Amid the confusion of the sudden collapse of the Afghan government and the restoration of the Taliban, one thing is apparently for certain: there’ll be more terrorism.
The US withdrawal and victory for the Taliban will add a “spring to the step of those who are railing against the infidels, the non-Muslim world”, ANU professor John Blaxland told the ABC. “The terrorist challenge is exponentially greater than it was two decades ago.”
A “counter-terrorism expert”, Greg Barton, also told the ABC it would vindicate jihadis everywhere: “In the last two decades, Salafi-jihadi groups around the world have increased three- or four-fold, conservatively.”
On 7.30, “counter-insurgency expert” David Kilcullen told Laura Tingle: “This is going to be a massive, massive moral boost for every jihadist on the planet … an injection of morale and motivation for everybody worldwide whether or not they’re based in Afghanistan … and I think we’re going to see an extremely serious spike in terrorist activity as a result of this.”
So no longer occupying Afghanistan means more terrorism. Except occupying Afghanistan also means more terrorism. Who says? The terrorists. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to detonate a bomb in Times Square in 2010, later said: “I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times forward because until the hour the US pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands …”
One of the perpetrators of the 2013 Woolwich murders, Michael Adebolajo, also singled out Afghanistan. As terrorism expert Marc Sageman said in 2013: “if you listen to the video of that guy, Michael Adebolajo, he very much says it is because of the [Afghan] war. At what point are you going to start listening to the perpetrators who tell you why they’re doing this? The same applies to the videos of the 7/7 bombers. At some point you have to be grounded in reality.”
But what would terrorists themselves know about why they’re perpetrating terrorism? Let’s ask more reliable sources: intelligence officials whose job it is to fight and prevent terrorism. There’s the former head of MI5, who said in 2010: “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people, some British citizens — not a whole generation, a few among a generation — who were — saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam.”
The then head of the CIA, John Brennan, admitted in 2015 that Western military interventions stimulated terrorist recruitment.
And in a way Barton seems to endorse this — after all, if there’s been a 400% increase in terrorist groups over the past 20 years despite our best efforts at fighting terrorism, what could have driven it but 20 years of Western military interventionism?
So neoconservatives and “counter-terrorism experts” get to have it both ways. We know for a fact that Western military occupations of Muslim countries drive recruitment to terrorist groups and radicalise young men in Western countries. But apparently Western countries not occupying Muslim countries will drive “an extremely serious spike in terrorist activity”.
And what would be the best response to such a spike? Presumably another Western military intervention.
Meanwhile, the only winners are arms manufacturers — and, of course, those who make a living from commenting on terrorism to credulous media organisations.
You know, I can’t helping thinking bombing a wedding party or a hospital is terrorism.
Thank you John Howard, Tony Blair & George Bush….and all the war mongers since (Liberal and Labor) for saving our ‘freedom’ that wasn’t under threat and painting a bloody great bullseye on our backs. Now, how long before the payback starts???
Their need for a future leadership legacy i.e. a war masquerading as a crazy Christian crusade, driver by defence, political and media interests.
None have nor will be held to account as those who vote or support such leaders and policies tend not to question authority wrapped up in the flag and god…..
The terrorists and the neo-cons, hawks and military-industrial-entertainment complex have a symbiotic relationship. They provide emotional and existential direction for each and keep each other going. The barbarians as a kind of a solution for each. They tend to gripped by and selling fantasies. The deaths of innocents are tucked away in ends justify the means rationalisations.
Studies of terrorists do often distinguish between: terrorists with extreme views but little or no popular following, hence their need for terrorism; states that use terror to control a population that does not support them or comply; popular movements that deploy terror as a tactic because of asymmetric power balances with their enemy, eg. a national movement for liberation against a colonial power. The neo-cons etc., imperialists all, paint their enemy as always in the first category. They do so at great cost in terms of the blunders and worse it generates, but not at cost, more likely profit, to them.
“So neoconservatives and “counter-terrorism experts” get to have it both ways. We know for a fact that western military occupations of Muslim countries drive recruitment to terrorist groups and radicalises young men in western countries. But apparently western countries not occupying Muslim countries will drive “an extremely serious spike in terrorist activity”.”
This is really sloppy and very disingenuous, one of the most addled pieces of analysis I’ve seen in Crikey. Keane is right to highlight how often those attacking Western forces have said their actions are in response to occupation of Muslim countires. But it is ridiculous to suggest that Western forcers leaving Afghanistan is the same as “not occupying Muslim countries”. There’s a very long way to go before that would be true. Which is exactly why the forecast of “an extremely serious spike in terrorist activity”, while not certain, is credible. Why on earth would those who want the these occupations to end stop now?
Perhaps invasion and retreat after an invasion both encourage terrorist activity. That seems more likely to me. And it would seem therefore the sensible thing not to invade in the first place. But does that seem to have occurred to anyone?
I’m not aware it occurred to anyone in power. But it certainly occurred to me just after the twin towers attack that the USA’s best response would be to treat it as a criminal act (a truly extraordinary one, but still plainly criminal), and rather than go to war with any particular countries it should use all judicial and extra-judical means to retaliate against anyone involved in carrying it out. Something like the way Israel struck back after the Munich Olympics massacre. Hunt them down like dogs, relentlessly.
The actual response by the USA was a huge gift to Al Qaeda. It proved Al Qaeda’s accusations against the USA were true. It transformed the organisation into something far bigger and more influential. It magnified the success of the attack many times over, from Al Qaeda’s standpoint. It was a colossal strategic blunder by the USA.
Terrorists appear to be anyone who opposes the USA. The USA has failed dismally at pretty much everything outside inventions, mechanization and service. They can drop bombs at a distance but lack spine and intelligence at the government level. It is apparent that in the USA, UK, and Australia smart people don’t get involved in government. The flotsam that comes on TV is a testament to the dregs put up for election and the vacancy in leadership. When reporters quote experts we hear these silly people who turn out to be mostly wrong. They’re talking about the past and their own vested interest.
I’m all for the people taking back the world using blockchain technology from our pathetic governments.
Difficult to believe we still argue about the role of the Abrahamic faiths in society. Tax these egregious entities ar least and discredit Abrahamism at every opportunity.
It is possible to ‘have it both ways’. Western powers occupting Muslim countries inspire terrorism, but when the Taliban are in charge of the country, they foster terrorist groups. Why not both?