



Islam, is not a singular monolith, it has different movements that fight for supremacy within the Muslim world. The most popular news meme is that Islam is a spectrum, from moderates to radical, but, in reality, it is, much like Christianity, animated by different doctrines, who each have fundamentalist and moderate members. This profound misunderstanding led to the West, in its frantic research on how to stop the current wave of terrorism, to try to target certain parts of Islam and to have allies within the faith. But it failed, not helped by the foreign alliances that were doing exactly the opposite to what was wanted on the terrain of Islamist terrorism.





What made the West's counterterrorism policy, on Islam, falter? What are the contradictions within western countries between those policy aims and other interests?





Radical Islamic terrorism is not something that exists, despite the hammering of the term recently. Terrorists are always revolutionaries at heart, and religions are based on a conservative order, terrorists and extremists therefore upset the balance and stability the religion wants. It is not to say that the terrorists are not Muslims, but they are Islamists, rather than Islamic, searching to put in place the Islam they think is the right one not practising the one currently in place. There is proven Islamist terrorism, but not so much on Islamic terrorism. The exception would be certain groups in Iraq after the US invasion, as they sought to keep the order there was before the Americans came.

This means several things. That the average Muslim, no matter how hardcore are his beliefs, isn't going to be recruited by terrorist groups. On the contrary, the Muslims that are enrolled (converts as well) are usually typical of a terrorist profile, which is the same for many different and opposing terrorist groups, and has nothing to do with religion. As a matter of fact, a lot of the Muslims who went to fight for Daech (the Islamic State), especially from the West, were from non-practising well implanted families. The typical profile, then, isn't a middle aged man, profoundly convinced of his religion, in an Arabic country, who decides to take on Jihad literally. It is a teenager or young adult (still mostly male), lost in what should be his life and faith, in a minority group and with little connection to Islam. There are exceptions, once again. Violent interventions, by western powers, and before that, by the USSR, made non typical groups, or on the limit of the profile, take arms to protect their lands and/or faith.

It is the first pitfall of the Western powers. They fail to realize that, to Muslims, when their country is invaded, it is INVADED. The aim doesn't matter, no matter how charitable, they generally see this as a threat to them and their lifestyle, and resist against it. No war is clean, and in recent years there has been a resurgence of civilian casualties through increased wars, this hinders any tentative to reach out to the populations that are resisting the western troops.

You can't force anything on a nation without consequences, especially ones with a history of Sectarian violence by a brutal leader to control the country. This has already shown in Yugoslavia, and others, that, as soon as order break out, old enmity will be acted upon. For nations who don't have a history of opposing forces, where one is usually used to ally with the western powers, to make invasion easier, it's even worse as it fuels nationalism and, soon, the whole nation is against the foreign military. Interventionism is good on paper, it is often the only way to oust a leader, or avoid massacres, but people should keep in mind, that every innocent killed, and most soldiers killed, has, for each one, a family grieving who will actively resist the other army and won't forget. Obviously, now, western forces, and the US army in particular, are overwhelmingly stronger than the opposing countries. Interventionism doesn't suffer from opposing militaries, who are obsolete. But the very presence of the foreigners will fuel an insurrection forever.

In Muslim countries, the West has been very active, initially to counter communism, and now terrorism. As outlined above, it's a suicidal strategy, but there is even worse. The Western forces, to counter a perceived threat, armed Islamist and Islamic groups threatened by the advances of secular communism. They let a new ideology on Jihad develop, first in Afghanistan and, then, in Yugoslavia. Moreover, as it helped their goals, they used communist interventionism to stoke the fire of the grieving Muslim communities in countries like Afghanistan, and neighbours concern like in Pakistan, and, as there is a sense of community in every religion, other countries, particularly in the Gulf, also started to feel threatened and helped the ongoing insurrections.

The West, in effect, planted the seeds of the current terrorism in the Muslim world, to counter communism and the USSR. It created an ideological framework in Islam where violence is okay, an embryo of organisations using violence to defend their ideas, and a supporting network in sympathising Muslim countries to help and fund those groups. Obviously the USSR had a role in it with its wanted expansionism, though it should be remembered that the intervention in Afghanistan was only to consolidate the government that was already in place (and purge the unpopular figures), and would have been short without the US feeding afghanis advanced anti tank and helicopter weapons. This is not yet the end of the ways the US misunderstood how terrorism originates, and the ultimate goal of those involved. But it also miscalculated that its past involvements would be of no consequences, or viewed positively, when taking down regimes in Muslim dominated countries. There was already an ongoing view of fighting against invading foreigners in the Muslim world, and weapons to go around, whether from other neighbouring groups or from the military bases after the regime collapse, so when the US invaded, it got a response like the communists had, and the groups were now well organised and with good logistics. The US, then, couldn't secure the countries. This left a breeding ground for those terrorist groups, as, there was an ongoing fight against foreigners wanting to change their ways of life, prompting non typical people to fight, and, with areas they were controlling, they could then go on and radicalise the typical profiles, to extend and expand their footprint.





The US still thinks of Muslim terrorists as different from others, this likely being the result of the atrocious attack on 9/11. But they are not, they have all the typical ideas and ideological tools of any terrorist group. The 9/11 terrorist act, and some of the other attacks, weren't any more animated by championing local issues with Muslims being oppressed internationally, like the campaigns on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it was to spread "Islam" globally. What happened there was very simple, but missed by most Western countries. Ideas solidify, like Marx observing class oppression becoming communism, rejection of the Jews becoming nazism, peasant grievances needing to be heard becoming democracy. What happens, is that, sooner or later, from a single issue needing answering and justified will be developed a global framework, to spread what is considered the best ideology worldwide. In case of Islam and terrorism, it first was about defending yourself, your land, your way of life, it soon became about defending other people's way of life, and it finally ended up in the entire world needs this way of life. From their views this is not nefarious, they don't want minority Muslim groups in the Western world to go to hell. The West would never accept such rule, even though, to the terrorists, it's the only way into heaven. It then becomes necessary, to "liberate" Muslim minorities, that a civil or guerilla war happen in those countries to enforce an Islamist regime. This is the reason for 9/11 and is the basis of the current ideology of Al Qaeda, and, to a lesser extent, Daech.

Imams that believe in this ideology are a minority, because, as talked about before, it contradicts the concept of an established religion, but it is made to appeal to the Muslim communities. It stems from a fantasied history of the beginning of Islam, it "helps" oppressed Muslim communities, and it defends against forces that threaten or oppress Muslims. In the era of internet, it is logical that they can have a true spread of their ideology, even if the formal framework of diffusion of ideas (mosques) isn't accepting it, but it started before internet was available, there must have been an informal network, already in place, to radicalise, as you can't radicalise people on an ideology if they don't even know it. This network was missed by the West, who only, now, focuses on the Internet aspect, thinking people radicalises themselves magically through seeing two videos of Daech.





Islam has multiple currents, to simplify them we can talk about them as either fundamental groups, the first splinters in Islam, and school of thoughts. The fundamental groups are mainly Sunni and Shia, though some smaller groups (Ibadism) exist as well. In those groups there are many different school of thoughts. Here we will only talk about Sunnis, as they represent the bulk of the Muslims and almost all the terrorists (exception being Hezbollah and the Madhi Army). The main different Sunni school of thoughts are, on legal issues, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali, and on divine issues (like free will) Ashari, Maturidi, and traditionalist. The last ones of each list is generally credited as the ones inspiring the ideology now in place in Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. However, terrorists are mostly from countries having a more rationalist and less traditionalist view on Islam. There seems to be a discrepancy between the terrorists ideology and their repartition in the world, but this discrepancy is linked to other factors that skew terrorists to come from less rigorist countries.

First of all, there is, as talked above, a major terrorism reason, which is western intervention in Muslim countries. This mostly happens in secular regime (Libya, Afghanistan in the 80s, Syria) so it fuels Islamic terrorism whilst freeing it and its political wings from state oppression. But it doesn't explain why the ideology used to justify terrorism is so different from the main school of thought in those countries.

Another reason, as important, is the concept of holy war, and the need for conflict and an overarching goal. The Jihad rhetoric, after it solidified, still only works if it has to be implemented in the country where it preaches, or, at minima, if it is used to "help" with one issue, otherwise it will mobilize a marginal proportion of the population if it is purely internationalist and has no focus. The conflicts between the Jihadists' ideology and the ideology of their country is a great way to justify their terrorism, especially when the country is aiding the West, which makes the current school of thought seen as suspect or even heretic, as it helps secular countries, and only helps the solidity of the Jihad's ideas. The base of recruitment for Jihadists, young adults, often need conflicts, or are in rebellion with the current order. If the country offers such a narrative, that Jihad is a way to rebel against an order, moreover a possibly corrupt one collaborating with western infidels, and that Jihad is a return to a purer religion, in addition to justifying national struggle, it will more easily attract its targeted demographics. Not only Jihadism acts like regular terrorism, but it now feeds itself by just spreading in the right places

The concept of religion purity is very important in traditionalist movements, but it will have less impact in a traditionalist country, as it is already considered pure. In those kind of countries, the struggle for a return to the original religion will mostly be spiritual and within the religious discourse, as it will try to find ways for the individual to achieve this. In addition, often times, in places with a very long and very traditionalist Islamic religious culture, violence is highly undesirable, and is considered, especially for religious clerks, as contrary to the religion and divisive. The presence of violence can still be there, but it is mostly symbolic, aimed at keeping honour, rather than inflicting harm, which is considered dishonourable as well as unislamic. Countries who don't have those traditions, won't have as much barriers to Islamic terrorism, because not only they are considered in need of collective change as their main school of thoughts is considered impure, which calls already for violent actions, but the burgeoning traditionalism won't be infused with non violence, that a long standing well established school of thoughts would have. It is one of the problem with the current Jihadist ideology, it will be able to recruit more in countries less aligned ideologically, the divergence of ideas will fuel conflict and help them have more man power, but, for countries so ideologically similar that they might actually take power, there is no more enough conflict to keep a foothold solid enough for them to do so.

The main reason for the current chaos and spread of this extremism, is, nevertheless, not one of the aforementioned points. It is due to the converts to traditionalism and in turn, to those who fund the imams who do this. All the reason above were mostly signs that the country is a fertile ground to diffuse traditionalist views, and how those views, unlike in countries who held them for a long length of time, were the recipe for a burst of violence, even more so if the country is already at war. But there is the need for someone to sow the seeds of those views, for the whole escalation to terrorism to happen. This has been mostly done by the gulf countries for influence. As a matter of fact, many of those countries were born from such a traditionalist resurgence and the following upsurge in violence, , it therefore made sense, from their ideological point of view, to fund imams who are traditionalists. Not to wreak havoc, but because they are close in terms of school of thoughts, and will therefore speak the same voice as Qatar or Saudi Arabia. This created an unmitigated disaster, that is still ongoing today. It added to the western interventionism, by tipping formerly stable countries towards conflict and closer to embrace the ideology of Jihadism.





The proselytism that is made by the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, is nothing new. This technique was used by plenty countries to expand their influences, and is still used by countries as different as the US, Iran, and Russia. But this influence is mostly counterbalanced, within a religion, by other influences by powerful players. Not in Islam. The fact that the richest Muslim countries are all concentrated in a small region, and have close ideologies, skewed the whole Muslim religious discourse worldwide, and even their own.

They used their unlimited cash, from their abundant oil resources, to fund Wahhabism worldwide, often by paying Imam formation. Soon they became the place where Imams were going to be formed. Places like Algeria and Egypt couldn't compete, and became, soon, also influenced by the ideas spread by Imams who were educated in Saudi Arabia. This ran concurrently with the nationalist Muslim struggle against secular foreigners, and it created logistical networks, especially within traditionalist countries, to support this.

In the meantime, whilst the ideology of terrorists developed, the traditionalist view started to clash with secular places around the world, but also within traditionalist countries, whether young (Saudi Arabia) or old (Yemen). This clash became apparent with the deadly hostage taking in Mecca, that shocked the Muslim world.

This moment became the start of modern Jihadism, as a hardline among traditionalist views, that wasn't afraid to use violence.

None of the proselyte regimes were democratic, so they viewed this Jihadism as a threat to their rule, and decided, unfortunately, to adopt an even more traditionalist stance, to cut its ideological base. But this meant that they were going to export ideas that were now almost aligned with the Jihadists. It was at the same time that Jihadism abroad met with the ideological base that was in the gulf countries, with the last part of the Afghanistan war, and more importantly, especially for the West, with the war in the Balkans. With the later conflict, the logistical networks became reactivated, but they weren't used for a national Islamic struggle anymore, they were used by Jihadist groups.

The Gulf countries weren't ready to fuel the Jihadist part of the conflict as much as during Afghanistan, preferring Islamic groups that were less radical, a pattern that will keep showing in later wars. It didn't matter as rich radicalised individuals started to fund those groups, who had, at the time, started to reach their final refined ideology of a global Jihad, including in Western countries, that they saw intervening in Islamic countries, and that had (and still have) antagonistic religious views.

Meanwhile, the funding, by the Gulf, of radical ideologues, started to brew severe internal conflicts in more moderate countries, in the way outlined above, as well as spreading to Muslim minorities throughout the world.

This infernal chain reaction couldn't be stopped any longer, as the radicalization within gulf countries now attained government officials, including senior members. This was the start of a long operation by Jihadist Groups to make a very high profile attack, using their allies within Saudi Arabia's government, ending in the infamous 9/11.

The West was now involved with this new world struggle, Jihadism. The following wars only made Jihadism stronger, until defeats, and divergent views on violence, made a splinter: Daech. Those groups were now starting to get more and more numerous, and, having a heartland in enemies of the Gulf, the next logical step was: more funding. The Syrian mess reinstituted institutional help to Jihadists, despite knowing their new goal of world domination. Sure, most of the help went on traditionalists rather than proper internationalist Jihadists, but there is a risk it becomes the base for another cycle of ideological justification, and then violence in name of the newfound ideology.





Where the West sides there is the reason for such a bad terrorism there. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in general have an enormous leverage, with their monopoly on the Islamic faith and its holy sites, and their deep pockets, on Sunni majority poor countries, but the West is mostly secular, including its Muslim population, and has the mean to counter the Gulf influence on their local communities. But, a series of geopolitical missteps made them as vulnerable as Pakistan.

First there was an over reliance on the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", with Islam, and for a short time Jihadism, used to fight the communist influence in the middle east, resting on the logistical networks put in place by the Gulf. This was then extended with the targeting of Iran as the reason for the terrorism expansion.

The targeting of Iran, and, in a larger sense, the appetite for revenge by the West, made the whole situation worst, and tightened their alliance with the Gulf, despite its toxicity for Islam, and the growth of terrorism it creates. Libya was responsible for some terrorist attacks on the West, as was Syria, during the struggle against the first wave of Western intervention, and the proto-Jihadist wave that surrounded the Palestine conflict, and Iran and Hezbollah both armed US interests in the 80s. Given that they are no strategical victory to be gained from their defeat, and the repeated scenario, it seems to make sense that the settling of grudge is one of the most important factor in the current western foreign policy, and they used their Gulf allies to help with this goal, fuelling Jihadism in Syria and Libya by doing so. This bad foreign policy approach also leaves marks on the current counterterrorism targets.

There is a string of Shia paramilitary forces being created in the middle east thanks to Iran's Guardians of the revolution. This does contribute to regional instability. On the other hand, they are mostly fighting Jihadists, and are too much in minority to win over the whole Middle East. Apart from Israel, they do not threaten any Western country, and even then, they take orders from a single higher authority, meaning that it is easy to negotiate with them. The US obsession with calling Iran, the world's biggest exporter of terrorism, is, then, not only a gross exaggeration, but also making them align with the ones who are fuelling the terrorism wave, and reject the ones with whom it would be easy to neutralise or contain (Shia are only about 15% of the whole Muslim population) and easy to make lasting peace with.

If there were concrete actions on the Gulf actions, whether proselytism, private funding of Jihadist groups or the occasional public help to crucially placed Jihadists, that would curtail the current reaction chain that keeps creating Muslim terrorists in every corner of the world, although it would also affect its international standing, as it would show it sided with the wrong alliance in the Middle East. The Iran deal might be a way to start this change in foreign policy, that currently keeps on defeating western interventions and threaten them at home.

There are popular counterterrorism measures in the West that do target the groups I singled out, so why are they inefficient?

As said before, Jihadism acts like a terrorist ideology, rather than like a religious one. Every effort to single out Muslim populations in your country will only help it. It runs concomitantly with Salafism and Wahhabism, but doesn't act in the same way. Salafism will mostly attract middle aged persons, as said before, it is only the strain by Salafism varying so much from the majority that will lead to conflicts who will lead to Jihadism. Any measure to repress them will only fuel terrorism coming from their groups, as well as adding to the ideological justification. All the growth of the security apparatus, the monitoring of the Muslim community, as well as the outlawing of some of their religious practises, that is the main effort the West does domestically, is poised to increase terrorism. What should rather be done is to recreate an insular Islam by cutting foreign influences, this will help the local Muslim community link its beliefs with the country's culture. Funding either moderates or non-traditionalist fundamentalists will spread different views than the ones Jihadists hold, whilst still allowing freedom of religion, and the possibility to be a hardliner.

Internationally, the last Western Mistake is to believe that the Gulf counterterrorism is having the right targets. The Gulf (apart from Qatar) is pursuing a misguided crusade on political Islam. Whilst it might seem oppressive from a secular standpoint, it is an antidote to Jihadism, as it gives a peaceful political resolution to their marginalisation and will, therefore, nullify their ideological justifications. Like proper representation and recognition stopped the Irish troubles, it would stop the Jihadist bases in Muslim majority countries. Unfortunately, most of the Gulf is against any democratization, and does everything to shut it down. The West help towards this crackdown, thinking they inspire terrorism, only add to grievances of Muslims who feel they aren't heard, and makes the Jihadists the only one representing political Islam, helping them grow and radicalising people who just wanted a voice in the political discourse.

In conclusion, the sources of Islamist terrorism are multiple. First, Western interventionism, and its help towards fringe groups who were driven by the need to keep their way of life when they fought communist forces who wanted to secularise their countries. Second the Gulf proselytism who, with the logistical help, consolidated the Jihadist armed groups, and, with the spreading of a "traditionalist" Islam, made the base of their recruitment in many country by adding radical religious concepts with no context and making a radical minority, making conflicts with the majority extremely likely, and, therefore, making terrorism, following those conflicts, a high risk. Third, the solidification of single issues in the Muslim world, into one ideology that wants to spread a pure Islam worldwide. Fourth the Western inaction towards the Gulf acts, who only increase the reasons for terrorism, and its misguided counterterrorism actions domestically, who only fuel marginalization and terrorism. Finally, the current chaos in the Middle East and the West foreign policy, makes perfect breeding ground for Jihadist groups whilst focusing resources on less dangerous and more structured groups like Shia paramilitaries.

Islamist terrorism is a political issue, and not a religious phenomenon like Wahhabism and Salafism. It can therefore be solved by a political representation, although, as every terrorist groups and ideology (unlike religious splinters), it will eventually be tamed and flame off. Every intervention in the religious sphere of a Muslim community, or in the political sphere of another country will only add fuel to the fire. As shown by the Arab Spring, it is democracy who is needed, which starts by stopping ambiguous foreign policy with dictators of rich countries. There is also the need to have a new balance of Islam. Despite Internet, cultures remain very different from a country to another, so if it is the same Islam from Saudi Arabia to the United States, there will be, in certain places, conflicts between the country's culture and the Muslim community. Even if this similarity is just perceived, it might still be the reason for Muslim marginalization. There needs to be, especially in the West, an encouragement towards a strong national Muslim community, with a significant religious part. Currently, it is often the lack of religiosity of the majority, coupled with a new radical ideology (that can't be countered because of the lack of other religious currents due to the lack of religiosity), that makes a minority, often already marginalized, go into terrorism. Tensions and marginalizations create terrorists, it needs to be addressed, and, to some, this terrorism is, too often, an opportunity. If the West is serious about fighting terrorism, it means fighting its causes which are the Gulf's influence on the Muslim world, and the injustices that Muslims suffer worldwide.





To Support Us, You Can Donate Here: https://www.patreon.com/TheNewRealityinForeignPolicy

You can check our facebook here for the latest updates: https://www.facebook.com/The-new-reality-in-foreign-policy-492287754467588/?ref=bookmarks