We need to defeat extremist terrorism. But are we doing it the right way?

This article appears in the online newspaper “The Conversation” here.

I learned a number of lessons about Islam in Peshawar, Pakistan. I, as a senior UN official, had arrived in the country within 24 hours of the massive earthquake that had struck in October 2005. Pakistan accepted foreign assistance to the degree that many of us were treated as if we were nationals, with few restrictions placed on our movement.

During the relief and reconstruction effort I found myself seconded into the office of the Pakistan Army’s Vice Chief of General Staff (VCGS) and had full range of his office, including plugging my laptop into the local area network of their computer system. Can you imagine any other country giving that degree of access to a foreigner?

By October 2006, a year after the earthquake, I was sent by the VCGS to the office of the Provincial Relief Commissioner in Peshawar, asking him to report on the contingency planning for the second year after the earthquake.

It was here in Peshawar, site of the recent murder of over 140 school children, that the Provincial Relief Commissioner gave me a lesson in religious conservatism.

“You see Andrew”, he said, “God sent the earthquake because the people were bad, so God punished them. If the people have been good this year, this winter will be fine. If the people have been bad, God will punish them again and who am I to get in the way of the will of God?” Hence he planned for no contingency. The peoples’ fate was in the hands of God.

On return to Islamabad I said to the VCGS, “Sir, its like he believes God sent the earthquake.”

The VCGS replied, “Andrew, he does. And I want you to think about it this way. You believe that tectonic plates caused the earthquake, because you read that in a book. He believes God sent the earthquake, because he read that in a book. Whose book is right?”

This question “whose book is right” sums up the most important lesson: When dealing with people who hold strong religious beliefs, one does not discuss alternative opinions or beliefs, one discusses alternative views of fact.

Belief is negotiable, fact is not.

The Provincial Relief Commissioner may have been a conservative cleric, but was not a ‘radical Muslim’. He had a fundamental belief in God, but he would not strap a suicide vest to a murderer and cause carnage.

The West, in a need to fit everything into Twitter feeds and sound bites, misses a number of nuances. In the West we talk of ‘Moderate’ Islam and ‘Radical’ Islam thinking it is only that simple. We miss the nuance including the existence of atheists of Islamic culture, moderate Muslims, conservative Muslims, and the small radical Islamic minority that have a huge impact.

While we cry ‘why isn’t moderate Islam doing something, we need to recognise that moderate Islam is fighting a war against the radicals. We need to recognise many more Muslims have died in this fight than westerners. If we are to defeat the radicals, the West needs to be on the same side as the atheistic, moderate and even conservative, in the battle against radical Islam.

If the West recognised that moderate Islam is fighting a war already, wouldn’t it be more sensible to ask ‘how does the West support the moderate’s war on radical Islam’?

Nuance here is important. Wouldn’t the rhetoric be better if it recognised that the West needs to be on the moderates’ side instead of asking ‘them’, the moderates, to join ‘us’ the West in ‘our’ crusade for freedom?

So far the West is going backwards. Many more Americans died fighting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq than died on 9/11 – a main reason given for the invasions. For all their blood and treasure spilt and spent the recently declassified US Senate Inquiry found that Islamic fundamentalism is stronger now than on 9/11. Something has gone dreadfully wrong.

One of the reasons for the step backwards is that the West’s actions have provided great motivation and recruiting propaganda for the extremists. One doesn’t need to be a policy specialist to see this.

Remember the V2 bombs that rained down on London in World War II? Did they scare the British into submission or did it cause the British to “never surrender” as Churchill continually said?

What do you think happens in Pakistan when a drone strike hits a wedding, or school? You might kill a terrorist in the crowd, but how many more have you created as they watch a mother, sister or child being killed as ‘collateral damage’?

While we rightly condemn the French murders and may cry for free speech after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, do we equally reaffirm the responsibility that comes with free expression? Do we get the nuance between the right to free expression, and the responsibility in knowing when to shut up?

If we want to unite moderate Muslims in a team against the radicals, are we doing this sensibly when we protest for a set of cartoons that offend, yet don’t protest for the many thousands more that die in their lands?

Doesn’t this lack of empathy push moderate Muslims into the arms of radical Islam – united in offence to their religion, even while the moderates also condemn the murders?

In the nearly 14 years since 9/11 we have seen massive changes in technology. We have seen the creation of Twitter and YouTube. These are incredible tools for global communication. They are great methods to motivate people to a cause – any cause.

So far the Radicals have used these tools to great effect in recruiting from angry communities in Islamic countries and from small but significant populations in France, Australia, the UK and US who are disengaged, excluded and in search of a sense of belonging.

Technology has given a route for extremists to reach the excluded people who are sometimes attracted to charismatic, murdering, narcissist who turn lonely sad people into murderers. The West makes that job so much easier by bombing schools or celebrating offensive cartoons.

Unless the West has a fundamental rethink and changes the game, the radicals will win. We, the moderates of all religions, must unite and find a new way to defeat terrorism because the current strategy is simply not working.

Andrew MacLeod is a Visiting Professor at Kings College London, a visiting expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, a former Australian Army Officer and United Nations Official. He can be followed on twitter @AndrewMMacleod

One Reply to “We need to defeat extremist terrorism. But are we doing it the right way?”

  1. You can’t defeat anything unless you point out the cause. Extremists didn’t just grew suddenly. This phenomenon is a direct reaction too the illegal invasions the US and its allies did in many muslim countries. Millions have died direct or indirectly because of US imperialism. The radicals as you like to call them, are people who have seen the injustice and the lack of fair global law. If that doesn’t change, terrorism wil never stop. Religion is just a tool for people to hold on. But the main reason why extremists grow is because of the death and destruction the US and israel cause on muslims. Why are people so naive to think otherwise. Religion is not the cause of this. We all know. But we are not true to admit it. Because that would automaticly mean that the so called “democracies” of the US and israel are responsible for this. Excuse for my terrible english lol


Your view is welcome. Please comment here.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s