Being afraid is not enough. To defeat your enemies you have to know them and employ coordinated intelligence against them. The US knows full well.
On Friday, 13 November, even the US stood still after the massacre in Paris, but it was only a temporary pause. Most Americans assert that life must always go on, whatever happens. After all, they are used to living this way. It may seem cynical or fatalistic, but actually, they are just being realistic. Americans have a different understanding of what is going on, an awareness developed following the 11 September attacks.
First of all, prior to developing a strategy, it is necessary to take the time to understand what is actually taking place. The dominant idea in the US is that the war is not between Islamic State (IS) and Europe, a conflict often portrayed as a clash of civilizations. “There is no war between Islam and the rest of the world. This is the first premise, and those who believe it do not understand who they should be opposing”, said a high-ranking US diplomat. Europe is merely a means to an end, or rather what numerous geopolitical analysts in the US consider the ‘collateral damage’ of a struggle for power playing out in the Levant, the area straddling Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and parts of Iran. It is a war between al-Qaeda and IS, between Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaeda, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-appointed caliph of Islamic State; the Al-Qaeda chief admitted as much a few months ago. We in the West are caught in the middle of this conflict.
Both groups use terrorism for propaganda purposes and as a recruiting tool to encourage would-be jihadi volunteers. A report in June 2014, penned by Aaron Zelin for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned of the possibility of IS targeting the West. This report leads us directly to a discussion of who it is we need to be fighting. For IS, it is easier to recruit fighters in Europe than in the US. There are various reasons for this. One factor has been that aggressive and uncontrolled urbanization in Europe has led to the de facto ghettoization of many immigrants. The economic crisis has also been complicit in this development. Second and third-generation immigrants have been hard hit by the lack of jobs. A context of social malaise and poverty greatly increases the likelihood that the affected will be tempted to seek alternative solutions. Just look at the example of southern Italy, where such conditions have fostered the rise of mafia organizations. In environments such as Paris’ banlieue (“outskirts”), one possible outlet for frustrated and socially immobile individuals is fundamentalist Islam, which has even been described by geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor as “a sort of instrument for social elevation”.
Then there’s the second reason that IS more easily finds European recruits. Europe is accustomed to liberty. The United States is as well, arguably much more so than the European continent, but it has a different interpretation of liberty. When it comes to public security, the right to privacy takes a back seat. CCTV cameras are everywhere, random controls and active prevention are common and widespread. Though this approach could appear as an affront to our free and uncontrolled European lives, we need to realize that this is one of the most effective ways to prevent terrorist attacks. Of course, risk cannot be eliminated, but it can be mitigated and reduced. This can be achieved with a different approach, which leads us on to the third point.
A 2013 Eurasia Group report states: “There are evident problems concerning intelligence in Europe, given that there is no arrangement for sharing information between states. Neither is there a centralized system capable of registering intelligence concerning jihadist cells present in the European territory”. So this must be our starting point. The opinion in Washington is that such an approach is the first step towards rooting out Islamic fundamentalism. Until then, however, we will need to adapt to what analysts from the Brookings Institution have defined as an “Israelisation” of our lives, a clear reprise of the theories of political scientist Dominique Moïsi. This will mean daily checks, daily risks and living with the fear and fatalism that has kept the US moving since the September 11 attacks. Until there are solid initiatives in place to centralize European intelligence, Europe’s citizens will have to rely on the protection of individual nations acting in their own national interests.
Washington understood years ago that the war between al-Qaeda and IS could have significant repercussions on a global level because both terrorist groups have a vested interest in flexing their muscles. According to analysts at the RAND think tank, “the conflict in Syria and Iraq will continue”. And attempted terrorist attacks will intensify until one of the two factions, or a third, assumes control over the whole area. IS can be attacked, Al-Qaeda can be attacked or both can be attacked.
The ideal strategy depends on the desired outcome, taking into account the example of Afghanistan a few decades ago. “No option is without risk”, according to RAND. But before we react, we must decide which option can best achieve the goal of quashing the current reign of terror.
Being afraid is not enough. To defeat your enemies you have to know them and employ coordinated intelligence against them. The US knows full well.
