In the past, the more enlightened of us could comfort ourselves with the thought that poverty and social repression produce malcontents and terrorists. Unfulfilled aspirations of statehood were also considered as contributing factors. Even then, though, this was not entirely true. While the rank and file of guerrilla movements might come from economically or socially deprived sections of the society they rebelled against, their leaders and financiers were invariably educated, well-off citizens, if not of the same society, then of some other.
Things are very different today. Especially after the attacks in London, where it seems "Paki is a dirty word" once more, and memories of the race riots seem fresh once more, the perpetrators of the attacks were educated British citizens, who "completed"' their schooling by betraying the society that fulfilled their aspirations rather than reforming/changing the one that failed them.
The blanket assumption that terrorists are trained or at least influenced by the madarsas or Islamic schools of Pakistan and elsewhere, though valid in part, is misleading as it masks some realities. As William Dalrymple points out in his recent column in The Guardian,
there is an important and fundamental distinction to be made between most madrasa graduates - who tend to be pious villagers from impoverished economic backgrounds, possessing little technical sophistication - and the sort of middle-class, politically literate, global Salafi jihadis who plan al-Qaida operations around the world. Most of these turn out to have secular scientific or technical backgrounds and very few actually turn out to be madrasa graduates.
At the same time, it may be informative to look at various aspects of modern Islamic terrorism, before exploring possible solutions.
Members:
Intelligence services, and the cognoscenti, have long known the term Al Qaeda is pretty much a misnomer today, and has been for a while. After the "terrorist summit" of 1998 in the Phillipines, where the Islamic International Front was formed, knitting together as disparate groups as the Egyptian Brotherhood, the Islamic Jihad, the Uzbek nationalists, and at least five Pakistan-based terrorist organizations, the base of Al-Qaeda was replaced with a loosely knit confederacy of sinister groups. The key members are known to be:
- The Al Qaeda, and its military wing, the 055 Brigade
- The Jamatul Jihad of Egypt led by Dr al-Zawahiri, and other Egyptian groups
- The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan led by Jumma Namangani
- The Hizb-e-Islami Turkistan, also led by Namangani
- The Abu Sayyaf group of the Southern Philippines
- A few Chechen groups operating out of Pakistan and the Chechnya region
- An organisation of the Uighurs of Xinjiang in China
- The Harkat-ul Mujahideen of Pakistan
- The Lashkar-e-Tayiba of Pakistan
- The Sipah-e-Sahaba of Pakistan, an extremist Sunni organisation which has been campaigning for the proclamation of Pakistan as a Sunni State, and their militant wing, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
- The Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami of Pakistan
- The Taliban : Originally talibs, or students from the madrasas, and then Afghanistan
These organizations have separate, distinct objectives and interests. The Al Qaeda claims to fight for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy and for the withdrawal of the US and British troops from Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian groups want Islamic rule in Egypt and tighter control in the region. The Harkat and Lashkar want the merger of J&K with Pakistan and, subsequently, the "liberation" of Muslims in other parts of India. The Sipah-e-Sahaba wants a Sunni State in Pakistan and the declaration of the Shias as non-Muslims. The Uzbek group wants an Islamic State and the Turkistan group wants an Islamic Federation of all Central Asian republics and Xinjiang. The Uighurs want independence from China. The Chechens have been fighting for independence from Russia. The Indonesian groups, led by Hambali want an Islamic Caliphate stretching from Southeast Asia to Iran.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - GPW
An interesting and well researched post. Thank you, Aaman!
2 - Mihos
Well thought and well written. Im sending everyone I know that cares tht is, to read this.
3 - Aaman
Egad, thanks folks! Just the tip of a rotten iceberg, really.
4 - Dave Nalle
First class analysis.
That meeting in the Philippines must have been somewhat like a Smersh meeting out of a James Bond film, yet it really happened from all accounts, as have several subsequent 'terrorist conventions' in other locations.
Of course, what this points up, which you don't mention, is that regardless of why we went into Iraq, because this is a movement which spans that region and beyond, wherever we took our troops - and Iraq is as good a place as any - the terrorists would come there to fight us.
Dave
5 - Aaman
Ah, but there were too many unintended consequences of the invasion - subject of a future post - but briefly: providing a new focal point for the groups, combining hitherto unrelated groups, and as another post unintentionally points out, merging the hydra(e?) of Shia Iran and the new Iraq
Otherwise, spot on - unfortunately again - the 'coalition of the willing' is not really an 'alliance of civilizations'
6 - Dave Nalle
Wouldn't there be unintended consequences to ANY direct confrontation with the terrorists, and aren't we more prepared for the unintended consequences of war, especially in a foreign country than we might be for the consequences of other methods of dealing with terrorism - such as mass covert assassination - which, btw is one of the few other effective options and is specifically illegal under US law?
Dave
7 - Aaman
Your sagacity is stealing the thunder from my future pieces, but any strategy has to have covert and overt options. Failed states like Afghanistan under the Taliban, Pakistan, and others have not hesitated to use terrorism as a covert option of state policy. 'Civilized' states like the West, and India, have an effective covert action capability, but do not deploy it effectively for fear of public reprisal. The last points in the Raman article I link to in my main post are:
For example, India applied covert action effectively in East Pakistan in 1971, and ending Punjab terrorism in the 1980s. The British practice it effectively. Again quoting Raman, elsewhere,
8 - Dave Nalle
Raman's idea of covert action is unrealistic. Carefully worked out and deniable are basically inconsistent with doing anything on the scale necessary to neutralize international terrorist leadership.
Dave
9 - William Sweeney
here
For a little perspective. Just so we all know where you are coming from.
How can you pretend to be concerned about global terror when you can't even control your own countrymen?
10 - Bennett
William, please try to make your links "clickable" so that they do not mess with the column width here on BC. Thanks!
Aaman - Great post, thanks for the college course on where we stand today, and how we got there.
11 - Aaman
Richard,
I make no apologies for violence or terror of any stripe. The article you link to is rather lopsided, though - I do not see reference to the Bombay World Trade Center blasts, or the Parliament bombings, or the 1000+years of Islamic oppression. Furthermore, his characterization of worsening Hindu-Muslim relations is not valid, in the general sense, as any educated Indian can tell you. Also, I do not think we are talking about the same thing when we compare organized global terror and social criminals/rioters.
There should have been a crackdown on these elements - there was not - for political reasons.
12 - Aaman
That being said, I promise to focus on non-Islamic terrorism and violence soon enough.
13 - gonzo marx
Aaman,
well done!! nicely written, very informative and as objective and a root canal...
i do note Mr Nalle hitting his Agenda and the erroneous assumptions made because of it...
might i suggest that this Information, which was clearly available to the US planners and policy makers long ago, lends credibility to the Idea that the highest priority should have remained finishing the Task in Afghanistan to crush the remant of the Taliban and al Qaeda as top priority....
next priority should have been stabilizing, and rooting out , the terrorist organizations in Pakistan...note from the Article that not only are there more organizations there than anywhere else...but Pakistan has minor missle technology, the terrorists there directly threaten INdia(a good ally to the US) and Pakistan HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!!
these incontrovertable facts, added to the proximity of the two countries, which would aid in logistics, factored in with the direct aid of Musharif(president of Pakistan) and the high probability of aid from India in this common cause, should show clearly that Pakistan/Afghanistan are/were the highest priority areas for this theatre of conflict...
now, all resources are distracted away from the region, only a skeleton force in Afghanistan, which is not making real progress versus the Objectives there...NO attention paid to Pakistan...see the Article for just how many of these groups are based out of this nation....all this while Pakistans nuclear capabilities, and thus huge possible terror implications, are relatively unguarded from internal forces loyal to any of the above terrorist organizations...
yet the drone goes on and on about Iraq(which i realize, is a problem the US now "owns") ...please show mewhich of these organizations were based in Iraq prior to the Invasion?...andhow much is there now?...all of it Imported
i have heard the "better there than here" argument..and i say the Facts show that argument is bullshit...check the Incidents in Indonesia, Israel, Spain and now London
a difficult dilemma...where the hell are the experts, the "Bonds"....hell, where's Dick Marchinko?
in conclusion...
/golfclap for Aaman
a worried /sigh for those supposed to be running this Operation...and an exhortation to be smarter, think harder and fuck the Administrations politics...do the Job!!
this IS important stuff
Excelsior!
14 - The Kid
Great work. This is an unusually clear headed look at the terrorist threat. The assertion that an alliance of civilizations is required to effectivly combat terrorism is dead on.
The hard part is getting world leaders to set aside politics and get the job done. Currently, most politicians use terrorism as a political lever, rather than addressing the issue honestly. We desperately need our leaders to stop the pissing contests and get the job done.
15 - adam
Great, great post. Learned a lot. I'm sure this post is appreciated by many more than those who congratulate you here.
16 - Nancy
Aaman, if you don't have a PhD already, use this as a base. Very excellent.
17 - Aaman
Thanks Nancy, and folks. I left the piece as short as I could given the constraints of the format - there is much more meat there to chew on.
Opinions are welcome.
18 - Mihos
I was reminded today of the IRA bombings performed by Irish nationals against anyone they saw fit and recall clearly the apathetic stance many Protestant American politicians had. Regardless, terrorism must be dealt with in philosophical terms from within our global community. The special interests of military industrialists must be dealt with the same fervor. We humans outnumber both terrorists and military industrialists but with every month passing where we the comfortable sit back and passively absorb our bad news on our prized media centers a dozen more frustrated young men will turn into bombers of one kind or another. Its insidious. Im not a religious person but if i were I would swear the God of Nothingness is spreading like a plague consuming all tht humanity has worked so hard to build.
19 - Aaman
My friend, if you read the piece closely, you will see that I stress these are not 'frustrated young men', unless they are frustrated for reasons that all young men are frustated about.
20 - valery dawe
Aaman wrote in comment #7 >Failed states like Afghanistan under the Taliban, Pakistan, and others have not hesitated to use terrorism as a covert option of state policy. 'Civilized' states like the West, and India, have an effective covert action capability, but do not deploy it effectively for fear of public reprisal.<
Which 'Civilized' states like the West are you referring to that fear public reprisal?
21 - Aaman
Hmmm - I would think the United States, Britain, France - don't you agree?
22 - Mihos
I read it clearly. Nonetheless, ranks are being created out of thin air. What mothers
would have knowingly sacrificed so much to bring a child into the world to just have him march into the front lines prepared to slaughter in the name of some poorly defined strategy reacting to some even more poorly defined enemy or ideology?
The soldiers have to come from somewhere and Im concerned that our unease with the topic and our apathy really is enabling more and more demigoguery.
Some of the willing participamts end up as soldiers in the war against terrorism and the rest as armed combatents against the industrialists; either way you look at it whomever is selling guns and ammunitions is faring nicely. And whomever hates women is winning their campaign to punish woman by stealing her stability and productivity.
23 - Dave Nalle
Valery: "Which 'Civilized' states like the West are you referring to that fear public reprisal?"
Aaman: "Hmmm - I would think the United States, Britain, France - don't you agree?"
Valery meant to imply that the western nations are not civilized. Valery is a troll. It's better to just ignore trolls and hope they go away.
Dave
24 - Aaman
Well, I'm sure y'all know what Mahatma Gandhi said when asked what he thought about Western Civilization?
"I think it would be a good idea!"
I joke:) Yr right - trolls are ravenous creatures, and ignorance is the best medicine for them.
25 - Mihos
If Valery is a Troll what does that make the bloghspere?
Writers that share similar educational backgrounds and economic historys build a bridge named after the god of Hegemony.
The three different opinions that matter must be little goats.
I seem to recall our veritable thief in the white house reading this story to a group of bored little Black children in Florida as the specter of terrorism roared through the empty hallway of his head:
The Three Billy Goats Gruff
Norway
Once upon a time there were three billy goats, who were to go up to the hillside to make themselves fat, and the name of all three was "Gruff."
On the way up was a bridge over a cascading stream they had to cross; and under the bridge lived a great ugly troll , with eyes as big as saucers, and a nose as long as a poker.
So first of all came the youngest Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge.
"Trip, trap, trip, trap! " went the bridge.
"Who's that tripping over my bridge?" roared the troll .
"Oh, it is only I, the tiniest Billy Goat Gruff , and I'm going up to the hillside to make myself fat," said the billy goat, with such a small voice.
"Now, I'm coming to gobble you up," said the troll.
"Oh, no! pray don't take me. I'm too little, that I am," said the billy goat. "Wait a bit till the second Billy Goat Gruff comes. He's much bigger."
"Well, be off with you," said the troll.
A little while after came the second Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge.
Trip, trap, trip, trap, trip, trap, went the bridge.
"Who's that tripping over my bridge?" roared the troll.
"Oh, it's the second Billy Goat Gruff , and I'm going up to the hillside to make myself fat," said the billy goat, who hadn't such a small voice.
"Now I'm coming to gobble you up," said the troll.
"Oh, no! Don't take me. Wait a little till the big Billy Goat Gruff comes. He's much bigger."
"Very well! Be off with you," said the troll.
But just then up came the big Billy Goat Gruff .
Trip, trap, trip, trap, trip, trap! went the bridge, for the billy goat was so heavy that the bridge creaked and groaned under him.
"Who's that tramping over my bridge?" roared the troll.
"It's I! The big Billy Goat Gruff ," said the billy goat, who had an ugly hoarse voice of his own.
"Now I 'm coming to gobble you up," roared the troll.
Well, come along! I've got two spears,
And I'll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
I've got besides two curling-stones,
And I'll crush you to bits, body and bones.
That was what the big billy goat said. And then he flew at the troll, and poked his eyes out with his horns, and crushed him to bits, body and bones, and tossed him out into the cascade, and after that he went up to the hillside. There the billy goats got so fat they were scarcely able to walk home again. And if the fat hasn't fallen off them, why, they're still fat; and so,
Snip, snap, snout.
This tale's told out.
* Source: Peter Christen Asbjørnsen and Jørgen Moe, De tre bukkene Bruse som skulle gå til seters og gjøre seg fete, Norske Folkeeventyr, translated by George Webbe Dasent in Popular Tales from the Norse, 2nd edition (London: George Routledge and Sons, n.d.), no. 37, pp. 275-276. Translation revised by D. L. Ashliman.