Thoughts On Islamist Terrorism

Terrorism these days is particularly… terrifying! The type of terrorism infecting the world today is of a much deadly and narcissistic nature than terrorism in past decades. Nowadays, terrorists eagerly blow themselves up with their victims; a most horrifying specter. How do you deter a terrorist who fears not death—who loves death? And if they hate us so much and love death, what’s to prevent them from attacking us with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? Nothing, actually.

Faced with such an implacable foe, Westerners naturally wonder what makes the Islamist terrorists hate us so much. Some argue the terrorists hate us for what we did or do. Others argue that we are hated for who we are, for what we represent. Whichever explanation one chooses can often determine what course of action one believes we should take to mitigate the terrorist threat.

If we did or are doing things to make the terrorists hate us, perhaps we should we listen to the terrorists’ grievances and acquiesce to their demands? So goes the first train of thought. Or, if the terrorists’ hate what we represent—who we are—then we have no other option than to stand strong and fight back, even pre-empt the terrorists and terrorism’s support networks. So goes the second train of thought.

The people who believe the later train of thought understand better than the others that appeasement doesn’t work, as history has repeatedly shown. However, to be fair I should like to point out that even among those who believe the Islamic world has legitimate grievances, many nevertheless understand the dangers inherent in appeasing terrorist mass murderers. Both types of people recognize that terrorists’ demands are too vast for us to seriously comply, even if we wanted to. Off the top of my head the terrorists seem to want us to:

Cease all support for Israel and advocate its destruction;

Pull out of Afghanistan and abandon its government to the Taliban;

Dido the above to Iraq and let it fall to the Sunni head-choppers and Ba’athists;

Support the Muslim perspective regarding Kashmir (in effect take sides against democratic India);

Withdraw all US troops from Saudi Arabia;

Withdraw all US troops from the rest of the Persian Gulf area;

Release all the terrorists held at Guantanomo Bay;

End all support for moderate Arab and or Muslim governments;

In short, curl up into a little ball and hide from the world. Not gonna happen.

The majority of Americans seem to realize that giving in to the terrorists’ amorphous and vast demands are not realistic options. Most of us understand that caving in to their demands—appeasement—will not satiate the terrorists’ hunger, it will only make it grow. Further, many of us do not believe that the terrorists’ demands are legitimate. True, a lot of Muslims might be royally pissed about Israel, or Iraq, or Gitmo, but many of us sense that those causes also serve as convenient excuses for the terrorists—rallying cries, if you will—and that the real issues are deeper. If suicide terrorism is the result of oppression, so to speak, why aren't the Tibetans blowing themselves up?

Utopian Ideologies

The fact remains, most modern-day al-Qaeda franchised Islamist terrorists have stated over the years their greatest aim is to destroy every current Muslim government and reinstitute the Caliphate, thus turning the fractious Muslim world into a giant empire where Islamic law prevails. This might sound far-fetched, but it’s a strong belief among many Islamist Muslims.

In effect, Bin Laden and friends have what we call a utopian view of how the world should be organized, i.e. under Islamic rule. For their ilk, Islam is a utopian ideology as much as a personal faith, perhaps more so. We have been faced with utopian ideologies in the past. Communism and Fascism were both utopian ideologies—and that’s what made them so dangerous.

Generally speaking, a utopian ideology promises, if established, the perfect society. For the Germans in the 30’s and 40’s, Nazism promised economic prosperity, dominance of Europe (as befitting Aryan supermen), a thousand year Reich, etc. For the communists, communism promised a perfect society, a fair economy divided equally between everybody, proletarian equality, etc.

Promised such glorious objectives, proponents of both ideologies were prepared to do anything to realize their utopias. If the ends are the perfect society, then anything standing in the way of that perfect end must be eliminated. The ends justified the means. But once the ends justify the means, millions end up perishing. We saw it with the Nazis and the Jewish Holocaust and the slaughter of millions of other enemies of Nazism. We saw it in the name of communism with tens of millions killed in the USSR, China, and Cambodia. In fact, communism has claimed more innocent lives than fascism.

Islamist utopian ideology is both a greater and lesser threat. It is greater in that its proponents believe it to be divinely inspired. It is less of a threat in that the Islamists do not have the ability to defeat the west militarily, economically or scientifically. However, the terrorists are aware of their disadvantage and so they practice asymmetrical warfare—terrorism. The greatest threat, then, is that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us.

Faced with this terrifying conundrum, it is psychologically relieving for many Westerners (often labeled as leftists) to believe that “understanding” and alleviating the terrorists’ grievances can mitigate the threat against us (This view is particularly comforting if one already hates America or capitalism, etc. ). If it is in our power to acquiesce to the terrorists’ demands—and thus eliminate the threat of terrorism—then we have it within our power to end this nightmare, according to that line of reasoning. We have control.

However, if the terrorists’ grievances are far greater than some of their immediate demands—if there are no legitimate root causes that we can rectify—then we don’t really have the power to end the threat peacefully. If that is the case, then the best way to win the day is to—gulp—support the war on terror, because there is no other real alternative. But if you do that, you end up—gulp—actually agreeing with the Bush administration on at least one really huge issue of the day.

For a lot of people, that is simply a bridge too far.