` wilful blindness to the threat he posed. It was treating the warning signs as benign idiosyncrasies that lead directly to the massacre.
Giving Afghanistan the tools and breathing room it needs to modernize and democratize and rid itself of the Taliban and the warlords is an important part of the war against the jihad on the international front. Afghanistan is a proven safe haven for the most dedicated, organized and violent enemies we face. I don`t see a problem that gets resolved by our refusing to consider rooting out key elements of the jihad as an important goal. To do so, so that we can concentrate purely on military operations, would effectively render such operations pointless from a defense standpoint. Nose. Face. Cutting off. Spite.
An attack by a single individual, such as occurred at Fort Hood, does not constitute terrorism. At least not organized terrorism. However, the organizations, including religious sects, which enabled, promoted, and encouraged this act are terrorist, and any of the people who openly support and facilitate these organizations are terrorists and should be dealt with as such. It is time the west quit pussyfooting around with jihadist imams and other so-called holy men and run their butts out of the country the first time they open their mouths and start spewing their anti-western crap.
Martin,
My objection to this pertains to the idea that the underpinning of our philosophy that will form defense and foreign policy is defined by what we are against. I would much prefer that we determine what it is we are looking to defend and go from there. We should not be at war with a concept; if anything, we should be at war for a concept.
This is not my concern at all. My concern is that we are in an actual tangible war in Afghanistan, but it is completely unclear as to what we are trying to achieve (though this is somewhat moot, as we won’t be there much longer, regardless of what happens). If anything, the war against jihad and the war in Afghanistan are distracting us from developing an actual coherent policy regarding both national defense and foreign policy.
This may seem like a semantic debate, but my concern is larger. It is easy to get carried away with public policy – to begin down a path for the right reasons, but fail to exercise sufficient reflection to ensure that the path you are on is the proper path. We need to make sure that the policy choices we are making adhere to our principles and to our political philosophy. It is insufficient to accept a policy initiative that merely has some similar objectives.
My point is not that Hassan is a bogey man (though I’m unsure he’s a terrorist – traitor seems like a better fit to me). My point was that manufacturing a “war on jihadism” makes jihadism the bogeyman. There’s no actual enemy in this notion. There’s no battlefield, real or metaphorical. There is just a vague concept that is separate from principles, context and results.
We can argue for an interventionist foreign policy as a means to make Canadians safe (though I’m skeptical of that) as well as a means to promote Canadian principles. We don’t need to have a “war on fill-in-the-blank” to protect liberal democracy. In fact, the two seem to collide with regularity.
That may be, but I’m still unconcerned with someone’s “war against the jihad”. I’m much more interested in making people safe and promoting or facilitating freedom and liberty abroad (and, naturally, protecting it at home).
I’d suggest that a political philosophy that has as its core aim the defense of liberal democracy would be preferable
Isn’t that the same thing? I’m having trouble seeing how being in favour of one concept isn’t being against some other and vice versa.
In a nutshell, our defense strategy should be limited to concentrating on homeland defense; leave pre-emptive foreign operations and nation building to other countries and organisations. I can live with the validity of that argument, but to see it realized I want us out of NATO, UN peacekeeping operations, and I want any foreign bases we’re maintaining shuttered. Buchanan style isolationism. All or nothing. Deal?
If it helps, think of “enemy” as a euphamism for “problem”. (The “War on Terror” is an analogy or metaphor after all.) The problem we’re facing is that any number of organisations based in foreign territory are conspiring to commit acts of terror against us, and thereby inspire locally based like-minded individuals to take up arms and commit their own multitudinous acts of terror. The quality of our lives is diminished for as long as this problem persists. If I was to accept that we face no enemy, it doesn’t change the fact that we still face a problem. If we don’t treat the problem as an enemy, then how would you have us face it? Bearing in mind that I can’t accept anything that equates to “do nothing and just live with the consequences”.
That’s a lovely platitude, but a little short on details. I’m not saying I disagree; on the contrary, I’m having trouble seeing how the war on jihad model falls outside of these rather broad parametres. If you can come up with a reasonable strategy that is explicity rejects the war on jihad model I’ve presented I’d love to hear it. Going back to your first quote above and my reply, I don’t see how being in favour of defending liberal democracy doesn’t imply being against theocratic tyranny.