We Can Fight Terrorism by Fostering Free Debate
The following op-ed appeared in The Seattle Times (original link here).
September 28, 2004
We Can Fight Terrorism by Fostering Free Debate
By James J. Na
Special to The Times
Israelis understand terrorism well. Long before 9/11 and Beslan, Israelis experienced unrelenting terrorist attacks for decades, including hijackings, suicide bombings and attacks on children. Nothing that we experience today is new to them. They live in a world of guards outside every restaurant, market and bus stop, guards who check bags for explosives.
During my trip to Israel to attend a counterterrorism conference, an Israeli businessman who showed me around pointed out a spot on a highway where he battled Arab terrorists years ago. The terrorists had come ashore in boats, hijacked a bus full of women and children and attempted to head to Tel Aviv.
Then a young Israeli commando, my acquaintance was driving on the same highway when the situation unfolded. He exited his car, ran toward the bus and was immediately embroiled in a firefight. The terrorists were already executing the hostages. It was a bloodbath.
Despite the unforgivable bloodshed of innocents, the man who was once a warrior is sadly reflective. As a "Sabra," a native-born Israeli, he had grown up among Arabs and had harbored anidealistic desire to live in harmony. He still holds no hatred toward decent, ordinary Arabs. He and other Israelis like him have many lessons and ideas they can share with us in combating terrorism.
Dr. Boaz Ganor, an Israeli counterterrorism expert, coined a simple, yet apt equation: "terrorism = motivation + operational capability."
In order to prevent terrorist attacks like the one recounted above, vigorous and continuous intelligence and military operations are necessary to degrade and even destroy the operational capability of the terrorists. This means cutting off funding to terrorism-supporting "charities," interdicting the flow of weapons and training, and, yes, killing and capturing terrorists wherever possible.
But these methods alone do not solve terrorism. If the motivation is intact, the degraded capability eventually regenerates. New "shahids" (martyrs) are recruited, funds are again obtained and bombs are transported. Ganor does not think that terrorism can be countered successfully in the long-term without addressing motivation.
Islamic terrorists are increasingly relying on the Internet to foster motivation. Pan-Arabism was an utter failure, but pan-Islamism is flourishing in part thanks to what Reuven Paz, an Israeli expert on radical Islam, calls "virtual Islamic nation (Ummah)."
Unaffected by nation-state boundaries and other barriers, radical Islamists are inciting and recruiting while indoctrinating a new, tech-savvy generation of Muslims through the Internet. Ironically, radical jihadis are using a manifestation of ultra-modernity, the Internet, to prevent modernization of the Islamic world.
In order to counter this trend, then, the West must invest significant resources into helping to shape the minds of the next generation of Muslims. This is not simply about implanting "Western propaganda." It is about providing venues through which rational, moderate and reformist Muslims can debate freely about the future of Islam.
Media outlets such as Radio Sawa and Al-Hurra satellite broadcast are an important start, but they are not enough. As Paz explains, the response to the radical jihadism can "only come from within the Arab and Muslim world, not by outside force." That response must be an "Islamic answer" in the end.
Here, the Internet may provide at least a part of the answer. Because radical jihadis do not debate, but merely preach and incite, we must help to create vibrant digital forums through which Islamic scholars, clerics, intellectuals and students can have meaningful discussions on topics such as democracy and representative politics in an Islamic context.
In a recent television appearance, my on-air adversary, Philip Gold, said, "These people do not want freedom, at least not freedom as we know it." Indeed, they may not accept "American-style" freedom with its free-flowing sacrilege and pornography, but I suspect that they will come to embrace "democracy with Islamic characteristics" if open debate is allowed to flourish under American protection.
Yearning for self-determination is not a uniquely Western value. It is a universal value. I saw that with my own eyes while growing up in South Korea, where people who lived under decades of repressive rule began to speak up when they no longer feared the few who terrorized the many with force.
It can happen again, this time in the Middle East. Our job is to ensure that the voices that speak out bravely are protected from those who seek to silence these voices with terror.
September 28, 2004
We Can Fight Terrorism by Fostering Free Debate
By James J. Na
Special to The Times
Israelis understand terrorism well. Long before 9/11 and Beslan, Israelis experienced unrelenting terrorist attacks for decades, including hijackings, suicide bombings and attacks on children. Nothing that we experience today is new to them. They live in a world of guards outside every restaurant, market and bus stop, guards who check bags for explosives.
During my trip to Israel to attend a counterterrorism conference, an Israeli businessman who showed me around pointed out a spot on a highway where he battled Arab terrorists years ago. The terrorists had come ashore in boats, hijacked a bus full of women and children and attempted to head to Tel Aviv.
Then a young Israeli commando, my acquaintance was driving on the same highway when the situation unfolded. He exited his car, ran toward the bus and was immediately embroiled in a firefight. The terrorists were already executing the hostages. It was a bloodbath.
Despite the unforgivable bloodshed of innocents, the man who was once a warrior is sadly reflective. As a "Sabra," a native-born Israeli, he had grown up among Arabs and had harbored anidealistic desire to live in harmony. He still holds no hatred toward decent, ordinary Arabs. He and other Israelis like him have many lessons and ideas they can share with us in combating terrorism.
Dr. Boaz Ganor, an Israeli counterterrorism expert, coined a simple, yet apt equation: "terrorism = motivation + operational capability."
In order to prevent terrorist attacks like the one recounted above, vigorous and continuous intelligence and military operations are necessary to degrade and even destroy the operational capability of the terrorists. This means cutting off funding to terrorism-supporting "charities," interdicting the flow of weapons and training, and, yes, killing and capturing terrorists wherever possible.
But these methods alone do not solve terrorism. If the motivation is intact, the degraded capability eventually regenerates. New "shahids" (martyrs) are recruited, funds are again obtained and bombs are transported. Ganor does not think that terrorism can be countered successfully in the long-term without addressing motivation.
Islamic terrorists are increasingly relying on the Internet to foster motivation. Pan-Arabism was an utter failure, but pan-Islamism is flourishing in part thanks to what Reuven Paz, an Israeli expert on radical Islam, calls "virtual Islamic nation (Ummah)."
Unaffected by nation-state boundaries and other barriers, radical Islamists are inciting and recruiting while indoctrinating a new, tech-savvy generation of Muslims through the Internet. Ironically, radical jihadis are using a manifestation of ultra-modernity, the Internet, to prevent modernization of the Islamic world.
In order to counter this trend, then, the West must invest significant resources into helping to shape the minds of the next generation of Muslims. This is not simply about implanting "Western propaganda." It is about providing venues through which rational, moderate and reformist Muslims can debate freely about the future of Islam.
Media outlets such as Radio Sawa and Al-Hurra satellite broadcast are an important start, but they are not enough. As Paz explains, the response to the radical jihadism can "only come from within the Arab and Muslim world, not by outside force." That response must be an "Islamic answer" in the end.
Here, the Internet may provide at least a part of the answer. Because radical jihadis do not debate, but merely preach and incite, we must help to create vibrant digital forums through which Islamic scholars, clerics, intellectuals and students can have meaningful discussions on topics such as democracy and representative politics in an Islamic context.
In a recent television appearance, my on-air adversary, Philip Gold, said, "These people do not want freedom, at least not freedom as we know it." Indeed, they may not accept "American-style" freedom with its free-flowing sacrilege and pornography, but I suspect that they will come to embrace "democracy with Islamic characteristics" if open debate is allowed to flourish under American protection.
Yearning for self-determination is not a uniquely Western value. It is a universal value. I saw that with my own eyes while growing up in South Korea, where people who lived under decades of repressive rule began to speak up when they no longer feared the few who terrorized the many with force.
It can happen again, this time in the Middle East. Our job is to ensure that the voices that speak out bravely are protected from those who seek to silence these voices with terror.
| Permalink | 
i just read your op-ed (which is how i found your blog & discovery.org). it's very frustrating because you are so right: motivation needs to be removed. but even with a change of regime in washington (bush cares not one bit about the mid-east, other than waiting for jesus to return there), i don't believe our country's political leaders are willing to do the right thing and force israel to pursue justice for the palestinians. this is the most important step we must take. if palestine can be treated justly, much of the impetus for islamic radicalism is undermined. but that's a huge if.
Posted by
subboy |
28/9/04 09:24
The points you make in the Seattle Times piece are persuasive, as most of what you write is. Your article supports the argument of Daniel Pipes, that militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution, as well as that of Bernard Lewis, who points to Islam's failure to experience something like the western Englightenment as a central weakness. The long run solution to terrorism will almost certainly involve opening some windows in Islam to let in fresh air, and only Muslims themselves can do this.
But non-Muslims can surely affect the course of this internal debate by making clear what the consequences of certain choices are likely to be in terms of non-Muslim responses. The state of such consequences are anything but clear at this point.
To take just one example: The French Islamic scholar, Gilles Kepel, has just published a book entitled, "The War for Muslim Minds." Although I have not yet read it, I am told that he argues that European Muslims are likely to be the first important participants in the debate over the meaning of modern Islam because, as Europeans, they enjoy freedom of speech. As an example of the fruit of such freedom, he offers the French Muslim demonstrations for the release of the French journalists now held captive in Iraq. Yet Daniel Pipes, looking at the same example, sees only French appeasement and a craven abandonment of its foreign policy to Islamic spokesmen pleading for the lives of Frenchmen as "good dhimmi."
This is clearly more than a difference in perception; it is also a clash of views about how confrontational we should be toward Islamic radicalism.
Non-Muslims have quite a few rotten planks to repair in their own ship of state. Let the debate rage in all quarters!
Posted by
Tom Rekdal |
28/9/04 11:24
Mr. Rekdal:
As usual, you have many thoughtful points. Indeed, non-Islamic societies are not perfect. But Western societies (broadly defined, including East Asian countries) have mechanism through which popular will is reflected on policy.
Most, in fact virtually all, "Islamic" societies do not. They are either terrified by repressive regimes, radical Islamists and/or terrorists.
As "terrorism = motivation + operational capability," I am of the thought that 1) we must mount vigorous intel and mil operations to degrade operational capability while 2) pursuing long-term institution-building to make it possible for the majority to resist the violent few.
subboy:
You misunderstand me, sir. Palestinians are often nothing but sticks for many repressive Islamic regimes, sticks with which to beat Israelis.
Most Palestinians want to make a negotiated settlement with Israelis and live in peace to build homes and livelihood, but their will is not reflected in the Arafat regime. Arafat not only declined the Barak offer, but failed to even offer a counter-proposal. There can be no negotiation with someone who does not wish to negotiate.
Israel is not what's stopping "justice for the Palestinians" it is the Arafat goons with guns who terrorize the majority of the Palestinians. There is a civil war brewing among them, because they are finally tired with his corruption and criminality. I fear, however, that the main beneficiary of such a civil war might be radical Islamists. It is, no doubt, a difficult situation.
Your statement that "bush cares not one bit about the mid-east, other than waiting for jesus to return there" betrays your own gross simplification more than anything else.
I choose Bush over Kerry any day - and I don't even go to church!
Posted by
James J. Na |
28/9/04 13:54