You can’t build a terrorist group on killing alone: James Robbins

The Bastille Day massacre in Nice, France is yet another indication that western governments have failed to come to grips with the nature of the jihadist terrorist threat. Add Nice to the list of cities suffering jihadist violence: high profile attacks in Orlando,Brussels, Paris, San Bernardino, Istanbul, and Tel Aviv, to name a few;  and the numerous killings in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and elsewhere that don’t get as much attention.

 

Start with the premise that radical jihadists want to kill people. It’s what they do. It is one of their defining characteristics. “Peaceful jihadist” is a contradiction in terms.

They also do it because they can. Our open societies give them ample opportunities to wreak mayhem. The jihadists use our very freedoms against us. The symbolism of the Nice attack coming on France’s national holiday must not be overlooked, any more than the Boston marathon bombing taking place on Patriot Day.

One theory of terrorism is that indiscriminate violence is used to disrupt these freedoms, intentionally to create a government backlash. The thinking is that the people will then come to hate the government more than the terrorists, and foment some kind of revolutionary change. However, people are remarkably willing to trade liberty for security. Yet for all we have done since the September 11, 2001 attacks, we are increasingly less safe.

It is difficult to predict who may suddenly snap and resort to violence. Sometimes the attackers have prior emotional problems not necessarily related to religion or politics. Nice attacker Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel was emotionally overwrought because of a bad divorce. Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was conflicted over his alleged homosexuality. In this model, a jihadist is someone seeking simple solutions to life’s complexities. They feel they have been wronged and look for something to make it right. They want to find meaning by participating in a movement bigger than themselves. They want to find immortality by committing a final dramatic act that will transport them from their own messed up present to a future in paradise.

Radical Islam is there to help. Like any similar violent ideology, it explains the world in simple terms and operationalizes discontent and, often, as appears to be the case in Nice, mental issues. It is designed to mobilize warriors for the faith regardless of those warriors faith before joining up. Without its religious underpinning, jihadism would have no mission, no legitimizing history, no inspirational vision for each soul’s future and no larger meaning. You can’t build a terrorist group on killing alone.

We hear ad nauseum from the Obama administration that religion has nothing to do with terrorism. But clearly it does. The administration views the issue solely through the restrictive lens of American civil rights. But foreign governments, particularly in the Muslim world, identify Islamic radicalism for what it is. Morocco requires state licensingfor Imams and has instituted a groundbreaking international program to train religious leaders to recognize and counter the blandishments of the extremists. One of the strongest factions in the Egyptian parliament, the Egypt Support Coalition, is pushing for a ban on women wearing the face-covering niqab because it is associated with radicalism.

If these Muslim-majority countries recognize the nexus between religious radicalism and political violence we should be able to as well.

James S. Robbins writes weekly for USA Today and is the author of This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive. Follow him on Twitter: @James_Robbins