The waiting game (The Indian Express- 6 June 2017)

     The London jihadi strikes indicate that there is no easy full stop to terror

     Enough is enough,” said British Prime Minister Theresa May in the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London. But her fighting words only serve to mask the fact that there is no simple way to put a full stop to the wave of jihadist violence that has hit Europe since it went to war with the Islamic State. May, like other politicians before her, lamented the fact that there was “far too much tolerance of extremism in our country”. In the London case, though, there is evidence that the key perpetrator, who moved to the UK from Pakistan with his parents and his child, was far from tolerated. Members of the community not only expelled the alleged attacker from the local Ahlulistiqamah mosque for his political views, but his friends reported him to the police because of his pro-Islamic State views. “I did my bit, I know a lot of other people did their bit, but the authorities did not do their bit,” one of those who reported the perpetrator to the police told the BBC.

     From the point of view of the authorities, it’s hard to know just what to do in these cases. The perpetrator, father of a toddler, made no secret of his pro-Islamic State views, even appearing in a documentary last week. However, he engaged in no behaviour that would have justified placing him — as opposed to several other high-risk suspects — under expensive, human resource-intensive surveillance. If mere expressions of support to jihadists are to be made illegal, it will hinder, rather than help authorities, driving potential supporters underground. Even attempting to shut off all access to jihadist websites and messaging will do little to staunch the flow of jihadist ideas, because of easily available technology most teenagers can demonstrate to their parents.

     The simple truth is that the expensive investments in policing made incrementally after 9/11 have approached their limits. In London, after all, the attackers were shot in just eight minutes; plot after plot has been preempted. There is, however, no means of identifying those vulnerable to a toxic ideology — nor a quick-fix tool to catch all those willing to kill for it. The Islamic State’s toxic ideology will continue to appeal to the nihilistic urges of some Muslim youth until it is decisively defeated. Until then, societies must hold fast to their democratic values, instead of surrendering them to demagogues.

Read More »

London attack again: Democracies must coordinate better to get a grip on terrorism (The Times of India - 6 June 2017)

     The latest terrorist attack in England where three attackers drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge before stabbing patrons in Borough Market – killing seven and injuring another 48 – shows how difficult it is to prevent such terror plots. This was the second attack on a bridge in London within three months. On March 22 a vehicle had similarly ploughed into pedestrians on the Westminster Bridge before the driver fatally stabbed a police officer, killing five people. The modus operandi of the attacks shows they are highly localised and carried out by radicalised individuals with little or no centralised networks, sophisticated weapons or bombs.

     In fact, it would be fair to assume that with the Islamic State (IS) terror group crumbling and losing territory in Iraq and Syria, such lone wolf, autonomous terror strikes will be IS’s chosen mode of operation. The use of cars, trucks and rudimentary weapons such as knives shows that hardly any training or equipment is needed for these individuals to carry out terror plots and get past sophisticated security systems. Second, plural and democratic societies are uniquely vulnerable to terror attacks, which often target citizens enjoying their economic and cultural freedoms.

     The best counter, therefore, would be for democracies to strengthen each other by improving anti-terror coordination and intelligence sharing. Moreover, there’s also a case for Western nations led by the US and UK to avoid radical swings and have a more settled and stable approach in their foreign policies, particularly with respect to volatile regions of the world such as the Middle East. There’s no denying that the US military intervention in Iraq under the George W Bush administration, aided by the UK, followed by a hands-off approach during the Barack Obama years, created conditions for the rise of IS. Today, President Donald Trump oscillates between threatening to bomb IS into history and urging travel bans on people from Muslim nations.

     

     Democracies must realise that Islamist terror groups want to provoke knee-jerk reactions from them so that the extremists can continue to peddle their ‘Islam-under-attack’ propaganda and recruit more foot soldiers to their radical cause. Hence, the best approach would be to deny them such an opportunity, defend democratic and secular values, and pool resources as well as coordinate counterterrorism policy, which must be sharp and specific instead of all-encompassing and vague.

Read More »