Terrorism and Indecisiveness

Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, France, Mali.  Terrorists like the Islamic State have been busy over the last weeks and months.  In their wake is a string of shattered cities and devastated lives.  For the western democracies, it needs to be a time to not just hunker down or lash out but to re-evaluate.  France’s intelligence network’s failure to pick up on the events that shattered its capital is more than that – it is a sign that things are evolving and adapting.  The West must do the same.

Gandhi was once asked whether his approach to conflict resolution would have adequately dealt with Hitler.  He said yes but it would have taken much longer.  Europe and the United States do not have time if recent attacks across three continents in the last month or so are any indication.  French President Francois Holland is increasing the militarily targeting of the Islamic State but he is also seeking to change how the French do business in-country by changing police procedures and tactics against suspected terrorists. 

M. Holland’s attempt to change the constitution to meet new security needs have faced opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.  However, he clearly sees the need for a change and he is trying to adapt to a new reality.  By all accounts, French intelligence was taken off guard by the events of 13 November.  Whether the French leader will be able to impose his will or not remains to be seen but a requirement to be on the qui vive has gripped parts of the French population. 

Regarding President Obama, he presented the most confounding reaction to the events of the last month or so.  My observations are not unique.  Many have been dismayed over the near blasé approach to the events and how the United States should respond.  The president, who days before Beirut and Paris, said that the Islamic State was contained, maintained that a change in philosophy or approach to the terrorists is not required.  The present modus operandi was sufficient and it was important not to over-react.  Yes, an over-reaction would not be prudent but certainly a re-evaluation is necessary because American intelligence proved to be as unaware as its French counterparts.  His comments from Ankara would suggest that is also not necessary.  However, there is push back. 

Former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell suggested with Charlie Rose that the president’s response needs to be on the same level as if the target was not Paris but New York City.  Combat veteran and Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HA) has criticized the president for failing to grasp the core element of dealing with the terrorists by refusing to use the word.  Last week, when a bi-partisan measure in Congress sought to make a seemingly common sense improvement in the screening process for incoming Syrians, the president responded by mocking Congressional Republicans as being scared of little old ladies and orphans.  This was in the face of reports suggesting that at least one of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as a refugee. 

It is a nasty world out there and it will not improve any time soon.  It is not just international groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS but also regional groups like the Mourabitounes, the West African terrorist group that attacked the Radisson hotel in Bamako, Mali.  The rise of these groups would be a difficult challenge for any president but our commander in chief needs get into a locked room with military and terrorist experts and consider a new way of doing things.  The West was surprised by the Parisian attacks.  We need to find out why and contemplate a new approach.  The enemy already has.

A Fight for Knowledge

In all the talk about the Muslim world and the tacit approval by some of more extremist elements, there is something missing – the intellectual and educational past of its decedents. When one considers the achievements made by Muslims, it is a shocking concept that one group proclaiming the tenets of Islam, the Shabab militants in Kenya, should target teachers and children to shut down schools. Yet, this is what the people of Kenya are facing. Sadly, and not just Kenya, centers of education are being attacked under the unfounded idea that somehow such things are against God.

Muhammad, he who founded the Islamic faith, was a worldly man. He had traveled throughout the region with his uncle, a merchant. He knew of other people and indeed, his knowledge of other people and their culture helped in the spread of his nascent faith. From the very beginning, a practical and worldly education propelled Islam forward, into the world of the peripatetic arena of the Bedouin, into the ancient lands of the Fertile Crescent to the dusty lands of North Africa and into the Iberian Peninsula. It latched on to other, older cultures, absorbing its history and knowledge and in doing so, spreading the faith and expanding its borders into Persia and India.

Early Muslim scholars rescued the works of the Romans and Greeks, preserving them for generations to come at a time when the Europeans had denigrated into barbarism. Such intellectual achievements were also seen with early mathematicians such as Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, scientists such as Abu Nasr al-Farabi and Thabit ibn Qurra, historians like Ibn Battuta and Ibn Khaldun, philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and physicians like Ibn Al-Baitar and Ibn Zuhr.

We now move forward nearly millennia, where thugs in the name of Allah are attacking schools and killing teachers and students.  It is a level and focus of violence that can only be described as a type of mass psychosis.  Those who encourage and facilitate education in the Muslim world or Dar al-Salam are fighting an uphill battle.  On some level, this has to be a low point from which Muslim culture must rebound and take, once more, its place among the world’s great intellectual centers.  It has universities and scholars but few whose voice extends throughout the region and beyond.

As for Kenyan schoolchildren and teachers, Shabab is wreaking havoc as teachers are fearful to resume their duties and soon-to-be graduating students have little to no instruction for their preparation with exams.  These exams are vital for their placement in universities.  Especially in the northeast, with its proximity to Somalia (the home territory of the Shabab), officials in Nairobi are concerned for the future of the region.  The terrorist attack at the university in Garissa last year as well as the attack on a bus load of mostly teachers heading home for Christmas has brought the idea of education to the fore. 

County governments have little desirable options in trying to answer the needs of their students and Nairobi searches for answers that are more affordable than placing armed units of soldiers at every school and school function.  Of course, other countries could offer help but the African Union has a role to play here if it can agree to a course of action.  Nairobi might say that it is unwilling to have outsiders play the role of driving out other outsiders but if it cannot come up with its own answers, what is the alternative?    

The Legacy of Voltaire

Speech is civilization itself....It is silence which isolates.
             Thomas Mann

This past week, three heavily armed and religiously motivated gunmen attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo, a fringe Parisian satirical magazine.  A harder-edged Mad Magazine, it goes after a wide range of targets, including those espousing Islamic fundamentalism.  Twelve were killed, including the editor, many of the staff’s cartoonists and at least one police officer to silence disagreeable ideas.  By Friday of this week, the men responsible were gunned down by French police.  From the shock and outrage of the event, an important cause has re-emerged that has been largely forgotten throughout Europe – the freedom of expression.

Throughout Europe, various countries have eliminated or restricted expression for fear of offending.  Whether it be cartoons or restrictive measures against anything entitled “hate speech”, Europe has tied itself into legislative and linguistic knots to prevent anyone giving offense.  A few years ago, Europe shrank from the violence throughout the Middle East over cartoons…cartoons!  As a result, many European countries have attempted to curb what can and should be said about various groups – be they ethnic or religious. 

In their efforts to eliminate “hate speech”, these democratic countries have taken away the choices and the rights that democratic people have traditionally treasured and enjoyed.  As a history teacher, I’m not blind to the historical context that some of these laws have but ultimately, they are self-defeating.  As Voltaire said, “Men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all.”  And in an attempt to ensure that people are capable of going through life without distress, some European countries have sacrificed a fundamental right of a free people.

As the fallout of these deaths is felt, the reaction has been typical from the home of the satirical and philosophical giant, Voltaire.  And in the writer’s spirit, leave it to the obdurate, infuriating French to reassert values that much of Europe has lost track of over the last several decades.  Freedom of expression and speech means nothing if it only applies to that which is acceptable or safe.  Charlie Hebdo has spent the better part of five decades offending and shocking people with its cartoons and articles.  Though the publication may have crossed the line over the years (some regular readers say it happened often), a free society must accept and allow for it. 

Every free society runs risks.  Yes, there is a chance that another attack might occur, particularly because Charlie Hebdo has declared that they will continue.  However, the power to speak one’s mind, even if one is an idiot or a psychopath, must be equally treasured.  If a government can declare one person’s opinions not worthy of airing out, whose opinions will be next? 

So, how does a nation confront such speech – be it from xenophobes or fundamentalists?  More free speech.  Consider Germany.  While saddled with its own misguided speech laws, speech has countered speech.  A group out of Dresden called Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) has attempted to get its point across through protest marches (no doubt they will be emboldened by the events in Paris).  However, Germans who disagree took to the streets in record numbers to counter protest.  Ultimately, hateful speech needs to be aired so that it may be legitimately countered and defeated.  Otherwise, the baleful ideology festers and grows.

It is heartening to see the French fight back with a renewed commitment to freedom of expression – not just journalistic but individualistic as well.  Though the French have their own nationalist groups (Marine Le Pen’s Front National for example), they have answered the terrorist attacks not with hate but with a reassertion of democratic values and principles.  The West is guilty of many things but at our best, democratic principles represent the full-realization of the individual – be we French, American, Egyptian, Iranian, whoever.  Though we do not always get it right, freedom of expression applies to all and it will be our legacy.

Troublespots in 2015

As we enter 2015, here is an obligatory look ahead of some of the major issues that the United States might deal with over the next year.  Hopefully, it is not only the U.S. but given the trend over the last decade or so, international cooperation has been difficult to secure.  For those who blamed the overly aggressive approach of President Bush as being divisive, President Obama’s overly conciliatory approach has won fewer friends.  In fact, many countries have lost faith in the U.S. and it is a faith that will be further tested over the next year.   

Even as it was happening, many observers thought Vladimir Putin’s reach for Crimea and eastern Ukraine was an attempt to divert the Russian public’s attention away from the downward spiraling economy.  It is an economy that has grown progressively worse over the last six months.  With the recent collapse of the ruble, the Russian economy could be sinking at depths that even the nationalistic land grab of Crimea and the Ukraine might fail to obfuscate.  That means, providing that Mr. Putin does not engage in a complete change in thought process, the large Russian minority population in the Baltic States could make the countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the next susceptible targets of Russian aggression.   

A second hot spot is an oldie but a goodie – the Middle East.  Just as Tunisia selected recently its first democratically elected leader, other members of the now defunct Arab Spring are examples of dictatorial and ruthless leadership hanging on.  Whether one is talking about Iran or Syria or Yemen (and there are many others), the Middle East will remain a tinderbox in the foreseeable future.  There seems to be a growing albeit still incompetent voice in the Arab world against the ISIS of the world and their death fetish vision of how society should develop.  However, the horrific crimes of ISIS as well as the ghastly attack on the school in Pakistan by the Taliban are bringing new attention to a region and its acceptance (tacit or otherwise) of such tactics. 

On the continent of Africa, there are several incidents brewing that could lead to disastrous consequences, whether the U.S. finds an interest to intervene or not.  The situation in South Sudan is a cauldron of hatred and seemingly unresolvable conflicts that have resisted strong efforts from the U.S., China and the occasional self-aggrandized actors who have tried to sponsor one peace effort after another.  An even worse situation is that in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  Its lack of control in the east, the lack of follow through with promises of reform by President Joseph Kabila and Hutus and other forces from Rwanda have made this country one on the precipice.  The African Union is not keen to interfere and the worsening miasma threatens the entire region.  This does not even mention other problem spots, such as the terrorist-laden Nigeria. 

Of course, the usual suspects like China, North Korea and Iran et al. are a perpetual threat to regional and world peace.  In short, there are plenty of things that could cause the death and suffering of millions and certainly, the U.S. need to make their voice heard throughout the world and make a stand for our philosophies.  The president feels reluctant to play a larger, stronger hand in world affairs but previous presidents had warned against isolationism.  In a quote strangely enough quoted by President Obama in his book The Audacity of Hope, Theodore Roosevelt said “We have no choice…as to whether or not we shall play a great part in the world.  That has been determined to us by fate, by the march of events…All that we can decide is whether we shall play it well or ill.” 

The Devil in the Details

When Richard Nixon was out of office and dealing with the aftermath of Watergate, he was interviewed by British talk-show host, David Frost.  The Englishman pressed Mr. Nixon on the issues and legalities pertaining to the scandal.  In a particularly tense moment, the president, out of frustration said, “When the president does it, it means it is not illegal.”  I was reminded of this quote when listening to Obama administration officials and other supporters of the president’s swap of a soldier for five terrorists.  President Obama’s actions seem either the personification of President Nixon’s hubris or naïveté. 

This is not a rejection of Bowe Bergdahl’s parents or even his home town.  They have one of their own back after five years and their happiness needs no explanation or excuse.  My concerns are with the administration, which at present is under attack by Republicans, Democrats and foreign heads of state over this trade.  I’m taken aback by the fact the administration seems surprised at the response.  This suggests one of two approaches to this trade.  Either the administration never fully thought it out and its consequences, assuming that rescuing a soldier five years in the enemy’s hands would be a no-brainer for public support or they did think it through and did not feel objections or the law were important.  So, we have either an incompetent government (suggested by many) or a corrupt one (also, suggested by many). 

First, there are legal and security concerns.  To my knowledge, there are no military or security experts suggesting this trade is without some possibly dangerous repercussions.  We have done what we have always said we would not do – negotiate with terrorists.  In the past, the trading of prisoners is done after the war, after a victor is declared and the defeated is cowed.  We have ended the war but the Taliban and their allies have not.  We are still targets and still the face on their wall with darts protruding from it.  This coterie of terrorists taken from Guantanamo have not given up the struggle and as soon as they can, will be back in the field with increased knowledge of the U.S. and increased anger.   

Additionally and according to the law, the Congress was to be informed of such dealings a month before it took place.  The administration said there was not enough time to inform the Congress.  If the Congress allows this violation to go unanswered, it is not just an institution that loses prestige, power and a voice.  It is us as citizens who lose prestige, power and a voice.  The Congress is our voice as the most representative body in the government.  A rejection of Congressional oversight and authority is a rejection of the public’s.  This is one reason why there is such bipartisan congressional anger against the deal.   

On the other hand, there is the question of Sergeant Bergdahl himself.  This man is not the bastion of fealty and honor that the administration has portrayed him to be.  According to his fellow soldiers, this man quit on his platoon, placed them in danger and is responsible for the men who died searching for him.  There is little sympathy for Sgt. Bergdahl.  While some say he should be court-martialed and perhaps jailed, I think he has suffered enough for his actions assuming he was just a prisoner and not a collaborator.  However, that will be of little comfort to the families of those who died.  I do not begrudge the Bergdahl family’s joy but that joy came at a cost.  Are we, as a country, willing to pay that? 

President Obama cannot be as toned deaf as he appears to be with these various scandals that have rocked his administration but with which he claims little connection, knowledge or culpability.  However, we have history and it teaches us what happens to people who claim to be above the law.  Some in Congress have uttered the “impeachment” word but that is ridiculous.  He is only doing what his supporters and allies in Congress are allowing him to do.  Yet, the consequences of these actions could be an emasculated legislature and endangered Americans overseas. 

The Instinctual (Ineffectual?) President

Russian president Vladimir Putin has been juggling a great deal of late – Syria, the Ukraine, domestic dissenters, terrorist attacks, the Olympics, treason and gay rights.  He has inserted himself into these issues like a man without enough to do.  Advantageously or not, he has entered into frays in an attempt to bring Russia once more to the fore.  As Benito Mussolini sought to re-create the Roman Empire, Mr. Putin wants to bring back the glory and the relevance of the Soviet Union.  What has emerged is a portrait of a man who does not have a master plan so much as an instinctual drive to matter once more.

In the Ukraine, it has been a battle between a government who is beholden to and admiring of the heavy-handed example of Russian rule while its people are desperate to be a part of the European Union.  The people have been staging one massive demonstration after another to demand entrance into the more economically prosperous West.  Mr. Putin doled out $15 billion that he will likely never see again, saving the Ukraine for the moment, but to what end? 

Concurrently, gay activists are primed to make their point with the upcoming Olympics but the president’s anti-gay stance is not controversial in a largely conservative country.  Additionally, while the Russians may be attacked by the more liberal West on the subject, few other countries are making waves on the subject, so why stir the pot?  The moral litmus test that Mr. Putin seems to be suggesting was made after the fact and is further proof that no grand master plan exists for the president.  

The Edward Snowden affair has made more than a few observers and leaders scratch their heads as the incident does nothing for Mr. Putin.  There may be a deep-seated Russian DNA that requires agitating and embarrassing the Americans but Mr. Snowden is no Kim Philby or Alger Hiss.  In the world of international relations and espionage, it would appear that only the naïve Mr. Snowden thought he had something noteworthy on his hands.  The fact that the conscious-stricken traitor has taken or tried to take refuge with three oppressive regimes (Russia, China and Venezuela) further diminishes his importance and message.  

However, the two things the Russian leadership knows about are dealing with internal dissention and throwing a parade.  Yet, the world has changed and even this has proven difficult.  First, Russia made headlines with the imprisonment of the crude, albeit impactful message of the punk band Pussy Riot.  While the Russians have traveled through the cauldron of glasnost, the government has limits.  Back in the day, the three young women would have disappeared and no one would have been wiser but the women have gone viral and they have become impossible to ignore.  Their recent release from jail by the “benevolent” Mr. Putin was seen as the cynical gesture it was and further proof that the president had little idea how to cope.   

Then, there are the Olympics.  Twentieth-century Russian/Soviet history has shown the importance of putting on a show.  Yet, the terrorist attacks in Volgograd threaten to bring down in horrific fashion Russia’s plans to present an athletically dominant and culturally significant image to the world.  No doubt, Mr. Putin, a la Captain Renault, is rounding up the usual suspects but the fact that fears linger and uncertainties are rising is proof that the Russians are not quite as efficient at crushing dissent and “troublemakers” as before.  While one may assume that the lack of more recent attacks is a sign of Russia’s determination, the Chechens are not known for sustained violence – only attacks that are sporadic and spectacular.  An attack at the Olympics would certainly fit the modus operandi. 

Vladimir Putin is an anachronism who is trying to portray his measures under the guise of a modern veneer.  Much like to tax and to please, this tactic is quite untenable.  If the president can have a safe and, for the Russians, a successful Olympics, the country will no doubt benefit but it will not be based on any grand master plan on the part of Mr. Putin.  As Julia Ioffe of the New Republic put it, this is a man thinking and acting instinctively, not deliberately.  While he is hoping that is enough, hope alone has seldom accomplished great things.   

The One Truly Philosophical Problem

There are some topics that are hard to discuss – not so much because the topic is difficult but the readers have no frame of reference.  For example, how can an American audience relate to the selling of children into prostitution because it brings money in for the family?  How can an American audience relate to the killing of government opposition in order to quell dissatisfaction?  Even more difficult is suicide as protest.  Sadly, Americans have plenty experience with suicide but only as it relates to mental illness – not as a form of protest from one of “sound mind and body.”  There was an interesting article in Foreign Policy on the psychological components of a suicide protestor, highlighting differences between sanguinary and communicative objectives but it is fair to also consider the effectiveness of the tactic.

My article is not a moral argument but more a practical one.  The two main types of suicide as protest (as also highlighted in the article) are suicide bombers (sanguinary) and suicide by self-immolation (communicative).  While both profess to do the same thing (attempt to alter a present condition through self-sacrifice), they are radically different in their approaches and in how others perceive the acts. 

The suicide bomber is largely seen negatively from a western mind-set because the protest involves the death of others (typically, innocents) and the motives are not always pure.  Studies done on the subject show that seldom are these “martyrs” ideologues.  Though these acts are not approved of, they are effective.  Suicide bombings have changed the course of European governments and have compelled them to accept what was generally considered antithetical to their beliefs.  Examples include Spain’s quick withdrawal from Iraq after the Madrid bombings and the condemnation over cartoons depicting Muhammad negatively instead of defense of free speech.  It would be one thing if these governments presented an argument that defined their policies separate from the bombings, especially in the case of Spain, but more typically, the hope is that by deferring they can avoid the possibility of bombings in their country. 

Never mind that we are talking about European countries and other western democracies responding to the actions and beliefs of a few, but ultimately, it might not matter.  Consider the recent violence between Israelis and Hamas.  The Palestinians fire rockets from schools, hospitals and other civilian centers.  They admit this in press conferences.  When Israel responds, world news outlets characterize the measure as brutal and criminal.  When Palestinian and Hamas leadership say they “must” fire from these locations, no one challenges their near-complete lack of rationale nor challenges their assertion that in the same breath, they blame the Israelis for killing their civilians.  This is in conjunction with suicide bombers sent into Israel but the actions are the same.  The use of sacrifice to make and implement a point but on a much larger scale than an individual bomber.  The sacrifices are working as Palestinians are gaining in international support. 

On the other hand, we see a recent uptick in self-immolation by Buddhist priests, a resurgence of an old tactic from the Viet Nam War era.  The most famous of these suicide protests was done by Vietnamese monk Thích Quẚng Dức in protest of the Ngo Dinh Diem government in the South in 1963.  These measures, most recently seen in Burma and Tibet, are universally admired and register with people because of the self-sacrifice, without other casualties, against a repressive regime.  There is also something to the pain and suffering that goes into the sacrifice, separate from the instantaneous and otherwise painless sacrifice of suicide bombers.  There is also a widely held belief that the sacrifice is being done by one much more aware and dedicated to their cause.  However, they are the least effective.  Neither the South Vietnamese government nor the more modern Burmese government was shaken by the protests and it was not what brought down these regimes.  Tibet activists have made little headway against China though they have gained world-wide support. 

What we hate, we respond to and what we appreciate, we ignore.  Part of this is due to China’s prominence in world affairs, as opposed to many Middle Eastern countries who largely play little economic role internationally.  With each suicide bomber, we witness the death and destruction and, for some, there is a permanent change in the perception of Islam as a faith of extremism.  To make matters worse, we validate and value that perception by how we respond.  We back away from time-honored liberties and rights while twisting our world view to accept the paradigm of terrorists.  In doing so, we also give no help to those who seek to right the ship and take back the core of Arab and Islamic values.