Politics

Pět pravd o terorismu

Feb 4, 2016 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

SAO PAULO – Američtí politici byli zajati teroristy. V prosinci 2015 ukázaly průzkumy, že jeden ze šesti Američanů, což je zhruba 16% populace (oproti pouhým 3% z předchozího měsíce), považuje v současnosti terorismus za nejdůležitější národní problém. Je to největší podíl Američanů zmiňujících terorismus za poslední dekádu, i když je stále výrazně nižší než 46% po útocích 11. září 2001.

Efekt této změny ve veřejném mínění byl zejména patrný v republikánských prezidentských primárkách. Rozhodně to podpořilo kandidaturu Donalda Trumpa, jehož protimuslimská rétorika je mimořádně tvrdá (možná až štvavá). Někteří politici začínají bitvu s terorismem nazývat “třetí světovou válkou.“

Jak ukázaly útoky v San Bernardinu v Kalifornii v prosinci, terorismus je pro Spojené státy problémem. Byl však nafouknutý do obřích rozměrů a to jak prezidentskými kandidáty, tak médii, která lpí na starém pořekadle “Pokud je tam krev, tak to táhne.“ Aby dostali na terorismus pohled z té správné perspektivy, měli by Američané – a i další – mít na paměti následující faktory.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 24 Comments on this article

kees de vos Jan 2, 2017

As I mentioned several times it is easy to organize the media in a way that atrocities could be boiled down to one small message saying that the full report comes in 6 weeks or so. The descriptions of poor reasoning will better explain what is to learn from it and media attendance is minimised. And don't forget that people of religion are not supposed to commit suicide but for reasons of jihad.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
George B Feb 8, 2016

"Al-Qaeda succeeded in luring the US into Afghanistan in 2001"
What?
So Bush & co were, against their better judgement, goaded into that?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lawrence Michael Feb 8, 2016

Taking terrorism as a law & order situation is a good way to improve domestic security. But that would involve a clear set of principles and an efficient police machinery that a China can put into effect, but not an United States. Simply because of its domestic realities that thrive upon its medieval populace for whom ethnicity is a factor, including religion. Welcome to the 21st Century and even if it is the Gregorian Calendar (invented by Pope Gregory and one of the rare useful things that ever came out from that outfit which remains anti-democratic, anti-political & anti-Human Rights even today) that one refers to - with a squeamish feeling of treading upon human poo just before one stepped on the Oscar's red carpet with the cameras rolling) where such basic markers for references to citizens and fellow humans hold sway (far too Bihari/South Asian Indian if you ask me, for a developed state).
It remains pertinent to enquire the processes that throw up events like terrorism than worry if an efficient state (democracies mean the state & society/populace are one) isn't a better antidote to both crime & terror (barely any different in effect except organized terrorism need not be patently anti-state as crime avowedly is including its delegitimization & derecognition of the state it lives in as the dangerous flesh-eating bacteria). Pertinent to note the processes because communism and communists (a real malignant form of flesh-eating bacteria) intend at the same end-objective as the poor much maligned religious terrorists. Although states like the US can actually elect it's Presidents from the trash-bin of communism. In China those varieties currently are getting executed for demeaning and dehumanizing (thus insulting in the absolute sense the state and thus it's populace, while merrily parasiting) their fellow-citizens. That remains the critical point when one begins to actually discuss terrorism and crime. But most like licking the human poo and smile as the Cheshire Cat from Lewis Caroll's Alice in the Wonderland. Precisely the kind of self-delusions that help win Oscars. But unhelpful in real life that discusses crime-terror.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rik Rijs Feb 7, 2016

Sixth truth: Saoudi Arabia is supporting much of that terrorism. So why is the US contuing its support for those despots?
- Talal Serhan Feb 8, 2016
  
  No matter, how much Saudi is hit by terrorism, no matter how much Saudi do in fighting it, some continue enjoying their baseless slanders.
  By only watching the horrific massacres carried out against sunnies in Iraq and Syria, and the nearly non existant reacions of those who still continue talking about the maligned Saudi - supported islamic ( sunni ) terrorism knows for sure that it is not the truth they are seeking, but covering up the real actors and goals.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Talal Serhan Feb 7, 2016

The real truths about terrorism are as follows:
First, it was manufactured, nourished, trained, and some believe still supported, by the west.
Second, it is meant to destabilize, devastate and torn apart Arabic countries, not the west, and that what is happening.
Third, it is to distort and deform the face of Islam.
Fourth, it is to distract attention from the atrocities and looting carried out by the imperial western countries and the out-law / imposed jewish entity in Palastine.
Fifth, stopping terrorism is merely a western choice and decision.
- Curtis Carpenter Feb 8, 2016
  
  What I'm reading here, Mr. Serhan, is that the people of the Middle East are extremely easy to manipulate, have no minds of their own and long desperately to find someone to blame for all of their demographic, social, political, economic and sectarian problems.
  
  But I don't buy it. Not because it lacks elements of truth, but because it's too simplistic -- too one-dimensional.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lirain urreiztieta Feb 5, 2016

Yes these radical Muslims are quite adept at making use of "stagecraft", and it might be that certain victim groups allow themselves to be drawn needlessly into the trap. But we should not regard them as "thugs", they are Terrorists and have a stated intent of dominating religions, cultures and entire countries, particularly in Europe. They have been there before, and they plan to do so again, with all their "stagecraft" and social media tools.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Philip Ralli Feb 5, 2016

I agree with the 'five truths' to which I would add that terrorism usually identifies a 'victim' group which is hopelessly trapped in between the repression of the powers-that-be and the exactions of the terrorists themselves. Although they stage 'spectaculars' against the supposed persecutors, their real purpose is to intimidate the victim group and undermine any support for moderate peacemakers.
I would also add that Daesh and the Taliban are in fact parties to civil war who have progressed beyond terrorism in their countries of origin; for they hold territory and deploy real military hardware. When they act in Europe, however, this is true terrorism with the purpose of recruitment and to gain political clout among their target victims by discrediting moderates.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Feb 5, 2016

American politics has been captured by terrorists & Donald *Duck* is following footsteps of GWB after 9/11. Why are you so afraid of dealing with the truth of GOP propaganda filtered by its current candidates to replace Obama? What's the difference between a muslim jihadist & Donald *Duck*?
The truth, if you want to know, white America is racist and getting worse this election circle because reality tv monster is alive and kicking!
- Adam Harper Feb 5, 2016
  
  Truly amusing how you agree with the author's point that terrorism is a problem that is wildly overblown by politicians and media alike, then immediately fail to see that the same logic should hold true for your "racist white america" myth; a problem also blown way out of proportion through the propaganda of media an politicians alike.
  
  How can one be so blatantly hypocritical? Is it merely unprincipled ignorance? Self-righteous indignation is now a sign of virtue, even in the "intelligent" op-eds.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gary Gauthier Feb 5, 2016

Terrorism may be grabbing the headlines and political agendas but the real fear behind anti muslim rhetoric is more likely a fear of cultural assimilation as birth rates decline and immigrant groups grow numbers and percentage of the population. Just talk with European and British Caucasians and they will tell you how they are feeling displaced. The US has still not learned how to incorporate black or brown people into a balanced society. Inequality and the decline of the middle class has further stocked people's fears and terrorism becomes a nice cause celebrate while avoiding having to change anything.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Feb 5, 2016

Joseph S. Nye advises us not to "fall into the terrorists’ trap," by letting "them take over the main stage of our public discourse," and "undermine the quality of our civic life and distort our priorities." Terrorism is a means to an end - to kill one but frighten millions. In the US he sees the reaction to and the media frenzy over the San Bernardino shooting rampage last December as "blown out of proportion." The debate on ISIS had prompted some politicians "to call the battle against terrorism 'World War III'.” But then the 9/11 attacks had left permanent scars on the American psyche. Nye points out "five truths about terrorism" that we ought to observe, before we let ourselves be taken hostage by terrorists, because our fear will only play into their hands.
"Terrorism is a form of theater," and we have to deny terrorists the publicity they seek. ISIS possesses a knowledge of "stagecraft," and understands that news media follows the decades-old mantra: "if it bleeds, it leads!" It is a basic fact that, it is likely to get higher ratings, if a story involves a brutal death or injury of some kind. ISIS shocked the world in summer 2014 by showing graphic images of Westerners as victims of "barbaric beheadings," that captured our attention. In a world dominated by 24-hour news broadcasting and instant news coverage publicity is believed to be the prime motivation behind modern day terrorism.
"Terrorism is not the biggest threat facing people in advanced countries" - Although terrorism continues to haunt the wider public, and serves those who aim to exploit the feelings of uncertainty and insecurity that such activities create, it "kills far fewer people than auto accidents or cigarettes." There are plenty of examples showing more people die in accidents, or even in shooting incidents. Climate change may even be a worse threat to mankind than terrorism.
"Global terrorism is not new," because the use or threat of action to influence a government or intimidate the public for a political, religious or ideological cause, is ancient and as old as mankind. Terrorists have always had various agendas. The differences between terrorism in history and in modern days are of its exposure and magnitude, thanks to information technology.
"Terrorism is like jiu jitsu," which ressembles a David-Goliath battle, with a "smaller actor uses the larger actor’s strength to defeat it." The use of terror aims to undermine a government by outraging and frustrating its citizens. It is true that "no terrorist organization is as powerful as a state, and few terrorist movements have succeeded in overthrowing one." In Syria Assad claims to fight "terrorists," who seek to overthrow him. The regime itself rules over its citizens by means of terror.
"Smart power is needed to defeat terrorism." This approach can't be wiser, if the US seeks to avoid getting drawn into the political turmoil and a cesspool of violence in the region. It is about applying the combination of "hard power" to wipe out terrorism, by eradicating its roots and eliminating "die-hard terrorists," and the use of "soft power" to prevent people from being radicalised and fall prey to ISIS recruitments.
It is equally important for the US to convince Muslims on social media that it is not fighting Islam, but deems it necessary to fight Islamist terrorists. "Antagonistic rhetoric that alienates Muslims and weakens their willingness to provide crucial intelligence endangers us all." The Islam bashing by right-wing presidential candidates like Donald Trump is indeed very "counterproductive."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robbie Jena Feb 4, 2016

Terrorist is like Drug War from Mexico. It happens because USA does a really bad management of pain utilization for the society. It is a highly complicated example. Same for Terrorists that want to divide more than two faction of Islam and without solving that, it is not going anywhere good soon.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
MK Anon Feb 4, 2016

Smart power: "That is why attention to narrative and how US actions play on social media is as important and as necessary as precision air strikes."
Surgical strikes, is it? Now why is the US opinion in pakistan at an ever low? Because of those "precision" strikes and the assassination program. This is not smart and contributes to Al qaeda/ISIS/.. recruitment. The assassination program should at least guarantee 0% collateral damage. This 'precision strike' is just as asymetrical as the terrorist's attacks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 4, 2016

Just one terrorist from a small group - Gavrilo Princip was the catalyst for WW1 so whilst casualties numberically small the outcome can be significant. I would not be so dismissive

I dont know what you mean by 'smart power' it is totally meaningless as a phrase. French security officials have commented that they would need a task force the same size as the French conventional police force to monitor effectively with the list of people of interest they currently hold, something in the region of 2.5K persons. That is a serious logistical issue

One would have to wonder why the US has the NSA and the UK the GCHQ if the matter was so trivial

Quite apart from ME infiltrators on a mission there are hundreds of returning native jihadists. A assessment of 500 native jihadists identified 80 had a criminal record and 20% had mental illness. 'Soft power' another meaningless catchall is not going to deal with this

So I really do not see what point you are trying to make

IS is a new phenomena, it is larger and better funded than previous groups. Like a fat lady in a corset if one bit is restricted another bit breaks out, which is exactly what is happening at present

As far as the public not reacting precipitously my recollection is it was individuals in administartion who insisted action was taken after 911 - Bush and Blair. In the UK substantial public protest was made against war but totally ignored. More recently following the Paris event Hollande reacted by bombing. I dont remember any debate about it

I really do not understand what audience you are writing this for

On the whole my reaction is you are trying to placate public concern because in reality there is a very big problem and there doesnt seem to be much idea how to deal with it without causing civil liberty concerns
- Steve Hurst Feb 4, 2016
  
  errata
  
  'A assessment of 500 native jihadists identified 80 had a criminal record and 20% had mental illness'
  
  Should read
  
  'A assessment of 500 native jihadists identified 80% had a criminal record and 20% had mental illness'
  
  Apologies
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Feb 4, 2016

#6 - Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare. The US has been at war with the middle east since forever. Some of these wars are overt - while others revolve around the US engaging in regime toppling, oil deals and training and equipping quasi terrorist organisations to fight soviets.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Feb 4, 2016

Republican campaign rhetoric can, without an excess of hyperbole, be regarded as a form of "terrorism" in its own right, designed specifically to create and exploit fear among the American people. And sadly, many of us buy into the resulting politics of fear and resentment.

We should indeed "not fall into the terrorists' trap."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Allen Mackenzie Feb 4, 2016

For a deeper understanding about the sources of war please consider:
http://www.invincibledefense.org/

http://www.maharishi.co.uk/selfcare/war-and-peace-could-the-military-use-meditation-to-create-peace.htm
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Feb 4, 2016

The writer is very much correct on this occasion. A CNN/ORC poll carried out in December 2015 suggests 69% of Americans are either "very angry" or "somewhat angry" about "the way things are going" in the US. And the same proportion - 69% - are angry because the political system "seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington," according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from November 2015.
Many people are not only angry, they are angrier than they were a year ago, according to an NBC/Esquire survey last month - particularly Republicans (61%) and white people (54%) but also 42% of Democrats, 43% of Latinos and 33% of African Americans.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Feb 4, 2016

Well said. The only thing missing -- in the smart power section -- would be a gentle introduction of the concept, that actions speak louder than words.
- Petey Bee Feb 5, 2016
  
  Some of those actions spoke a different message than this article. They said, "we care about terrorism, a lot.". Funding levels for DHS in the US speak this message as well.
  
  Although if one were cynical, the message may come through as "we place a premium on old fashioned geopolitics and care not a fig about about fueling more terrorism". Ongoing support for "unsavory allies" speak this alternate message.
  
  Verbal rhetoric is a distant third in this cacaphony.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Public Feb 4, 2016
  
  Really? There has been plenty of action - the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. The sand probably glowed there was so much action. I think more words are needed.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/0bTtrmKcs

Pět pravd o terorismu

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

An Unhinged Democracy in America

Log in/Register

Pět pravd o terorismu

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification