(Photo: Flickr|Joe Piette, licensed by CC BY-NC 2.0)
This article does not attempt to be analytical nor even-handed. I have
been working on counter-terrorism issues, both as an academic and a think
tanker, for quite some time and my conscience demands that I speak out when I
see the ignorant application of a malicious counter-terrorism strategy. Do not
mistake it, this is exactly what is unfolding in the U.S., right in front of
our eyes.
It is true that many countries have perpetrated brutal acts in attempts
to combat terrorism. Remember Sri Lanka and the eradication of the Tamil
Tigers? Remember the Russian cleansing operations in Chechnya or their drunken
artillerymen firing at random villages? Remember the massacre of the alleged
terrorists in Rabaa square in Cairo? These were atrocities, executed in the name
of combating terrorism.
The U.S. has made such mistakes in the past. Guantanamo, black detention
sites, and Abu Ghraib all immediately come to mind. These were especially
tragic, as were perpetrated by a country that is proud to call itself the
leader of the 'free world', a stable democracy and not an authoritarian regime.
Now, at a time when we all thought that the U.S. had finally learned the
lessons of past mistakes, President Trump chose to throw the rule book out of
the window.
Three issues stand out:
1.
A
presidential executive order, issuing a travel ban on people from seven
countries, may sound like a great counter-terrorism option. They cannot hit us,
if we deny them entry. Two questions weaken that argument, however: In the last
fifteen years, how many terrorist attacks on the U.S. were perpetrated by
‘imported’ terrorists? And how many were perpetrated by homegrown terrorists,
including Islamists? Hint, the latter is more deadly, by far. This
policy makes as much sense as using artillery or surface-to-air missiles to
shoot down a sparrow. Go ahead and good luck.
Besides, even if we agreed with the logic of
this policy, then why were the nationals of the countries that launched the
9/11 plane hijacking (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, Egypt) not included in the
ban? As well, even with the ban, possible Iraqi, Syrian, Libyan, etc.
terrorists, still have plenty of attractive targets, and American targets for
that matter, anywhere in the world.
2.
Another
Trump administration strategy is the reintroduction of the enhanced
interrogation techniques or, to be blunt, torture. President Trump is convinced
torture works as a method to glean information from captured terrorists. But
wait, isn’t torture illegal? And haven't we, as a pragmatic people, deemed
torture counter-productive, in the wake of previous failures to extract
actionable intelligence with torture? Has anyone in the Trump administration
cared to consider the personal and emotional toll on the U.S. personnel that
are ordered to practice torture, the damage to morale for having to deploy
these techniques? Have we learned nothing from the interrogations of Abu
Zubaydah, who confessed to everything but in reality was not such a senior player
in Al-Qaeda? People will admit to anything under torture. It might make you
feel better but it does not add up to good counter-terrorism. Again, readying
artillery to target a sparrow.
3.
Identifying
the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). Seemingly, a
long overdue move against an organization often portrayed as a ‘conveyor belt
for terrorists’. But are we sure? And even if we are, who are we identifying as
Muslim Brotherhood? Do we mean its violent groups and offshoots in Egypt? Or
are we including the transnational movement, which has chapters and members
represented in democratically elected governments and playing a significant
role in the politics of an array Muslim countries? Are they all now designated
as terrorists? Or is this yet another example of artillery against a solitary
sparrow?
What is the end result of these policies? You guessed it, Muslim
communities disillusioned, likely further disillusioned, with the United
States. It alienates the Allies, excites Moscow, and, most importantly,
supports ISIS. ISIS does not want any grey areas. Nothing which might impede
them from engaging their enemies in a Manichean total war. Ban Muslims from the
U.S. and you have just given ISIS a victory, an example they can display of how
the West oppresses their co-religionists. In other words, the U.S.
administration has given this terrorist organization exactly what it wants.
Don't be surprised if you see this 'strong order to protect Americans' become a
strong weapon for ISIS.
Kacper Rekawek
Head of Defence and Security Programme
GLOBSEC Policy Institute
No comments:
Post a Comment