Robert M. Gates marches in the wrong direction
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a stark warning on Sunday to Europeans, saying that their safety from terrorist attack by Islamic extremists is directly linked to NATO’s success in stabilizing Afghanistan. After weeks of calling on NATO governments to send more combat troops and trainers to Afghanistan, Mr. Gates made his case directly to people across the continent in a keynote address to an international security conference here…Well, I disagree with the implied criticism that some countries are not pulling their military weight. The US-lead wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have encouraged terrorism in Europe and alienated moderate Muslems. The answer is to supply aid to the citizens of these countries and not charge around their countries acting like Rambo. For a different view, take a look at Marc Sageman’s article in last week’s New Scientist. Sageman is a forensic psychiatrist, sociologist, former CIA case officer and a consultant for various US government agencies – so I think he is as qualified to talk about fighting terrorism as Gates, yet he comes to a completely different conclusion (subscription required to view full article):
...The key to the modern terrorist network is the collective discourse on internet forums, which provides general guidance and tactical instruction to the participants in the absence of the command hierarchies of traditional terrorist organisations. It also fosters a true conversation among the participants – it is impossible to anticipate where a given discussion will lead. The result is that each small local terrorist network pursues its own activity for its own local reasons, and in doing so promotes the overall goals and strategy of the Al-Qaida terrorist social movement far more effectively than any central command could. This explains why governments’ bureaucratic and ideological approach to tackling terrorism – pursuing high-value targets in the hope the movement will implode – is bound to fail.What, then, should governments do? Their strategy should be twofold. First, they should continue to seek to eliminate violent networks, and ensure the fair prosecution of captured terrorists in a transparent way in order to regain the trust of Muslim communities worldwide. Any campaign against terrorism must be focused exclusively on the perpetrators, and not on racial or ethnic groups in general. It is when Muslims are indiscriminately censured that they become angry. It is also worth remembering that the most effective way to rob terrorism of its glory is to reduce the terrorists to common criminals. There is no glory in being taken to prison in handcuffs.
The second strategy is to contain the threat and wait until it disappears for internal reasons. Young people follow fashions and define themselves in contrast to their elders. They worship fashionable “jihadi heroes”, but fashions come and go. If we have the good sense to allow the leaderless jihad to fade away, it should do so in years rather than generations. The aim should be to accelerate the process of internal decay by avoiding any action – such as the invasion of Iraq – that could prolong and invigorate this violent movement. A military strategy, for example, is completely counterproductive because it creates more terrorists than it eliminates.