By way of introduction, I’ll use a quote from later in this post:
“To deal with a problem, you must understand the problem. If you misunderstand a problem, your response will be inadequate and not deal with it. So this is written to attempt to better understand the problem – which the media and politicians are (on the whole) not portraying properly.”
Here I discuss the name of “so-called Islamic State”, the real nature of the threat that we face “from them” (which is about “home grown jihadis”, not a war we are in), challenge the language and narrative currently dominant about “war”, and ask questions about the role of Islam in all of this.
Section 1: What’s in a name?
So-called by whom, huh? By themselves, and by our media. Not by the rest of the muslim world, that’s for sure.
“Call him Voldemort, Harry. Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.” Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.
I don’t like the fact that we call Islamic State ‘Islamic State’. Some news outlets use the phrasing ‘”so-called Islamic state” – but so-called by whom? They give themselves this name, and we have allowed that to happen. Most of the actual muslim world (IS is a very small amount of global muslims) don’t call them this – they instead call them ‘daesh’. France changed its policy last year to call them ‘daesh’ instead of IS.
Instead of writing my own thoughts on this, I’ll instead give some excerpts from a column which knows more than I do, by MP Rehman Chishti.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/they-are-neither-a-state-nor-islamic-why-we-shouldnt-call-them-isis-isil-or-is-10353365.html>
“For too long we have allowed a terrorist group to define themselves. By referring to them as the ‘Islamic State’ they gain legitimacy where none should exist.”
“The atrocities they have committed in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere clearly demonstrate that they have no right to be called a state. We all know what a state looks like – it is internationally and legally recognised as one, has a defined sovereign territory and ordered institutions. This group has none of these things, and ignores international law and norms.”
“Nor are they Islamic. This criminal gang is distorting a peaceful religion for its own violent ends, which the vast majority of Muslims, here in the UK and around the world, find despicable and insulting. I have spent time travelling the country, speaking with communities and holding meetings in mosques, and I have found that people from far and wide are deeply upset that their faith is being linked with these terrorists and their monstrous acts.”
“So what is an alternative name for them? There is one title that has gained traction across the Middle East, which is an Arabic acronym for the group’s name. The word they use is “Daesh” which also holds negative connotations. It is similar to the word “Daes” meaning “one who crushes something underfoot” and “Dahes” meaning “one who sows discord”.”
Now that that is explained, I’ll use ‘Daesh’.
Section 2: Are we at War?
Hollande declared the Paris attacks “an act of war”. This is odd, misguided, and harmful.
Wars are typically between states. Daesh is not a state, it’s a barbarian horde. So it can’t really be at war. Admittedly, we have bastardised this already by having a ‘war on terror’ and a ‘war on drugs’, which is terrible because it doesn’t make sense and opens the way to a continuous war, devoid of a meaningful end goal, with unclear contours that can be easily manipulated – and also the contradiction in the fact that war is itself a manifestation of terror. See further <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1364012/Why-grammar-is-the-first-casualty-of-war.html>. So one issue is that describing the west as being ‘at war’ with Daesh is that it gives them legitimacy and makes them seem like a more powerful beast than they are.
Admittedly, there are some situations where non-states are at war. A ‘civil war’ is an example of this – but Syria is much more of a mess than any civil war I know of. The English and Spanish civil wars had two sides to them. The Syrian one has many sides: the Assad Regime, the Kurds, Daesh, and many other rebel groups. It’s a chaotic breakdown, not a straightforward war. Which is why I think ‘barbarian horde’ is the best description.
But if it’s accepted that there is a civil war, that doesn’t make us ‘at war’ with Daesh. There is no risk of invasion in any of our countries from them – they don’t have an air force or a navy, they don’t have the manpower, and we are militarily far superior. We haven’t sent military into Syria, like we did in the Iraq War or Vietnam War, and we haven’t got closely enough involved with the conflict to be part of the war (such as the first gulf war). So again, describing us as ‘at war’ is misleading, and in that harmful, by inflating the appearance of Daesh. It’s as if those in power want us to be scared…
A further issue is that Hollande’s proclamation erases the history of this, by making it sound like Daesh struck first. Historically, I guess this would be like Pearl Harbour, where the USA had not been directly involved in the conflict and Japan brought the fight to them (though the USA had certainly been aiding countries in the war, so it wasn’t like they were quietly minding their own business), or like the twin tower attack.
Historically, the west got involved before the Paris attacks. (Initially, we got involved in trying to topple the Assad regime in 2012/13, and funded a load of rebel groups, which included what became ISIS. We definitely contributed to their rise by fuelling the fire. But I’ll stick to more recently against Daesh…) The west (US, UK, France, and probably other western allies) has armed rebel groups in the hope that this makes the rebel groups stronger against Daesh, and it has bombed Daesh (for the UK, until a couple of days ago only in Iraq, but France and the USA have attacked Daesh in Syria). So if there was an act of war, it was we who declared it on Daesh, and not the other way round. Hollande’s statement makes it sound like Daesh attacked first in Paris, and ignores this crucial background: it has been long anticipated that there would be attacks on Western soil due to our involvement. By erasing this background, Hollande is able to separate questions of domestic security and middle east foreign policy; these are clearly not separate, so this is irrational. Further, it means that middle east foreign policy can be seen as less important and have less scrutiny, as it isn’t seen as something that affects us.
From Daesh?
In a traditional war, a state would send some of its military to attack somewhere. That is NOT the case with the Paris attacks. We are instead in a different conflict, with what are termed “home-grown jihadis”. [I don’t like the phrase “extremists” or “radicals” because these phrases are being co-opted to be used against others, such as environmental activists or pro-democracy protestors such as Occupy.]
The attackers in Paris were (mostly) citizens of France and Belgium. They may have had some connections to Syria and gone across, perhaps received training and assistance but they were not sent by Daesh. Some of them were on watch-lists already, one as early as in 2010 and another was charged with a terrorism offence in 2012. Note that these dates are before Daesh existed.
Source: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34822265>
(It is also worth noting that there have been similar previous attacks which aren’t to do with Daesh: twin tower attacks were Al-Qaeda; the London tube attacks I can’t remember; the Lee Rigby murder was unaffiliated (I think). So it is clear that it isn’t a new phenomenon which has only arisen because of Daesh.)
My view is that they were “home-grown jihadis” who Daesh adopted and helped out. This is speculation, but they were unhappy for some reason, and this was directed into some sort of anti-west hatred. I’m not sure there has been much said (in terms of a statement or video released) by the attackers about why they did it. In a normal military conflict, they would be sent from the country at war to attack somewhere.
The conclusion is that Daesh did not attack Paris. Rather, some French/Belgians carried out the attacks in Paris, and these attackers were affiliated with Daesh (and vice verse). There may well have been some sort of training, planning assistance, supplying equipment, and certainly ideological influence: but my point is that it was not an attack from or by Daesh.
It is in the interest of Daesh to appear powerful and capable of doing such attacks, so they claim it and portray it as if it is from them. They want us to be scared of them. And they also want to portray the world in a way that fits with their ideological world-view: that they are involved in a holy and righteous war, muslims versus non-muslims.
To deal with a problem, you must understand the problem. If you misunderstand a problem, your response will be inadequate and not deal with it. So this is written to attempt to better understand the problem – which the media and politicians are (on the whole) not portraying properly.
This discourse feeds into the air strikes: if we were ‘at war’, then some sort of bombing would probably be a good strategy. Attacking bases and supply lines certainly, but also attacking civilians to try to demoralise them, as was done in WW2, with Germany sending V2 rockets across at cities (instead of specific targets), with the UK bombing German cities (such as Dresden, killing around 25,000 people), and the USA bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing over a million civilians.
By using this language and this thinking against Daesh, we justify such attacks: but it is clear that the war with Daesh is not a usual one, and treating it as such is wrong. We cannot crush it with military might – which can also increase hatred of the west by the population and give Daesh propoganda to use to further their ideology. It is also clear that dealing with Daesh in Syria/Iraq is a very different thing to dealing with the risk of “home-grown jihadis”: for Daesh we must deal with the root of the problem (funding, weaponry, communication), and home-grown jihadis are a societal and sociological problem we must deal with, which I will discuss further below.
As I said in my previous post, you have to counter hate with love. The growth in islamophobia and hate-crime following the Paris attacks makes us weaker and the daesh-ideology stronger, and make it easier for “home-grown jihadis” to be influenced and more likely that they such attacks will be committed again.
*I use the phrase “home-grown jihadis” because I don’t know what else to say. If this is in some way incorrect and/or offensive, please let me know – this is aimed especially at any muslim readers. People often say “nutters” but that’s misunderstanding the problem and is a mental health slur. “Radicals” and “extremists” are general terms which 1) do not take into account the particular nature of the ideology, and 2) are co-opted and used against other groups, such as environmental and pro-democracy protestors. It is also grammatically incorrect, as the two terms are qualifying adjectives: radical or extreme about what? It makes it sound like being radical or extreme about anything is bad, which is clearly nonsense and is also used selectively. Environmental activists might be extreme in their passion for not destroying the planet, but that is clearly good, and the “moderate” approach which views our planet as something we can destroy to fuel our desires is much more extreme.
Section 3: It isn’t about the Islam.
It is clear that Islam – or at least the practice of Islam by the many muslims across the world – is not a violent religion. In the UK alone there are 2.7 million muslims (2011 census); in the world, around 1.6 billion. The violent attacking “muslims” in the UK are a teeny insignificant portion, and Daesh is teeny compared to global muslims.
What is happening is a sort-of ‘fundamental attribution error’, an incorrect assumption about the causality. Attacks were committed and the attackers were muslim – but this does not mean that the attacks were because they were muslim. This sort of error is easier to make when it is not for something inside the social norm (like my usual example that people view parkour is dangerous, because it is abnormal, but don’t hold the same view about rugby, because that is normal).
“But they claim they are motivated by Islam”, might be a response to my unusual approach (that’s what happens with a xenophobic media which wants to create outrage in order to drive news coverage, and when I take an approach that tries to cut through this). And that is a fair question: while Islam is clearly not what is driving them (because it does not drive all the other muslims to do the same), they believe that it is.
Here’s what I think happens. Someone is disillusioned by society, for whatever reason; there is some sort of ideology that they are drawn to which creates a reason why they feel that way (which may or may not be correct); their disillusion is now explained by this and they feel better, more purposeful, more valued or valid; for some people, they are driven to action.
(this is a simplification, of course)
This is the commonality between different types of attack: a school shooting in which a young male shoots 20 other students; white supremacists who attack people of colour; (white) nationalists who attack brown people and mosques; brown muslim-identifying people who attack western culture in some way; and so on.
It is worth noting that in the parlance of “terrorism”, this label is applied only to the brown person. White people attacking ethnic minorities is a ‘hate crime’, not a terrorist attack. This is because the word ‘terrorism’ does not really have a meaningful meaning, but is rather a subjective label applied to a certain form of things we don’t like. While it is often defined as something like ‘political ideological attack with a certain aim ‘, it is not consistently applied. When there is an attack on Planned Parenthood or a school shooting, nobody is talking about terrorism.
It is also worth noting that the ‘otherness’ in reporting skews perceptions. If a white person attacks somebody, it is reported as “man kills neighbour in frenzied attack”, but if a brown person does it, it’s a “muslim man attacks neighbour in frenzied attack”. There is a clear islamophobic trend in much of our media.
Of course, with each attack there are different reasons for it, and different ideologies; but underlying each is some form of ‘disillusion’ and a response that gives the person a purpose, some status, etc. So school shooters read up on websites that glorify previous school shooters – and the media response which focuses heavily on the individual feeds into this by giving them the publicity to attain (!) – and they blame the popular people, or the girls who were not interested them. US Presidential assassins similarly seek the sort of status and remembrance (CHECK). White nationalists – such as Britain First, English Defence League, or Anders Brejvik– have some sort of view that our country is degrading because of foreigners/immigrants/refugees, and that this needs to be stopped. White supremacists (think KKK or the people who fly the Confederacy flag in America) think that non-whites are vermin who need to be killed or subdued. And ‘islamic terrorists’ dislike the West for being anti-islam, waging war against countries in the middle east, and so on.
Each ideology needs to be countered in its own way. Islam is relevant insofar as the particular ideology of the ‘attackers’ is linked to Islam. But so too do Britain First and Brejvik believe themselves to be motivated by Christianity; yet we don’t decry them as Christian terrorists, nor call Christianity a violent religion and expect Christians to widely condemn them.
In this post I only seek to describe the problem, and point out the flaws in the way it tends to be portrayed. I don’t have an answer – and don’t know enough about – countering this particular problem and ideology – but the islamophobic response is clearly the wrong one.
Is Daesh even about Islam?
I won’t fully answer this question, I don’t know enough, but I will put some thoughts in. There are violent people and groups all over the world, and it just happens that in the middle-east, in Iraq and Syria, there are many muslims, so it is no surprise that the barbarian horde that fills a power vacuum created by the West’s removal of the Iraqi Hussein regime and the weakening against the Assad regime is also muslim. They are not violent or barbaric because they are muslim; they are just violent and barbaric and identify as muslims. Daesh, of course, want to claim that sort of legitimacy, and use a religious god-driven rhetoric to make themselves feel righteous in their actions and cause, and to try to attract more followers and sympathisers; but this does not make it true. The overwhelming majority of Daesh’s victims are muslims: Shiite muslims.
In the article linked below, a journalist (who is experienced in interviewing soldiers) concludes that “they’re drawn to the movement for reasons that have little to do with belief in extremist Islam”. She also says “They are not fueled by the idea of an Islamic caliphate without borders; rather, ISIS is the first group since the crushed Al Qaeda to offer these humiliated and enraged young men a way to defend their dignity, family, and tribe. This is not radicalization to the ISIS way of life, but the promise of a way out of their insecure and undignified lives; the promise of living in pride as Iraqi Sunni Arabs, which is not just a religious identity but cultural, tribal, and land-based, too.”
<http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/>
That article, along with this one <http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis>, details how stability and security that used to exist in Iraq (under the Hussein regime) was destroyed by the American (and UK) invasion. This including dissolving the Iraqi army (which was, at least partly, willing to fight with the Americans), and this is described by the author of that article as “probably the single most catastrophic decision of the American venture in Iraq … the Administration helped enable the creation of the Iraqi insurgency.“. In 2012-13, our anti-Assad foreign policy (why were we anti-Assad again?) did a similar thing in Syria. That probably has a lot more to do with the growth of Daesh than their religion.