Intelligence Dilemmas in Fighting Islamist Jihadist Terrorism
- Shabtai Shavit
- Nov 18, 2020
- 8 min read
Terrorism has been a phenomenon that accompanied mankind since the dawn of times.
These upcoming opening remarks will deal with Islamist Jihadist terrorism or global jihad that emerged in the Middle East, in the late 1970s and its first prime time horror show was the 9-11 attacks.
The ultimate dilemma for every budding intelligence officer dealing with terrorism, is whether terrorism can be totally eradicated? If so, how? And if not, then what is the optimal strategy to contend with it?
Islam has currently close to 1.5 billion followers, approximately 15% of which are Shite and smaller groups of various extreme factions, including Sunni ones. The meaning of this, is that source feeding the global jihad is a minority in the Islamic world however, it grows exponentially.
Demographically speaking, Muslims (including the radical ones) are spread all over the world which goes to show that world jihad is a global phenomenon. Global jihad as a global terrorist organization is a unique phenomenon in modern history with no one like it.
The answer for the above, can be found in the geo strategic historical processes, that have been occurring in the world. The First World War shaped the borders of the Middle East as national borders. In other words, Sikes and Picot upgraded the middle eastern population, predominantly Muslim, from tribal identity common denominator to a "higher" national one. This system has held for close to a century (1918-2010) until the Arab Spring, and may be considered a miracle by itself.
The Second World War created two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the US, with their corresponding blocs. At the edge of this world a third bloc, the Nonaligned bloc, that included mostly Muslim countries, was formed. The latter had a minor global influence. China went into very long hibernation. The above global architecture survived some 50 years until the end of the cold war in the late 20th century.
With the end of the cold war, in 1992 Francis Fukuyama, published his famous book "The End of History" wherein he asserted that the collapse of the Soviet Union attests to the fact that humanity chose liberal democracy and an open society that emphasizes liberty, equality and social solidarity. Shortly thereafter, Samuel Huntington countered Fukuyama and asserted that the end of the ideological conflict between liberalism, communism and fascism has indeed come, however it will be replaced in the 21st century, by a new conflict with the Chinese, Confucian, Hindu and Islamic civilizations.
Through the test of time it seems, that Huntington was right. Islamic civilization "contributed" the Global Jihad, to the post-Cold War era. If one is to better understand the inception of the Global Jihad "venture," I would propose to take a look at Prof. Bernard Lewis' article "The Roots of the Muslim Anger".
Prof. Lewis asserts that today's Muslim world is burdened with a sense of frustration and crisis. Everything went wrong. For over 1,000 years the Muslims got used to the thought that they were the most advanced part of the world, and they represented the gold standard in politics, economics, and science. In the new era the Muslims see that they have weakened and, that even the adoption of western technology doesn't lift them up. The import of Socialism and Capitalism didn't stop their economic and cultural decline. Then there was the thought, that redemption would come from adopting western democracy, but unfortunately the only western model that took root in the Islamic world, was a single party-based tyranny. The political independence by Muslim and Arab countries in the 20th century did not breed liberty, or Democracy.
The response to all these disappointments is a resistance to any western imported ideology, and blaming the west for every unfavorable outcome, that came out of the failed attempts, to emulate its culture. Following the above, the Muslims are now facing two options: (i) there are those who, feel that the failure stems from abandoning the authentic Islamic culture, and age-old traditions. The two major trends that emerged from the above thought were, the Wahabi Fundamentalism that is being disseminated by the Saudis and the Shiite Fundamentalism that is being disseminated by the Iranians; (i) the other thought, held by the modernists, claims that the failure comes from the fact that the Muslims adopted only the shell of the Western culture and not the deep thought behind it, therefore one should strive to embed the western values into society. People who subscribe to this thought are all over the Muslim world, but the tyrannical regimes they are under, make it hard for them to fully express themselves.
In response to the question whether the US is hated in the Muslim world because of its support of Israel, Prof. Lewis said that the linkage to Israel doesn't help the US popularity, but the middle east is not the only region in the world, where the US is despised, because the reason for the resentment and hatred towards the US is there, because it is so successful and rich and that resentment is being leveraged by local elements for their own needs.
Westerners like to pose the wrong question –– why don’t they like us? The simple answer is that one cannot be rich, strong, and successful and be loved by all at the same time, and more than that win every conflict for centuries. The correct question is why have they stopped respecting you or at least fearing you? The Muslim culture emphasizes the generosity of the victorious. The winner does not push the loser’ face into the dust, but the outcome of the conflict must be clear for all parties. A struggle that doesn’t end with a clear victory is an invitation for trouble. The Ottomans provided many examples for this behavior: they crushed uprisings with a heavy hand but didn't humiliate the loser. They showed generosity and even helped them recover. If the powerful doesn't maximize his ability to bring about an unequivocal victory his behavior is perceived as cowardly.
In response to the question whether the talk about a Civilization clash is exaggerated, Prof. Lewis says that these differences have an immense importance. The Christian and Muslim worlds have brushed and fought each other on multiple fronts for over a millennium. The US in Afghanistan and Iraq and Israel who borders it, proved that the west is determined to fight when its civilization is under attack. Therefore, there are two options for the radical Islam: (i) they may decide that in order to build a better society they should live in peace and cooperate with the west; (i) view their defeat as a temporary state and continue, on the same violent path. So far, it seems that they chose the latter and their tool is global terrorism.
It is popular to say that terrorism is the weapon of the weak, and in this context the weak is the one whose territory has been conquered, poor, hungry and desolate, and those who have lost hope. This classic view of terrorism doesn't meet the criteria for the fundamentalist terrorism from the school of Bin Laden, al-Qaeda and ISIS. In these cases, these are very rich terrorist organizations that have settled in Sudan, later in Afghanistan and finally in Iraq and Syria. Their leaders are very rich people, whose business finance their organizations worldwide, and a large part of their operatives come from middle class socioeconomic strata. The above shows that the conflict with the west is not socio-economic but rather religious-cultural.
One must add to Prof. Lewis' convincing arguments, two more points: (i) the effect of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, that severed a glorious Muslim history that began in the seventh century and continuously lasted for close to 1,300 years.
In my opinion the Muslim world has not yet recovered from the trauma of its First World War defeat: (ii) the canonical thinking of the radical Islamism. Per them, the world is comprised of two forces: Islam and Infidels (that include everybody else). Their ultimate quest is to conquer the world from the hands of the infidels, because only then they will be able to form the global Muslim Caliphate. The war between these two is eternal and is made of infinite wars, on the way to victory. The minimal requirement in every such fight is to survive it, as this will enable one to progress to the next battle and on the way to the final victory.
Israel was the first country that had to endure the radical Islamic terrorism. Statistically, Israel has suffered less than the moderate Islamic states and the west from al-Qaeda and ISIS attacks, but it has been intensively clashing with Hamas, PJ, and Hezbollah, who are part of the same camp. For a period of 120 years (1860-1980) Israel fought against local and secular terrorism, that fought for political goals and very weak resonance. In the past four decades Israel had to change its strategy, and tactics to contend with the radical terrorism, whose characteristics are totally different. It is a global, fundamentalist-Muslim, imperialistic (world Caliphate) and global resonance. Additionally, the terrorist organizations that represent the radical Islam are amorphous, devoid of headquarters and clear hierarchy and have virtual global deployment. The communication method is the internet which they use to communicate with operatives, accomplices, supporters and followers globally. They use the internet to disseminate propaganda, recruitment, training and operations. This new terror environment is different than what we have known in the past. It is a global terrorism, without borders and devoid of headquarters and conventional military units. it is a nimble terrorist organization that knows to adapt, quickly and cost effectively to any change it identifies with its opponents.
Israel, on the move and through trial and error, confronted the dilemmas posed by such organizations and developed a corresponding strategy and tactics to contend with it. Further, Israel shared its experience with its friends around the world, based on the premise that the only way to effectively contend with this threat is through global cooperation that creates force multipliers.
The following are some of the dilemmas posed by global terrorism and Israel’s recommended response:
In a scenario wherein there is a longstanding and ongoing violent conflict, where the enemy is looking for every opportunity to hit one's underbelly, the right for self-defense justifies a preemptive strike strategy.
In a scenario wherein there is a longstanding conflict that cannot be decided by conquering a territory, the right of self defense justifies the use of targeted killing of the enemy's top echelon leadership that surrounds itself with a civilian population.
Heads of terrorism supporting states, providing sponsorship and assistance to terrorist organizations are legitimate targets.
Radical Islamic terrorist organizations, as opposed to secular organizations, have a three tiers hierarchy:
military, civilian/political and religious/spiritual leadership.
The secular organizations are led by only two such tiers - military and civilian. The spiritual leadership of the radical terrorist organizations is involved with every detail of the operational activity.
Therefore, all leaders of the radical Islam terrorist organizations are legitimate targets and so are the political and military leaders.
The conflict is not driven by political or economic reasons but rather cultural and religious ones, and the provocation element in it is meaningless. Therefore, moving the fight into the territory of the terrorist sponsor country, should gain international legitimacy.
As to the first dilemma raised above, i.e. can one eradicate the fundamentalist Islamic terrorism? Our answer is that there is no secret recipe that can do that.
However, we can certainly contain terrorism and curb it to a level where human society can live with it much like it lives with illnesses or car accidents.
Thank you.