Homeland Security Watch

Today the German government is hosting an emergency summit to consider an alleged neo-Nazi threat.  Federal and state police, prosecutors, intelligence agencies and others are gathering in Berlin to share information and, perhaps, undo the perception of lax attention to radical German nationalists.  (Der Spiegel has aggregated several stories.)

A three-member cell of the “National Socialist Underground” was recently uncovered by German authorities.  At least ten murders have been traced to the cell. Nine of those murdered were of Turkish or Greek descent.  Eighty-eight political and civic leaders were apparently targeted for assassination. (88 is a bit of neo-Nazi numerology.)  Two of the cell members have committed suicide.  The third is in custody.

But according to Deutsche Welle, the chairman of the German parliament’s oversight committee, Thomas Oppermann, said that “there is evidence of more helpers.” A report in the daily Berliner Zeitung on Wednesday said investigators had a handful of suspects.

Earlier this week Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer appeared in court and made his first public statement.  ”I am a military commander in the Norwegian resistance movement and Knights Templar Norway,” Breivik told the court. “I acknowledge the acts, but I do not plead guilty,” Breivik said, adding that he rejected the jurisdiction of the court because it “supports multiculturalism.”

In a manifesto released coincident with his deadly bombing of central Oslo and massacre of 69 on Utoeya Island, Breivik claimed to be part of a pan-European movement to save Western Civilization from Islam.  Norwegian police have been criticized for underestimating the threat of nationalist violence.

Brevik has been denounced by every major European political party, left, center, right, and even ultra-right. But many of his belief’s — if not his behavior — are more widely held.  Several neo-Nazi (difficult to define) and ultra-nationalist (ditto) movements show signs of attracting more support. According to Sarah Webb writing for Reuters, “As the euro zone shudders, Europe’s populist politicians from the Netherlands to Austria and Finland are exploiting its woes to build up support and even threaten some governments.”

Early this month Demos, the British think-tank, released a new study of “online populism” in Europe.  The study was conducted by reaching out to the Facebook communities associated with fourteen widely recognized – and often self-defined – right-wing political movements. (See brief profiles of each group compiled by The Guardian.)

Based on volunteer answers to a series of questions, Demos found:

• Online supporters are primarily young men: an average of 63 per cent are under 30, and 75 per cent are male.
• Those responding are motivated by positive identification with the party’s values and the desire to protect national and cultural identity.
• Younger supporters are more likely to cite immigration than older supporters as a reason for joining.
• Supporters display low levels of trust in both national and European political institutions compared with national population averages.
• Online supporters are disgruntled democrats: they overwhelmingly believe that voting matters, and disavow violence, but do not believe that politics is an effective way to respond to their concerns.
• A shift by the respondents from online activism to voting is motivated by concerns over immigration, and Islamic extremism.
• The right-wing European respondents are not more inclined to violence than other elements of the general population

Meanwhile in North Georgia (USA), on Wednesday a federal magistrate denied bond to four elderly men accused in a plot to bomb federal buildings and disperse the toxin ricin.  According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Federal authorities, who began infiltrating the group’s meetings in March with the help of an informant, said the men discussed dispersing ricin throughout Atlanta and other major U.S. cities. In Atlanta, the documents said, the plan was to unleash the powdery substance on I-285, I-75 and U.S. 41. They also talked about assassinating state and federal officials, blowing up federal buildings and buying enough explosives to do it, FBI affidavits said. Some of the men said in secretly recorded conversations that they were willing to die for their cause, the affidavits said.

According to court documents filed following their arrest on November 1, one of those charged, Frederick Thomas, age 73, of Cleveland, Georgia told the informant, “There is no way for us, as militiamen, to save this country, to save Georgia, without doing something that’s highly, highly illegal: murder… When it comes time to saving the Constitution, that means some people have got to die.”

These are only a few of several similar stories that made it to my web browser this week.  Coincidences happen.  Three proximate angles do not necessarily share any particular point.  But the proliferation did catch my attention.

I assume readers of HLSWatch are otherwise accessing the extensive news reports on the Secretary of State’s mission to Pakistan.  I was struck by the following small piece by the Associated Press.  It was published on the front-page of Saturday’s edition of DAWN, a Pakistani English-language daily.

–+–

ISLAMABAD, Oct 21: Washington’s troubled relationship with Islamabad has triggered plenty of heartburn for US officials, but rarely side-splitting laughter.

That changed on Friday when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton erupted in amusement during a town hall meeting in Islamabad when a participant described the US as Pakistan’s impossible to please mother-in-law.

“We all know that the whole of Pakistan is facing the brunt of whatever is happening and trying to cooperate with the US, and somehow the US is like a mother-in-law which is just not satisfied with us,” said a woman who identified herself as Shamama and elicited a round of applause from the crowd.

“We are trying to please you, and every time you come and visit us you have a new idea and tell us, ‘You are not doing enough and need to work harder’,” said Shamama, who works for a women’s group in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Laughing at length, Ms Clinton said she could personally relate to the woman’s perspective because she too was a mother-in-law. The secretary of state’s daughter, Chelsea, married an investment banker last year in New York.

“I think that’s a great analogy I have never heard before,” Ms Clinton said. “Now that I am a mother-in-law, I totally understand what you’re saying and hope to do better privately and publicly.”

She said: “I personally believe this relationship is critical, important to us both, and therefore we cannot give it up. Once a mother-in-law always a mother-in-law, but perhaps mothers-in-law can learn new ways also.“

A couple of weeks ago I questioned the meaning of the growing protest movement that started with Occupy Wall Street and its relationship to the economic discontent expressed in other quarters by the Tea Party Movement. This angered at least a few readers who claim to have moved on from reading this forum regularly.

In a follow-up comment, I noted that despite my sympathy for their message, I was less than sanguine about what the rising tide of discontent on display around the country (and now the world for that matter) might portend for the nation as disaffection spreads from those angry with the government to those who work for the government in our public safety services.

Recent media commentary on the Occupy movements has questioned their sustainability in the absence of clear leadership, a coherent direction, and some sort of decisive action beyond sign-waving and chanting. Others have noted that the movement is doing just fine without these things, and, in fact, has articulated a clear and convincing objective: Ending capitalism as we have known it, at least in the United States. This leads some observers, particularly those who see themselves targeted by the movement, to believe the group is anything but benign and probably not as disorganized as it might seem to some.

This makes me wonder, does this make the Occupy protestors economic terrorists? Some might think so, especially if their activities begin having a destabilizing effect on markets or market actors. The Geneva Center for Security Policy defines economic terrorism as, “varied, coordinated and sophisticated, or massive destabilizing actions [undertaken by transnational or non-state actors] to disrupt the economic stability of a state, groups of states, or society.”

Clearly, the Occupy protestors see themselves quite differently. They have been telling us for weeks now that the real terrorists are the bankers, hedge fund managers, and barons of international high finance who have so thoroughly coöpted and corrupted the engine of democracy that it no longer serves the interests of ordinary people.

Occupy protestors and their supporters have noted with disgust that the number of people arrested at rallies now far exceeds the number charged with crimes arising from the financial debacle that has so ruined our economy. The tactics employed to enforce local ordinances against such misdemeanors as curfew, camping in public parks, excessive noise, interfering with traffic, and tramping through flower beds have often involved the application of force to detain or remove protestors. These actions stand in stark contrast to those used in the detention and prosecution of those accused of felony financial crimes.

Despite police actions in quite a few cities, the American protests seem mild compared to the unrest sweeping some European cities as instability accompanying the debt crises in Greece, Italy and other nations continues. As the frequency and intensity of strikes and riots mounts, one can only speculate as to whether the mood here will turn from gloomy and overcast to stormy.

As we watch the drama unfold here and abroad, wondering what will happen next, it’s worth remembering: One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

I go to sleep and wake up earlier than most.   You know: healthy, wealthy and wise.  I’m about one-third there.

Just before I turned out the lights last night I noticed that many Pakistani and British media sources (perhaps echoing each other) were speculating about a major incursion of US forces into Pakistan to take on the Haqqani network.  I could not find any equivalent attention by major media in the US.  Most were focused on the Las Vegas debate.

But I was tired and self-indulgently decided it was a matter of time zones.  I went to sleep.

This morning, US Eastern Time, the most viewed story in The Telegraph (UK) is US Forces Massing on Afghan-Pakistan Border.

The lead story in Dawn, the Pakistani daily, is US Attack in North Waziristan Unlikely.

Likely or not, as of 0500 Eastern, still not much in the US media.   The very brief  AP story running in most US media does not suggest an impending cross-border operation.

Earlier this week NATO confirmed an operation code-named “Knife Edge” focused on the Haqqani network in the border region.

In the two hours since I first posted the Associated Press is reporting,

“Marine Gen. John Allen told The Associated Press that the “high-intensity, sensitive” operation that began in recent days was focused on the Haqqani group, a Pakistan-based militant network with ties to the Taliban and al-Qaida. The U.S. has been urging the Pakistanis to clamp down on the Haqqani fighters who are attacking Afghan and coalition forces and have been blamed for most of the high-profile attacks in the heart of Kabul. Allen would not discuss details of the operation, which began just days ago, saying only: “Every now and again, one of these organizations that has been able to manifest itself on this side of the border is going to have to get some special attention and that’s what’s happening now.”

I have no inside track to suggest which angle may be more accurate.  A major incursion across the border would be a huge step with extraordinary political implications.

But now that I’m awake,  it did seem worth highlighting for you the significant difference in attention being given the speculation… story… non-story… whatever.

I’ll be offline most of the rest of today (0739 Eastern Time).

According to several news outlets, Anwar al-Awlaki, the New Mexico born evangelist of terrorism, was killed in an attack on his convoy traveling through the interior of Yemen.    This news is breaking between 0600 and 0800 (Eastern Time).  More here as more is known or claimed-to-be-known.

According to Al-Jazeera:

Yemen’s defence ministry has reported that Anwar al-Awlaki, a well-known and controversial imam with ties to al-Qaeda, was killed along with four others. A government statement released to the media on Friday said the dual US-Yemeni citizen was hunted down by Yemeni forces, but did not elaborate on the circumstances of his death. Awlaki was wanted by both the US and Yemen.”The terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed along with some of his companions,” said the statement sent by text message to journalists.

Tribal sources told the AFP news agency that Awlaki was killed early on Friday in an air strike that hit two vehicles travelling through an al-Qaeda stronghold in central Yemen. Government officials say he was targeted 8km from the town of Khashef in the province of al-Jawf, just 140km from Sanaa.

According to POLITICO:

Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric and an alleged terror suspect with links to al Qaeda in Yemen, has been killed, a senior administration official confirmed to POLITICO…  The U.S. government has called al-Awlaki a “key leader” of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen. The U.S. has linked al-Awlaki to Nidal Malik Hasan, who is charged with killing 13 people in a shooting at a U.S. Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009, and to a Nigerian student known as the “underwear bomber,” who tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009. Last year, the Obama administration put the U.S.-born al-Awlaki on a CIA “kill or capture” list.

According to The Telegraph:

President Barack Obama authorised the US military to target Awlaki last year, a controversial and legally fraught move in light of his US citizenship. Awlaki had inspired serval audacious attacks in recent years including the 2009 Christmas underwear bomber, an attack in Fort Hood military base by a US army major and the stabbing of Stephen Timms MP.

One tribal chief in the area of the attack said that the plane that carried out the strike was likely to be American, adding that US aircraft had been patrolling the skies over Marib for the past several days.“US planes have been flying overhead for days now,” said the tribal source would requested anonymity. “Then this morning, at about 9:30, what appeared to be a US aircraft fired on the two cars Awlaqi and his fellow operatives are believed to have been travelling in.”

Last week the Washington Post reported:

The Obama administration is assembling a constellation of secret drone bases for counterterrorism operations in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula as part of a newly aggressive campaign to attack al-Qaeda affiliates in Somalia and Yemen… The rapid expansion of the undeclared drone wars is a reflection of the growing alarm with which U.S. officials view the activities of al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Somalia.

The use of drones in such targeted attacks was also a significant element in a recent speech by John Brennan, given attention in a previous Homeland Security Watch post.

Born of Yemeni parents in the United States, Mr. Awlaki has been a charismatic communicator of the Al Qaeda message.  He is (was?) among the most prominent of a new generation of terrorist leaders, with particular  influence among English-speaking converts to Al Qaeda’s cause.  Especially since the death of Osama bin-Laden many considered Awlaki — and the Yemen based Al Qaeda franchise — as the most serious emergent threat.  As noted above, Awlaki has been directly connected to several cases of domestic radicalization in the United States.  He is considered the founder and has been a regular contributor to Inspire, the English-language web-based terrorist magazine.

Awlaki’s death is not necessarily significant to ongoing insurgent operations by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).  But if Nasser al-Wahishi’s killing in late August is ultimately confirmed, losing these two leaders in such a short span of time suggests the intensity of the US effort in Yemen… even in the midst of the current civil unrest.

Writing in The Guardian, Jason Burke offers:

Awlaki’s primary role was that of an intermediary. He communicated the message and the ideology of extremist Islam. That message remains alive even if it has been rejected by the vast majority of Muslims. After a decade of polarising violent conflicts, its survival is now independent of the actions of individuals. The social movement of al-Qaida, the cult of violent extremism, the sub-culture of jihad, has sufficient momentum to continue to be effective. The educated Yemeni-American who himself straddled the cultural gaps between the Middle East and the west and who turned to extremism will now join the ranks of al-Qaida’s martyrs. He is thus likely to be an inspiration long after his death.

In an interesting coincidence, exactly one year ago today Homeland Security Watch posted: Killing a Fellow Citizen: Four frames on the present reality of Anwar al-Awlaki. This was one of several posts regarding Mr. Awlaki toward the end of September and beginning of October. Even while I hope the news of his death is accurate, the issues raised in the posts and comments from a year ago remain relevant.

The Washington Post is periodically updating its lead on Alwaki’s death.  According to the Post a second — unnamed — US citizen was also killed in the attack.

The New York Times is also adding to its coverage as additional information is available.  According to the Times the second individual killed is, “Samir Khan, an American citizen of Pakistani origin and the editor of Inspire, Al Qaeda’s English-language Internet magazine. Mr. Khan proclaimed in the magazine last yeasr that he was “pround (sic) to be a traitor to America.” (I don’t know if the sic is a NYT error or an Inspire error.)

Unless something especially interesting or odd emerges, I will let the mainstream media handle it from here.   Any of the links embedded above will take you to even more news and analysis.

Friday Evening Addition:

During a Friday late morning change-of-office ceremony for the new Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, the President commented on Alwaki’s killing:

The death of al-Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Furthermore, this success is a tribute to our intelligence community, and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces, who have worked closely with the United States over the course of several years.

Awlaki and his organization have been directly responsible for the deaths of many Yemeni citizens. His hateful ideology — and targeting of innocent civilians — has been rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, and people of all faiths. And he has met his demise because the government and the people of Yemen have joined the international community in a common effort against Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula remains a dangerous — though weakened — terrorist organization. And going forward, we will remain vigilant against any threats to the United States, or our allies and partners. But make no mistake: This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world.

Working with Yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americans, and to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity and security.

In the near term, Awlaki’s death is likely to increase interest in Inspire magazine, his online sermons, and other artifacts of his terrorist promotion.  But especially with the apparent demise of Samir Khan as well, there is no one on the Al Qaeda bench as proficient in mixing anger, aspiration, hate, and hope into such deadly temptation.

Earlier today (Saturday) Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri founder of Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI), one of the largest Islamic movements, hosted a rally at Wembley Arena outside London.  According to the Press Association, Dr. Qadri “received a standing ovation from thousands of UK Muslims as he denounced terrorism and called for peace.”  The Pakistan-born scholar said,

In spite of statements and memorandum and condemnation of the terror, the voices of the 99% true, peace-loving Muslims have not been heard, they have been drowned out by the clamour and the noise of extremists. Islam has nothing to do with any act of terrorism. We reject every act of extremism and terrorism unconditionally.

Inviting Muslims and others around the world to join him in making a Declaration of Peace, Dr. Qadri also called for “jihad against extremism and terrorism”.

Late Saturday afternoon US Eastern Time news reports are still sparse, even in the British media.  Maybe more on Sunday morning.  Check back again for links.

–+–

SUNDAY UPDATE:

The BBC reports: The conference launched a campaign to get one million people to sign an online declaration of peace by 2012.

The Associated Press reports:  The event in Wembley arena was led by Mohammad Tahirul Qadri of Pakistan, who gained recognition outside the Muslim world after he published a detailed fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombings last year. “I want to address those who are lost, who have a total misconception of jihad. I want to send them a message — come back to normal life. Whatever you’re doing is totally against Islam,” he told the audience, which included families with young children and students.  (As reported in DAWN, which also ran the AP photograph at the top of the post.)

It is worth noting that neither The Telegraph nor The Guardian (nor any large US media) seem to have — yet — given attention to the rally.   After scanning the British newspapers online front pages I searched for “Qadri”, “MQI”, and even “Wembley” and nothing specific to Saturday’s event popped-up.   Similar sparse results came from a Google news search.  I found the BBC report only because I made a specific search. (The suicide bombing of a Christian church in Indonesia is, at the same time, getting “top of the fold” attention in many English-speaking media.)

Minhaj-ul-Quran International, founded by Dr. Qadri, operates in 90 nations.  The number of followers is difficult to accurately project, but MQI is especially strong in Pakistan where it operates more than 1000 educational institutions with over 120,000 students.  The Wembley event was broadcast to Pakistan and more than a dozen other nations.

The text of the so-called London Declaration for Global Peace and Resistance Against Terrorism is available on the MQI website.

Tonight many Muslims will mark Laylat al-Qadr, the holiest night of the Islamic calendar.

The entire month of Ramadan, which this year began on August 1, aims to cultivate the spiritual virtues of patience, humility, and submission to God. But many of my Muslim friends confess the spiritual purposes of Ramadan can be neglected in the social swirl and wonderful food of the sundown to nearly sunrise breaking-of-the-fast.   “Sort of like Christmas,” a friend suggests.

Laylat al-Qadr has preserved its spiritual character. “More like Good Friday,” the same Muslim friend explains.

This is a night of wisdom or power or destiny  – translation from the Arabic loses a great deal — commemorating the revelation of the Quran to the Prophet.  At sundown many Muslims will eat three dates, but otherwise avoid feasting and spend hours in prayer seeking forgiveness, grace, and salvation.   Self-reflection, self-criticism, and dependence on God are all emphasized.

Tonight’s prayers will be especially fervent in Tripoli, don’t you think?

In Tunis and Cairo I imagine millions praying with hope for the year ahead.  In Damascus, Aleppo and across Syria, the supplications may focus more on personal protection.  And in Yemen? Iraq? Saudi Arabia?  In Muslim homes across the United States?

The current National Strategy for Counterterrorism identifies Al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents as the “preeminent security threat to the United States.”   The Strategy continues, “To rally individuals and groups to its cause, al-Qa‘ida preys on local grievances and propagates a self-serving historical and political account. It draws on a distorted interpretation of Islam to justify the murder of Muslim and non-Muslim innocents.  Countering this ideology—which has been rejected repeatedly and unequivocally by people of all faiths around the world—is an essential element of our strategy.”

Better than anything the United States government could orchestrate, the cascade of change across the Arab world and well-beyond rejects the mythology of victimization that has been at the core of Al-Qa’ida’s claims.  The courage of Libyan rebels and the self-sacrifice of Syrian protesters has transformed the strategic context in which both the United States and Al-Qa’ida engage the Arab world and the Ummah Wahida as a whole.

During the month of Ramadan believers are encouraged to re-read the entire Quran.  Tonight they should be finished or nearly finished and give particular attention to the meaning and purpose of their lives in the context of the Quran.

The prayers offered tonight will also reflect the radically changed political context of the last seven months.

The Quran is a book of  Arabic poetry.  The King James Bible is great English literature. But what if Shakespeare had been its single translator and most of us could recall a thousand verses by heart? Then an English-speaking non-Muslim might have a clue regarding the power of the Quran and poetry in Arab life.

The echoes of victimization will never disappear.  To blame another for our own failures is a human tendency across every sect and culture I know.  Al-Qa’ida will continue its recruiting.  Tyrants — petty and large — will still try to exploit fear and failure.

But the Quran is an uncomfortable read for anyone inclined to victimization or self-justification. The envious echoes are quieting, drowned out by the shouts from Tahrir Square, Martyrs (née Green) Square, and the deadly struggle repeated each Friday outside mosques across Syria.

If your peers — even your sons and daughters — have joined together to topple tyrants, claim their dignity, and insist on having a say in the future, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue in favor of suicide vests, market bombings, and fantasies of restoring a caliphate long gone.  There are other clearly more productive paths.

We are told the first words of the Quran as heard by the Prophet were (in Arabic of course):

Read and identify with the Lord who creates

Who created humans from a clot of blood

Read of your Lord: generous, gracious and bountiful

Who imparts knowledge by the pen

Teaching humanity that which it did not know.

(Quran 96:1-5)

Creating, reading, and learning what we do not know, this is the path of faith.  The verb for “read” can also be translated as proclaim.  The reader of the Quran is called to share the knowledge of  a generous, gracious and bountiful God.

The most common prayer offered during Layat al-Qadr is to repeat again and again, “O Allah! You are forgiving, and you love forgiveness. So forgive me.”  Forgive me for whenever I have acted contrary to your generous, gracious, and bountiful identity.

Earlier this month Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) released the sixth edition of Inspire magazine, a colorful web publication written in English designed to recruit Al Qaeda volunteers.  I got my copy last weekend.   The link immediately above takes you to the Public Intelligence website’s slightly censored copy.

This is a memorial issue, considerably more somber than previous versions, marking the death of Osama bin-Laden.  The cover is above.  Notice the headline: Sadness, Contentment and Aspiration.  Six others killed in action are also profiled.

I have a hypothesis about bin-Laden:  What I have seen and heard suggests he was — as much as possible given our intense search — an ego maniacal micro-manager.  This would be consistent with the characteristics of many other confirmed sources of evil.

I speculate bin-Laden was so consumed to out-do the 9/11 attacks that he became an impediment to many other less spectacular plans.  Bin-Laden no longer had sufficient command-and-control to effectively launch an attack that matched his ambitions, but he had enough authority to veto other more likely-to-succeed efforts. Bin-Laden was working hard to stay involved and — paradoxically — his ego was a big help to our counter-terrorism effort.

I don’t have enough evidence to prove or disprove this hypothesis.  But Inspire encourages my hypothesis.  In the same issue marking the death of the al-Qaeda founder and — very briefly — affirming Ayman al-Zawahiri as the new head of al-Qaeda, there is a long article on individual jihad by Abu Mu’sab al-Suri. Also known as Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, this long-time strategist of terrorist violence has been a sophisticated critic of the 9/11 attacks and the more centralized strategic approach of bin-Laden.

Following are two paragraphs from al-Suri’s piece in this month’s Inspire magazine.  Al-Suri is answering, why is individual jihad necessary? (Compare to what Marc Sageman has called leaderless jihad.)

1. The failure of the operational methods of the secret, hierarchical organizations, in light of the international security campaign and the international and regional [counter-terrorism] co-ordination, which we have referred to above. Furthermore, the need for an operational method, which makes it impossible for those security agencies to abort the Resistance cells by arresting [some of] their members, based on [information extracted through] torture and interrogation [of other members].

2. Inability of the secret organizations to incorporate all of the Islamic ummah’s youth who want to perform the duty of jihad and Resistance by contributing with some kind of activity, without being required to commit themselves to membership responsibilities of a centralized organization.

The king is dead (and he was, by the way, wrong). Long live the (kingless) Resistance!  Which could result in an increasing scope and frequency of deadly — but less than apocalyptic — attacks.

I received Inspire on the same weekend that the final Harry Potter movie was opening. The temptation to analogy is too great.

Ten years ago, just weeks after 9/11, still hurting and much more innocent than now, I took my tween children to see the first Harry Potter movie. In subsequent years any pretense to innocence was lost, hurt multiplied many times, and evil became increasingly explicit. The personification of evil was finally surprised and killed. That ended the decade-long fictional tale. The death of bin-Laden does not end the real world’s narrative nor the emergent threat.

At the core of the Harry Potter series — and in the narrative of terrorist martyrs — is the power of self-sacrifice. The Inspire magazine profile of six lesser known martyrs invokes this power. For love of God, neighbor, and family Muslim youth are called to self-sacrifice.

But there is a difference between these visions of self-sacrifice, potentially a crucial difference. From near the end of the current movie:

Harry Potter: “… But before you try and kill me, I’d advise you to think about what you’ve done…. Think, and try for some remorse….”
Voldemort: “What is this?”
Harry Potter: “It’s your one last chance, it’s all you’ve got left…. I’ve seen what you’ll be otherwise…. Be a man…. try…. Try for some remorse….”

Innocence cannot be retrieved. Our own self-sacrifice is still needed.  Our adversary also depends on and glorifies self-sacrifice. Each of us claim to sacrifice ourselves — or too often others — for a cause beyond ourselves.

But with luck or faith or courage we may be able to preserve our sense of remorse.  In remorse we recognize our own pride and failure.  In remorse we grieve, even over the death of our enemy. In remorse we mourn that violence is sometimes the tool of love.  By embracing such remorse and learning from it, we may transcend remorse and even be redeemed by it.

–+–

The finished man among his enemies? -
How in the name of Heaven can he escape
That defiling and disfigured shape
The mirror of malicious eyes
Casts upon his eyes until at last
He thinks that shape must be his shape?
And what’s the good of an escape
If honour find him in the wintry blast?

I am content to live it all again
And yet again, if it be life to pitch
Into the frog-spawn of a blind man’s ditch,
A blind man battering blind men…

I am content to follow to its source
Every event in action or in thought;
Measure the lot; forgive myself the lot!
When such as I cast out remorse
So great a sweetness flows into the breast
We must laugh and we must sing,
We are blest by everything,
Everything we look upon is blest.

W.B. Yeats, The Winding Stair

SUNDAY UPDATE: According to the BBC – and to the group’s Twitterfeed — LulzSec has disbanded.  The BBC indicates no reason for disbanding has been offered.  To the contrary, I found the LulzSec explanation reasonably clear… and not inconsistent with considerations set out below.

Original post from early Friday morning:

This week three very different men were arrested in three very different places suspected of three very different crimes.

Is it just me or do the three share something important?

Tuesday the Pakistani military confirmed the detention of Brigadier Ali Khan (top left).  The soon-to-retire head of regulations at Army General Headquarters is suspected of using his military connections to support Hizb ut-Tahrir, a pan-Islamist political and religious movement.

Also on Tuesday — half a world away — the head of La Familia cartel was captured.  According to Excelsior, Jose de Jesus Mendez Vargas (middle), age 37, “was arrested in Aguascalientes by elements of the Federal Police, without fighting or deaths reported from the action and was later transferred to the facilities of the SIEDO in Mexico City.” (SIEDO or Subprocuraduría de Investigación Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada or Assistant Attorney General’s Office for Special Investigations.)  Additional coverage is available in English from the Houston Chronicle.

According to The Guardian, “A British teenager has been charged with five offences of computer hacking. Ryan Cleary, 19 (right at age 13), was charged with offences, including a cyber attack on Monday on Britain’s Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca). Cleary was arrested on Monday evening at his family’s home in Wickford, Essex. His arrest was linked to a series of cyber attacks by a group called LulzSec, which investigators believe had targeted websites including ones belonging to the US government and the electronics giant Sony.”

–+–

We can be more confident of the criminal complicity of Jose de Jesus Mendez Vargas, aka El Chango or The Monkey, than of the other two. La Familia has been one of the principal Mexican drug cartels since at least 2006.  But it was founded in the 1980s as a quasi-religious organization seeking to protect and purify Michoacán, an impoverished region — and Mexican state — west of Mexico City.  El Chango was one of a handful of founders.  In the broadest terms the La Familia narrative has a striking resemblance to the origins of the Afghan Taliban. Religiously inspired reform, resulted in power and was followed by the abuse of power. By the 1990s the group was allied with the Gulf Cartel, in recent years it has established an independent power base.  Even in the murderous context of the Mexican cartels La Familia is known as especially violent.  Jesus Mendez Vargas has defended the use of violence as a form of “divine justice.”

Brigadier Khan has not yet been charged, much less convicted.  According to the Daily Times (Pakistan), “There are contradictory reports that the detained brigadier had been targeted due to his concerted campaign to promote self-reliance and do away with the need for US assistance. The last straw is said to be his outspoken criticism of the US raid in Abbottabad after which he was arrested.”

There is plenty of smoke suggesting burning embers of religious radicalism in the Pakistani military. The group Brigadier Khan is accused of assisting is banned in Pakistan and other majority Muslim nations, but is not on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.  According to the group’s English language website, “Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party whose ideology is Islam. Its objective is to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing an Islamic State that executes the systems of Islam and carries its call to the world.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir opposes US-Pakistan cooperation. While the Brigadier’s attitudes and actions are currently beyond knowing, the leadership of  Hizb ut-Tahrir is clear in it’s criticism of the United States and the current Pakistani political and military elite:

Even though Pakistan is a strong Muslim country, with an army bigger than America’s, and braver due to the Muslims’ love of Shahadah, you have cheated the people of their right to security by siding with the enemy. Due to your alliance with the open enemies of the Muslims, America’s presence in the region has led to unprecedented insecurity, with America’s private military organizations and intelligence orchestrating a campaign of assassinations and bombings, as they did in Iraq. You added to the harm upon the Muslims, by sending the Muslim soldiers to the tribal areas to fight on behalf of America, just like Musharraf before you. Until now 30,452 people have been killed and injured since 9/11 in America’s war of fitna. Some 2,273 Pakistani soldiers including 78 officers, two Major Generals and five brigadiers besides others, have lost their lives while 6,512 sustained injuries, even though the Western crusaders have only sacrificed 1,582 of their own troops! You are cheating the Muslims of their strength when America is at its weakest, with its allies abandoning it and its economy crippled and collapsing, when there is ample opportunity to allow America’s crusade to collapse rather than supporting it with the blood of Muslims.

To in any way compare LulzSec to La Familia and Hizb ut-Tahrir is, perhaps, to invite an apocalyptic hacker attack on HLSWatch. So… if we disappear, thanks for the memories.

The teenager arrested on Tuesday has been charged on five counts, mostly involving denial-of-service attacks.  His involvement with the LulzSec collaborative of hackers has not been specified.  But some link was confirmed by LulzSec via its Twitterfeed, “Clearly the UK police are so desperate to catch us that they’ve gone and arrested someone who is, at best, mildly associated with us.”

LulzSec has claimed responsibility for a series of successful attacks on the CIA, Sony, PBS, and others around the world. Wednesday they brought down the President of Brazil’s website. Earlier today Lulzsec hacked the Arizona Department of Public Safety data repository and released a broad array of information. They describe themselves as, “a team of entertainment and security experts that specialise in the production of malicious comedic cybermaterials.”  The attack on Sony’s PlayStation network left that system offline for a month.  Not much laughing by the company or its roughly 77 million customers or its depressed shareholders.

The Arizona attack has been explained as a protest against state laws perceived as unjust toward immigrants. The hackers’ motivations are not always clear. On June 17 LulzSec outlined its purposes in a post at Pastebin.  Self-entertainment is big; so is exposing the vulnerability we all share online.  They want to protect us… and “spread fun, fun, fun.”

–+–

I want to be a hero. I want to protect the vulnerable and punish the unjust.

Is this what motivated Ali Khan to follow his father into the military? The Non-Com’s son committed his life to the Army and advanced to brigadier.  Ali’s wife, Anjum, claims, “He loves the Pakistani army more than his life, and he can’t even think of betraying the institution.” His sons are junior officers, proud parts of — until recently? — the only reasonably functioning element of Pakistani society. Who is to blame for the dysfunction of Pakistan, including attacks on the military itself? What and who is the source of this shame? What enemy can the brave Brigadier bring to justice?

Jose de Jesus Mendez Vargas, seeing family and friends disappear into the prison of poverty and madness of drug addiction, was motivated by love of neighbor. According to a Drug Enforcement Administration backgrounder La Familia, “has a strong religious background. It purportedly originated to protect locals from the violence of drug cartels. Now, La Familia Michoacana uses drug proceeds to fuel their agenda that encompasses a Robin Hood-type mentality – steal from the rich and give to the poor. They believe they are doing God’s work, and pass out bibles and money to the poor. La Familia Michoacana also gives money to schools and local officials.” He only decapitated predators (and threw their heads onto dance floors).

According to the Daily Mail the young Mr. Cleary is a deeply troubled man seldom leaving his bedroom, fearful, and suicidal. Yet when asked what he did all day online, he reportedly replied, “God’s work.”

In November 2009 the Times of London published an indepth profile of Goldman Sachs. It included an interview with the unlikely-to-be-arrested CEO of the firm, Lloyd Blankfein. Even while skid-marks from the crash of capitalism were still smoking, Mr. Blankfein was confident of his purpose.

Is it possible to make too much money? “Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” Blankfein shoots back. “I don’t want people in this firm to think that they have accomplished as much for themselves as they can and go on vacation. As the guardian of the interests of the shareholders and, by the way, for the purposes of society, I’d like them to continue to do what they are doing. I don’t want to put a cap on their ambition. It’s hard for me to argue for a cap on their compensation.” So, it’s business as usual, then, regardless of whether it makes most people howl at the moon with rage? Goldman Sachs, this pillar of the free market, breeder of super-citizens, object of envy and awe will go on raking it in, getting richer than God? An impish grin spreads across Blankfein’s face. Call him a fat cat who mocks the public. Call him wicked. Call him what you will. He is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work.”

–+–

I should probably leave it there. The case is sufficiently made for anyone who has read this far and cares to consider the case.  But I will be tediously explicit: My ability to mistake my own desires as God’s intention is significant.  I am not alone.

So, some will say, we have further proof for the dangers of divine delusion.  Especially as a believer I agree that danger and delusion are involved.

The issue is how to engage the threat.  I don’t perceive secular empiricism as a promising near-term therapeutic regime. Too many most in need of the therapy are evidently immune to it’s ministrations.  Might we extract a vaccine from the virus itself?

In his 1927 book, “Does Civilization Need Religion”, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:

Religion intensifies selfishness when it adds sanctity to a respectable selfish life and creates a self-respect which is impervious to emotions of contrition. If the religious ideal is to gain any potency in modern life it must be able to convict men of sin and inspire them to a conversion. But the sins of which they need most to be convicted are those which are covert in the social and economic relations which custom has hallowed; and the conversion of life which is most needed is that which will express itself in terms of the economic and political relationships in which men live…

Religion is therefore under the necessity of developing the critical faculty even while it maintains its naivete and reverence. The necessity of cooperation between the naturally incompatible factors of reason and imagination,of intelligence and moral dynamic, is really the crux of the religious and moral problem in modern civilization. The complexity of modern life demands that moral purpose be astutely guided; but moral purpose itself is rooted in ultra-rational sanctions and may be destroyed by the same intelligence which is needed to direct it. Both humility and love,the highest religious virtues, are ultra-rational; yet they cannot be achieved in an intricate social life without a discriminating intelligence which knows how to uncover covert sins and to discover potential virtues. The incidental limitations which every historic type of religion reveals can be dealt with only if the religious devotee can be persuaded to regard the values of his religion critically…”

Religiously-inspired terrorism — or mayhem or pride — is usually the signal of an immature and ill-considered religiosity.  The most effective solution may be in cultivating a more discriminating and self-critical engagement with the religious domain.

In other words, love others and approach God with deep humility.

A few minutes ago (6:16 AM Eastern Time) the BBC reported:

President Ali Abdullah Saleh has left Yemen a day after being injured when his presidential compound in Sanaa came under attack, reports say.

Sources in the government told the BBC that he had been flown to Saudi Arabia for treatment, but it is not clear whether he has gone there for good.

The prime minister and four other senior officials were also flown out.

The president has not appeared in public since Friday, but he broadcast an audio message saying he was well.

I am not yet seeing confirmation from other sources.  About an hour ago Al Jazeera, apparently depending on Reuters, reported:

Several top Yemeni officials injured in an attack on the presidential palace on Friday have been flown to neighbouring Saudi Arabia for treatment, a medical source said on Saturday.

The speakers of both houses of parliament, the deputy prime minister and other officials were evacuated, the source said without offering details on the conditions of the officials.

The most recent report from the Associated Press does not mention Saleh’s departure and is still being treated as breaking news by several European media. The AP says:

Five top members of the government were sent to Saudi Arabia for treatment of wounds they suffered in a rebel rocket attack on the presidential palace, the official government news agency reported Saturday. President Ali Abdullah Saleh was slightly injured.

At 6:43 Eastern Time the BBC is reporting that other Yemeni government officials are denying the President has left the country. I will go to breakfast and give you an update after some oatmeal.

About 90 minutes after the initial BBC report, there seems to be growing confidence that President Saleh has NOT left Sanaa and, in the words of a Saudi official, “has no intention of leaving.” At around 7:00 AM Eastern Time the Telegraph is flatly reporting, “President Ali Abdullah Saleh suffered head injuries but was not among those sent to Saudi Arabia.”

SATURDAY AFTERNOON UPDATE: Twelve hours on from the initial posts above, Al Jazeera is reporting, Saleh ‘to seek medical care in Saudi Arabia’. Reuters, AP,  The Telegraph and other outlets all have similar stories.  As of 4:00 PM Eastern Time every credible report I am finding is still using the future tense for the trip to Saudi Arabia (and the BBC is being especially careful).

Several reports indicate that Friday’s attack on Saleh and others left the Yemeni President with shrapnel near his heart.

At 4:35 PM Eastern Time Reuters is reporting, “Saudi Arabia brokered a fresh truce in Yemen on Saturday and a Riyadh government source said President Ali Abdullah Saleh was expected to leave the country within hours for medical treatment. ‘Saleh is expected to come to Saudi Arabia tonight for treatment for neck and chest wounds,’ the source in Riyadh, who asked not to be named, told Reuters.” At roughly the same time as the Reuters report, the online New York Times headlined its lead story as “Yemeni Leader Agrees to Go to Saudi Arabia for Treatment.”

SATURDAY EVENING UPDATE: As of 8:00 PM several media sources are now reporting President Saleh is in Riyadh. See Al Jazeera, BBC, and New York Times.  Power has been transferred to the Yemeni Vice President.

For more context please see a late Friday report by Deutsche Welle: Yemeni rivals accuse each other of profiting from al Qaeda threat. Additional background is available from the Council on Foreign Relations.

As far as I know, John Brennan is still in the region. He was in Saudi Arabia and UAE on Thursday and Friday.

I’ve been in meetings all day, so perhaps the following is already well-known.  But if not, it strikes me as especially important.  For several months the al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen has been identified as the source of the single most significant asymmetrical threat to the United States, primarily due to its effectiveness at recruiting in the United States.  This report is reprinted from The Guardian, more of the story is available by selecting the link.  It was posted at 7:42 PM London time.  I am posting at 5:26 PM Eastern time.

–+–

The US is stepping up efforts to persuade Yemen‘s veteran president to step down before escalating fighting between the government and tribal rebels develops into fully-fledged civil war.

Diplomats said that Washington was now pressing hard to convince Ali Abdullah Saleh to reconsider his rejection of a peace plan brokered by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states alarmed by the prospect of growing instability in the region.

John Brennan, Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser, held talks in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, where the government has strong ties with Yemeni tribes but has been slow to act. It has been accused of sending mixed signals to Saleh, who is seen as desperate to cling on to power after 32 years.

Brennan has previously worked closely with Saleh on fighting al-Qaida – a key US and western concern. MORE.

–+–

Certainly the situation in Yemen seems to moving from bad to worse.  Ishaan Tharoor, reporting this afternoon for Time, writes, “In Yemen, over three decades of authoritarianism are unraveling in a bloody maelstrom. The regime of President Ali Abdullah Saleh has brutally staved off protests against its rule, fueled by frustrations over a lack of political freedoms in the country and the perceived graft of Saleh’s family and cronies. At least 350 people have died in violence since the upheaval commenced early this year.” MORE

Al Jazeera is blogging live in English from Sanaa with reports from other locations in Yemen.  A Yemeni physician, Dr. Hamza Alshargabi, is also blogging occasionally in English at LateNightSurgery.

I expect Chairman King well understands the stakes.  He is an experienced, wily, and — at times — even a wise man.

There is great value in the authentic question — no matter how awkward — because an authentic question is open to new understanding.

The method of Socrates had no script.  It was a high wire act. The wisest of all could still stumble over preconceived notions, private prejudices, and Plato’s own purposes imposed post-hoc.

An authentic question need not be innocent, but it does require a spacious susceptibility to honest answers and (especially) to being surprised.

Each of us who listened today will likely judge Chairman King, the committee’s other members, and each witness in light of our own intent, our own innocence, our own authenticity… or in the dimness and darkness thereof.

I have lost my taste for the politics of these events.  Many others are offering their thoughts on that (linked below).

See if you share my sense of hearing an interesting answer to the committee’s questions (and comments) in these words written seventy years ago:

Peter King defiant at tense Muslim hearing (Politico, news)

Witnesses at King hearing say US “failing” to confront radical Islam (FoxNews)

Islam show-trial opens in US Congress (Telegraph, news)

House hearing worries US Muslims (Al Jazerra, news)

Congressman defends panel on US Muslim community amid national uproar (Haaretz, news)

Republicans and Democrats disagree on Muslim hearings (Gallup, survey results)

Friday morning update:

The homegrown terror hearings (Wall Street Journal, opinion)

King: Next hearing is on Muslims in prison (AP, news)

Tears, fears at hearing on Muslims (The Hill, news)

Local Muslims slam hearings as unfair, unbalanced (Detroit Free Press, news)

Cries of McCarthyism over US Muslim hearing (Independent, news)

Spectre of McCarthy hangs over hearing into radicalization of American Muslims (The Australian, news)

Muslim hearings in US Congress dismissed as equivalent of reality TV (The Guardian, news)

The amazing events in Egypt this past week  have, for the most part, been a feel good story. While the future of that country is unclear and will remain so for quite a while, that has not prevented various pundits, experts, talking heads, and journalists from stoking fears of an ascendant Muslim Brotherhood.

Since the vast majority of the commentary has been negative and not exactly nuanced, I thought it might be helpful to point out a few pieces that could inspire if not optimism at least such not dire pessimism.

The first comes from the New York Times that examines the past, present, and future prospects of the Brotherhood.  It also gives voice to the opinions of the mostly secular protesters who took to the streets:

The Muslim Brotherhood, a mainstream group that stands as the most venerable of the Arab world’s Islamic movements, is of course also a contender to lead a new Egypt. It has long been the most organized and credible opposition to Mr. Mubarak. But is also must prepare to enter the fray of an emerging democratic system, testing its staying power in a system ruled by elections and the law.

“This is not yesterday’s Egypt,” declared Amal Borham, a protester in Tahrir Square.

“It is their right to participate as much as it is mine, as much as it is anyone else’s in this country,” added Ms. Borham, who considers herself secular. “They are part of this society, and they have been made to stay in the shadows for a very long time.”

“The system made them work in the dark and that made them look bigger than they are,” said Ahmed Gowhary, a secular organizer of the protests. “Now it will be a real chance for them to show that they are more Egyptian than they have appeared.”

“Their real power,” he added, “will show.”

The reporter also describes the differences between the events in Iran and Egypt:

Unlike the Shiite Muslim clergy in Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood is neither led by clerics nor based on a clerical organization. In many ways, it represents a lay middle class. The very dynamics are different, too: cassette tapes of Ayatollah Khomeini’s speeches helped drive Iran’s revolution, whose zealots sought to export it. The Internet helped propel the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, the medium’s own diffusion helping carry it from the backwater town of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia to Tahrir Square in Cairo.

Perhaps most importantly, the revolutions occurred a generation apart, a note echoed in the Brotherhood stronghold of Munira, along streets of graceful balustrades of the colonial era and the utilitarian architecture of Mr. Nasser and his successors.

“The people are aware this time,” said Essam Salem, a 50-year-old resident there. “They’re not going to let them seize power. People aren’t going to be deceived again. This is a popular revolution, a revolution of the youth, not an Islamic revolution.”

A scholar provides a dose of reality in regards to the Brotherhood’s ability to deliver results:

“The ability to present a mainstream national reform agenda and mobilize and galvanize Egyptians around this agenda, this is something the Muslim Brotherhood has failed to do,” said Emad Shaheen, a professor at the University of Notre Dame. “The youth have achieved in 18 days what the Brotherhood failed to achieve in 80 years.”

In a BCSIA Power & Policy blog post, “Religious actors can be democratizers,” Harvard professor Monica Toft provides additional (generally) optimistic analysis:

The evidence is mixed, but on balance I predict the MB will be a force for democratic change. What is my evidence? I have two sorts. The first regards the MB itself and the second is the role of religious actors in politics more generally.

Even were the MB to become more integral of the political process in Egypt, the numbers indicate that its influence is already quite limited; and although the MB continues to include extremist, more fundamentalist elements (however defined), these represent a small fraction within the organization itself, and an even smaller fraction of Egyptian society.

Time will tell whether the MB continues to adopt a representative and more democratic orientation. But, if the history of democratization and the trends over the last four decades are any guide, the chances are that it will represent the interests of Egyptian society more broadly. In other words, the MB is unlikely to dominate Egyptian politics moving forward, but even if it does play a major role, that role is likely to be more democratic and constructive than many who abjure religious political groups fear.

Both pieces are well worth reading in full.

That is how Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, characterized the threat of Islamic fundamentalist-connected terrorism to Ranking Minority Member Bennie Thompson in a letter.  The full quote:

While there have been extremist groups and random acts of political violence throughout our history, the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 and the ongoing threat to our nation from Islamic jihad were uniquely diabolical and threatening to America’s security, both overseas and in our homeland.

King’s letter was a response to Thompson’s request to expand the subject of an upcoming hearing on radicalization within the Muslim-American community to a broader consideration of domestic extremism in general.  In defending his narrow focus, King goes on to compare the impacts of terrorism of different ideological stripes:

In short, the homeland has become a major front in the war with Islamic terrorism and it is our responsibility to fully examine this significant change in al Qaeda tactics and strategy. To include other groups such as neo-Nazis and extreme environmentalists in this hearing would be extraneous and diffuse its efficacy. It would also send the false message that our Committee believes there is any threat equivalency between these disparate groups and Islamist terrorism.

This seems a little short sighted to me as I think back to 1995:

It is just my opinion, but the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City seems pretty diabolical to me.  Homeland security should continue to be concerned about the present and evolving threat presented by Al Qaeda and like-minded groups.  However, too narrow of a focus will leave us vulnerable to a range of risks we choose to ignore or do not even notice exist.

I do not question the efficacy of hearings about radicalization in the U.S. Muslim community, but the reported tone of these hearings and the accusations that unidentified members of the law enforcement community have complained to King that they are not receiving cooperation from Muslim-Americans is troubling.  Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca seems to share these concerns, as reported by Politico’s Ben Smith:

Los Angeles County sheriff Lee Baca said Monday that there is nothing to support Rep. Peter King’s (R-N.Y.) view that American Muslims are being uncooperative with law enforcement.

“If he has evidence of non-cooperation, he should bring it forward,” said Baca at a forum held today by Muslim-American groups in advance of King’s hearings on radicalization in the Muslim community. “We have as much cooperation as we are capable of acquiring through public trust relationships.”

“I sit on the Major City chiefs association as one of three chairs,” said Baca. “I also sit on the Major County Sheriff’s Association and I’m on the national board of directors of the international association for the sheriffs departments. Here’s the thing: I don’t know what Mr. King is hearing or who he’s hearing it from.”

Community engagement across the entire spectrum of homeland security-related activities is required to build resilience (however one defines the concept).  Alienating a specific group due to unfounded fears seems not a particularly forward thinking strategy.  In the process of carrying out important and necessary investigations, I hope that proper balance can be found for current and future issues.

Earlier today, Saturday, at the Munich Security Conference UK Prime Minister David Cameron gave considerable attention to terrorism and radicalization.  Below are his prepared remarks in full.  The bold bits and hyperlinks are my contribution.   I do not agree with all the Prime Minister offers.  I do perceive he is speaking with helpful clarity regarding a crucial issue.

One pedantic note: the “state multiculturalism” referenced by the Prime Minister is a particularly European policy prescription.  There are echoes of it in some parts of the United States, but usually quite faint.  The American experience with immigration and national enculturation has been quite different than that in Europe, especially over the last generation.  Further, there is in the PM’s remarks a bias toward the centrality-of-the-state that is accurate in the European context and does not quite match the North American experience.

German Chancellor Merkel no doubt recognized — and appreciated — the solidarity Mr. Cameron demonstrated with similar remarks and policies undertaken by her government.  (Read more from a December post at HLSWatch)

–+–

Today, I want to focus my remarks on terrorism.

But first, let me address one point.

Some have suggested that by holding a Strategic Defence and Security Review, Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world.

This is the complete reversal of the truth.

Yes, we are dealing with the deficit, but we are also making sure our defences are strong.

Britain will continue to meet the NATO two per cent target for defence spending.

We still have the fourth largest military budget in the world.

And at the same time, we are putting that money to better use, focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army.

That’s not retreat, it’s hard headed. Every decision we take has three aims firmly in mind.

First, to support our continuing NATO mission in Afghanistan.

Second, to reinforce our actual military capability.

As Chancellor Merkel’s government is showing here in Germany what matters is not bureaucracy – which frankly Europe needs a lot less of – but the political will to build the military capability we need, as nations and allies, to deliver in the field.

And third, to make sure Britain is protected from the new and various threats it faces.

That’s why we’re investing in a national cyber-security programme and sharpening our readiness to act on counter-proliferation.

The biggest threat to our security comes from terrorist attacks – some of which are sadly carried out by our own citizens.

It’s important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group.

The UK still faces threats from dissident republicans.

Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and Italy.

And of course, yourselves in Germany were long-scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction.

Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse and warped interpretation of Islam and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens.

Last week at Davos, I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to recover its economic dynamism.

And today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally stark.

We won’t defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take outside our borders.

Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries.

Root of the problem

Of course, that means strengthening the security aspects of our response – on tracing plots and stopping them, counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering.

But this is just part of the answer. We have to get to the root of the problem.

We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie – and that is the existence of an ideology, ‘Islamist extremism’.

And we should be equally clear what we mean by this term, distinguishing it from Islam.

Islam is a religion, observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology, supported by a minority.

At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of sharia.

Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world-view including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values.

It’s vital we make this distinction between the religion and the political ideology.

Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion.

So they talk about ‘moderate’ Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is wrong.

Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist.

We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

Muddled thinking

This highlights a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat we face: there is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue.

On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism and just say:

Islam and the West are in irreconcilable. This is a clash of civilisations.

So it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion – whether that’s through the forced repatriation favoured by some fascists or the banning of new mosques as suggested in some parts of Europe.

These people fuel Islamaphobia. And I completely reject their argument.

If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo.

Hundreds of thousands people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem.  Islam, emphatically, is not.

Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to confront the former.

On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction.

They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances and arguing if only governments addressed them, this terrorism would stop.

So they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say: get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end.

But this ignores that fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK have been graduates, and often middle class.

They point to the grievances about Western foreign policy and say: stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.

But there are many people – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – who are angry about western foreign policy and don’t resort to acts of terrorism.

They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East and say: stop propping them up and creating the conditions for extremism to flourish.

But this raises the question: if a lack of democracy is the problem, why are there extremists in free and open societies?

Now, I am not saying these issues aren’t important.

Yes, we must tackle poverty.

Yes, we must resolve sources of tension – not least in Palestine.

And yes, we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the Middle East.

On Egypt, our position is clear: we want to see the transition to a more broadly based government with the proper building blocks of a free and democratic society.

I simply don’t accept that there’s a dead-end choice between a security state and Islamist resistance.

But let’s not fool ourselves, these are just contributory factors. Even if we sorted out all these problems, there would still be this terrorism.

Identity and radicalisation

The root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology.

And I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity.

What I’m about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all.

In the UK, some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practised at home by their parents whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries.

But they also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity.

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. (Note by Palin: See 2009 critique by Baroness Warsi of “state multiculturalism.”)

We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.

We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.

So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them.

But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.

The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone they don’t want to is a case in point.

This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared.

All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless.

And the search for something to belong to and believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology.

For sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight.

What we see is a process of radicalisation.

Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated.

In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere.

In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion.

All these interactions engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply.

You might say: as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what’s the problem with all this?

I’ll tell you why.

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’ and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.

And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past.

And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.

So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.

And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity, open to everyone.

Let me briefly take each in turn.

Tackle all forms of extremism

First, confronting and undermining his ideology.

Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed.

For governments, there are obvious ways we can do that.

We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries.

We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism – against people at home and abroad.

Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are certainly, in some cases, part of the problem.

We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with.

Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism.

As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement.

So let’s properly judge these organisations:

Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths?

Do they believe in equality of all before the law?

Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government?

Do they encourage integration or separatism?

These are the sorts of questions we need to ask.

Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations.

No public money. No sharing of platforms with Ministers at home.

At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly funded institutions – like universities and prisons.

Some say: this is incompatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry.

I say: would you take the same view if right-wing extremists were recruiting on campuses?

Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believe Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in prison?

And to those who say these non-violent extremists are helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.

Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to lure young white men away from fascist terrorism?

But, at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are –completely unjustifiable.

We need to argue that terrorism is wrong – in all circumstances.

We need to argue that their prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world are rubbish.

Governments cannot do this alone.

The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam so these arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam.

So let’s give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the vast often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview.

Let’s engage groups that share our aspirations.

Stronger citizenship

Second, we must build stronger societies and identities at home.

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.

A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.

It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more.

It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.

To belong here is to believe in these things.

Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.

There are practical things we can do as well.

That includes making sure immigrants speak the language of their new home.

And ensuring that people are educated in elements of a common culture and curriculum.

Back home, we are introducing National Citizen Service – a two-month programme for sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together.

I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power, away from the state and to people.

That way common purpose can be formed, as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods.

It will also help build stronger pride in local identity so people feel free to say yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too.

It’s that identity – that feeling of belonging in our countries that is the key to achieving true cohesion.

Conclusion

Let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us.

It can’t be ignored or contained.

We need to confront it with confidence.

Confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many minds at their root.

And confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries.

None of this will be easy. We need stamina, patience and endurance. And it won’t happen at all if we act alone.

This ideology crosses continents – we are all in this together.

At stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life.

That’s why this is a challenge we cannot avoid – and one we must meet.

(This is the final post in a series.  Links to prior posts are available below.)

Many Americans seem to view Muslims with a disdain similar to that with which the Jews of Jesus’ day viewed Samaritans. Like the Samaritans, Muslims are a religious minority in our midst. They strike the majority of Americans as profoundly “other.”

Twenty-five percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Center report know “nothing at all” about Islam. “Not very much” is the way another 30 percent answered the question, “How much do you know about Muslim religion?” Nearly 60 percent of Americans say they do not know a Muslim.

Prior to 9/11 these differences were easy to tolerate. But when terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam attacked the United States and the United States went to war in Muslim-majority Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not surprising that tolerant ignorance might slide into ignorant intolerance.

Contributing to the troubled Samaritan-Jewish relationship was the complicity of Samaritans in Hellenistic oppression of Jerusalem over several generations before Jesus. Religious otherness, ethnic otherness, and political otherness combined to produce deep prejudice between Jew and Samaritan.  Contemporary attitudes toward Islam are influenced by profound political, ethical, social, and religious  disagreements that ought not be obscured.  These disagreements are expressed within Islam, as well as between Islam and other faith traditions and cultures.

In the six references to Samaritans we have examined, Jesus accepts the difference between Jew and Samaritan. If anything Jesus highlights the differences to encourage his Jewish listeners toward greater self-criticism and self-awareness. The gospels seem to say: if even a Samaritan can know and do God’s purposes, how do you explain your separation from God?

The religious practices of Samaritans – or Jews – did not much concern Jesus. As long as the rituals served to bring believers into a mindful and loving relationship with God and neighbor, Jesus honored the effort and participated in the practices. But religious practice was secondary.

As with the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus calls us to approach each other with profound respect for the particular person. Who is this neighbor? Samaritan, Greek, leper or whatever is less important than knowing how this person is in relationship with God and how we are to be in relationship with each other.

If there is a helpful analogy in all this for homeland security it may be in the sort of discrimination we bring to any encounter with the “other.”   The Samaritan sayings of Jesus absolutely depend on a mindful sense of otherness.  We need not — ought not — obscure the differences.  The differences have myriad implications.  The differences are worth serious engagement.  Is homeland security dealing directly with such contemporary differences?

But we should avoid using the differences to exalt ourselves and disdain the other.  The Samaritan sayings are consistent in engaging the other not as an undifferentiated group but as particular personalities with specific attributes both good and bad.  Is this our practice in homeland security?  Is this the character of our political and social discourse?

In most of the sayings Jesus uses the otherness of the Samaritans primarily as a tool to clarify and restore the core principles of his Jewish audience.   The “other” is engaged to expose the gap between “our”  principles and behavior.  In the homeland security domain, how might an American encounter with otherness expose — and bridge – any gap between our principles and our behavior?

In word and example, the Samaritan sayings encourage positive and proactive engagement of the other as a way of learning more about the other, more about ourselves, and how we are in relationship.  I began this series with a focus on the Muslim “other” and this remains my primary cause.  But I close the series recognizing the analogous potential for a range of  relationships important to homeland security: public-private, inter-governmental, inter-disciplinary and more.

–+–

Previous posts in this series:

The first post on December 3 was Tis the season… to deal directly with religious difference.

The second post on December 4 was Avoid Samaritan Towns.

The third post on December 5 was The Woman at Jacob’s Well.

The fourth post on December 11 was Jesus accused of being a Samaritan.

The fifth post on December 12 was A Samaritan town rejects Jesus  (including several reader comments).

The sixth post on December 18 was The Parable of the Good Samaritan.

The seventh post on December 19 was The Thankful Leper (including several reader comments).