The True Meaning of an “Islamic State”: A Brief Historical Look

The rise of radical groups who claim to be Islamic, growing instability in Muslim-majority countries, habits and norms that constitute “anti-modernity” to Western norms all tend to distort Islamic values and what Muslims hold dear. That specifically influences politics. Islam has a particular relationship to politics. It is broadly shaped by cultural practices, religious scripts and traditions. Since Islam’s emergence in Mecca, there has been a strong emphasis on Islam as an Ummah, or a political community. Muhammed was the Ummah’s political and religious leaders. Over time, the emphasis on the creation of an Ummah spilled up to the political sphere and became more heavily underlined. However, the structure and the core beliefs of the Islamic community has been open to interpretation. Neither the hadith nor the Quran outline a blueprint of an Islamic State or its governance. Throughout history, many Islamic theorist used the notion of the Ummah to unify and gain Muslim support but that was also the foundation of their respective sensation theory of Islam.  The notion of an Islamic state continuously emerges as something desirable and can be more accurately described as Islamic Revivalism: “a revolutionary force whose aim is to topple the established order in the Muslim world, be they authoritarian or democratic” (Dekmejian). It is a persistent and continuous phenomenon that has occurred in virtually every Islamic society. Revivalism is generally a natural response to multi-dimensional crises facing global Islamic communities: political, economic and military catalysts, legitimacy crises and inadequate leadership.

Islamic societies have faced a legitimacy crisis due to the failures of their intellectual elites to create social cohesion for Islamic legitimacy, especially in regard to European countries. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, nationalism emerged in Islamic societies, but it mimicked a number of other countries’ norms and practices: European, German idealism, Marxism and socialism. After decades of experimentation, “of the major attempts to forge a synthesis of political thought as a guide to political action, two-Ataturkism and Nasirism- appear to have failed after some temporary success.” Ataturk of Turkey attempted to formulate a viable political community after WWI using charismatic legitimacy. He had charisma and was attributed as a hero. He undertook sweeping cultural, bureaucratic, economic and military reforms, adopted Western models of military and bureaucratic organization and rapid industrialization.

Ataturk also sought to de-emphasize Islam as he viewed it as the “vestige of the Ottoman past he was seeking to eradicate”, according to Peter Mandaville in his Islam and Politics book. In contrast, Gamal Abdel Nasser’s formula for legitimization did not rely on a wholesale rejection of the past, but on “an eclectic synthesis of pre-revolutionary political thought and action” (Dekmejian). He emerged after a coup d’état by the Free Officers Movement against Farouk I (Mandaville). He fused elements of nationalism, socialism and nonalignment in Cold War geopolitics and managed to play both sides of the war to Egypt’s advantage. That made him even more popular. However, just like Ataturk, the legitimization Nasser created was only based on his charismatic leadership. Thus, it faded away after his death. Both of Ataturk and Nasser’s failures further emphasized the need for revivalism as a method of establishing legitimacy and a united Islamic community. That notion was only further reinforced by the failure of Middle Eastern leaders to fulfil their promises of social justice and development.

There is no clear sense of what Islamic governance should look like. Nasser, Ataturk, and other Islamic theorists took different approaches simply because they can. There is no Pope or middle man in Islam. Today, there is an extremely radical version of an Islamic State. Their strategies and goals are unacceptable and completely incompatible with the theorists and scholars that came before them. However, looking at multiple intersections of politics and Islam throughout history, the emergence of the Islamic State can be understood as a response to a larger historical crisis: abandonment of Islamic values, Western unacceptance and colonization of ideals. Furthermore, theorists or self-proclaimed leaders always use nostalgia as a weapon and strategy for unification: nostalgia to the old days of the caliphates and prophet Muhammed. This suggests that the concept of Islamic revivalism is a foundational strategy that has been used to justify the Islamic State’s existence.

Assessment of the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Following the horrific events of 9/11, media narratives created a paranoid fantasy in which terrorist groups obtain and deploy nuclear weapons of mass destruction. In 2017, Mathew Bunn and Nickolas Roth, a professor and a research associate at Harvard University argued that a “nuclear nightmare” is possible and could result from a single terrorist nuclear attack on a major city. They articulate the fatal consequences of another Hiroshima and Nagasaki event: long-term radioactive fallout, a nuclear counterattack, and a half million people dead. However, those scenarios are extremely overblown and exaggerated and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war by a state actor, not terrorists.

Bunn and Roth argue that a nuclear terror attack is possible if a terrorist group acquired the necessary nuclear material, but such a scenario is highly unlikely, according to Leonard Weiss, a visiting scholar at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. Only nine states have nuclear weapons capabilities: The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, North Korea, India, and Pakistan. A scenario in which nuclear materials are stolen from any one of those nations is almost impossible. All nuclear weapon states have multiple layers of safeguards that prevent security breaches. Any scenario for seizure would require major security breakdowns followed by an extremely fast takeover of weapons by terrorist groups with no time for other state actors like the United States to intervene. No existing non-state actor terrorist group has ever reached such sophistication. Even Al-Qaeda, who perpetrated the worst terror attack in modern history, could not acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, none of the nuclear weapon states would willingly give nuclear weapons or materials to any terrorist group due to existing nuclear deterrence. If a terrorist group manages to deploy a nuclear bomb as a result of a transfer from a sovereign nation, that will ultimately result in the transferring nation becoming a nuclear target as a form of retaliation. No country will risk absolute annihilation in favor of any terrorist organization.

Another scenario for a nuclear terror attack outlined by Bunn and Roth is the acquisition of nuclear material. However, necessary material such as uranium and plutonium are highly protected. Even if a terrorist organization were to acquire the necessary materials, it is extremely difficult to build and denote, requiring high level of expertise that no non-state actor can access. Technical hurdles and logistical difficulties is a huge challenge to nuclear terrorists

Deployment of a nuclear weapon by stateless terrorist organization should be the least of our worries in a world where minor provocations between any nuclear weapons states, such as Pakistan and India, are more likely to escalate. There have been no instances in which a terrorist group acquired and deployed a nuclear weapon. Terrorist groups do not have the capability, expertise or sophistication to carry out a catastrophic nuclear attack.

The Power of Social Media in Terrorism

Image courtesy of AP/The Independent.

Society currently has a strong need for a new topic of discussion. Almost everyone has social media profiles that keep them up to date on current events going on around the world. Many members of society want to gain followers or notoriety and be one of these topics of discussion. Acts of terror are the perfect opportunity for people to gain notoriety. The recent shooting in New Zealand by white nationalist Brenton Tarratt which he live streamed on social media is a perfect example of the power of social media in the digital age and how it acts as a conduit for terrorists to spread their message.

There are estimated to be at least 2.8 billion users of social media worldwide. This number is expected to grow even more in the next few years as our world becomes more globalized. This is a huge audience for terrorists to spread their message to the rest of the world. The power of social media has given a voice to those who feel like they have been marginalized, it amplifies their voice so they can reach the masses. When these terrorists send out their message to the masses it has two jobs:  1) To instill fear in their opponents and 2) to recruit others to their cause with similar mindsets. This is the Islamic State’s modus operandi which has raised their threat from the confines of their region to a worldwide threat. This has inspired many other terror groups or lone wolves to adopt similar methods and mindsets. It is not just jihadists either who are using the media to spread to the masses. Right wing nationalists have also used this method and have even formed their own networks such as 4Chan and Fachosphere in America and France respectively, to communicate with those with similar ideologies.

Many terrorists now rely on shock value and the “theater of terror” which forces the media to write reports on various terror attacks and this is what the terrorists live for because it gives them the notoriety they were hoping for. Sharing or retweeting acts of terror it gives them exactly what they wanted, as seen in the aforementioned shooting in New Zealand. The shooter live streamed his malicious act and a couple hours later it was all over social media. One way to prevent the spread of violent extremist ideals is to not share these heinous acts and not give these terrorists the notoriety that they want. Conversations about terror attacks on social media creates fear and perpetuates rumors which causes hysteria. This is exactly what the terrorists feed off of. The problem is that society is beginning to become desensitized to such violent acts because they happen so often. However, Cliff Staten a political science professor believes that this desensitization can serve as a deterrent to terrorists. He stated, “One could argue that becoming less sensitive to these terrorist events will make it more difficult for groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda to achieve their goals.” The terrorists prey on fear and if they don’t find it, then they can’t achieve their goals.

Social media can also help raise awareness about different terror attacks, especially those that may not get the same attention as others. Terrorism is not something that can be resolved in a day, a number of measures need to be put in place to raise awareness to prevent these acts from happening. The rise of social has provided the tools necessary to make change in the world. This can happen through sharing counterterrorism efforts around the world or reporting terrorist propaganda that found on social media feeds. People have the means to rid the world of the violence of terrorism.

 

Subterranean Warfare: The New Frontier

Image Courtesy of Reuters

Ever since aircraft were created, they have been an integral part of society. While they have been an integral part of society, they have also become an important tool for militaries around the world. Whether that be for transportation, reconnaissance or airstrikes, the use of aircraft has played a major part in nearly every war.

Military technology has become so advanced now that someone operating a drone in the U.S. can strike an area in the Middle East. Drone strikes have been one of America’s most used weapons in the War on Terror. These American strikes have killed many terrorists but have also come under scrutiny for also killing many civilians who happen to get caught in the crossfire. Many terror cells have begun to recognize this and have countered it by taking their operations underground.

Subterranean warfare isn’t a new idea per se, we saw the beginnings of this during the Vietnam War. However, it has never operated at the levels seen today in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. These underground tunnels are usually operated by terror groups or rebel insurgency groups.

During the Afghan War, American soldiers encountered a tunnel in the Zhawar Kili complex which contained structures a command center, mosque, and even a hospital. This just goes to show intricate these subterranean tunnels have become.

What has been the biggest nuisance to the United States in the dawn of subterranean warfare is the locations where these groups build these tunnels.

Groups such as Hezbollah and ISIL are plotting their underground operations beneath areas filled with civilians to hinder the possibility of enemies bombing their operation.

Enemies are also reluctant to send their soldiers down into the tunnels because the builders have a strategic advantage over them. These tunnels also can be used to smuggle weapons, people and materials to various locations based on the tunnel system. However, their biggest threat is their ability to be a means for terrorists to execute sneak terror attacks such as those committed by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has built a vast tunnel system along the southern Lebanese border due to the fact that they do not have to fear much interference from the Lebanese government due to the strength of their operations and also because they receive aid from Iran.

The ISIS underground system was first discovered after the liberation of East Mosul in 2017 in Iraq after ISIS destroyed a Christian shrine in the area. On the other hand, it is believed that some senior ISIS officials still reside in these caves. The Syrian rebels have also instituted a tunnel system in cities such as Douma, which has helped them keep up their fight against the regime during the Civil War.

Subterranean warfare seems to be the next domain of modern warfare.  The US government has already begun to implement underground training for American soldiers in preparation for this new frontier of war. This is to avoid the soldiers being unequipped to deal with potential combat situations with terrorists in these caves.

Daphne Richemond-Barek, an army writer said that “Even for well-trained soldiers, the multidimensional aspect of the subterranean threat is not easy to handle.”

Terrorists may use these caves to plot attacks on major urban areas due to some of these underground networks being built directly under major urban cities.

Another problem may be that some of these tunnel networks may be rigged with explosives by these terror cells that could lead to even more deaths of their enemies. Lastly, as was mentioned earlier, these tunnel networks can be used to smuggle weapons and high-value targets covertly.

They can serve as a means for a terror group to invade another country, commit their terror act, and easily travel back to their point of origin without a trace.

It is important that America continues to train soldiers for the subterranean battlefield because terror cells are building new tunnel networks every day with greater capabilities and we must be prepared for this new frontier of war.

Contested Kashmir: A Critical Analysis and Possible Solutions

The attack against Indian forces which occurred on February 14 was the deadliest thus far in the Kashmiri insurgency. Image credit: Getty Images.

Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is one of the most militarized areas in the world. India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed, have fought three wars since their independence, two of which have been over J&K. The tensions began in 1947 after the two countries won independence from Britain. The second India-Pakistan war in 1965 followed, with the rise of the Jammu Kashmiri Liberation Front – a Kashmiri nationalist organization aiming to unite both the Pakistani- and Indian-administered regions of the territory. More recently, tensions between the two neighbours have flared due to a suicide bombing by an Islamist militant group known as Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), or Army of Muhammad, which killed forty Indian paramilitary operatives in the Indian-administered part of J&K. The same group also launched an attack on an Indian army base in Kashmir in 2016, prompting India’s military to cross the border and launch surgical air strikes into Pakistan.

For Pakistan, Islamist groups are a key leveraging tool against India. Undertaking a complete crackdown against these groups would therefore counter their interests. JeM, for example, continue to raise funds in Pakistan under different names, andMahmood Azhar initially founded JeM with generous support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. Although the Indian government has tried to have JeM’s leader blacklisted by the UN Security Council, these attempts have always been blocked by China. Pakistan has recently demanded more substantial evidence before they consider arresting Azhar, demonstrating clear noncooperation in the fight against JeM. The failure of Pakistan to actively counter terrorism in its administered regions has been a key issue for India, who claim that Pakistan must do more to curb terrorist activity.

The introduction of social media and cable news in both countries has further polarized public opinion surrounding the issue. Both sides use jingoistic nationalism to rile up support – creating new and influential public lobbies. For example, interrogation footage of the recently captured Indian pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman,  widely circulated on Whatsapp and was shown on nationalistic media outlets in India. Pakistan have also taken part in this information war by filming footage of the pilot saying how well he is being treated by his captors and how the Indian media embellish the smallest thing, present it as if on fire, and people fall for it.”

The reason for such tension in Indian-administered territory is that most people within the territory do not want to be governed by India. Around sixty percent of its population is Muslim, making it the only state in India with a majority Muslim population. Moreover, high unemployment and human rights abuses by security forces have triggered protests against the authorities for over thirty years. Attacks in the region are carried out by the fedayeen (“those who sacrifice themselves”), and the last such attack on this scale was carried out in 2000 by a Birmingham-born man who was using the name Mohammad Bilal.

Going forward, how can ensuring short and long term peace work in practice? Throughout history, numerous UN resolutions have been introduced to try and resolve the conflict to no avail. Pakistan argues that J&K should be Pakistani because it is a majority -Muslim state. India argues that J&K should be a part of India because Kashmiris want to remain part of India (a claim which has not been proved). To paper over the cracks, both governments could agree to a ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) in J&K.

In other words, a return to the status quo is the first substantive action that should be taken in the short-term. In light of the fact that people living near the LoC have started packing their bags to escape the conflict, a ceasefire will ensure confidence and trust can build between the two nations again. We have seen evidence pre-2003 of how Pakistan infiltrated terrorists into the region under the cover of shelling along the LoC, and if this ceasefire does not hold, Pakistan can do the same today. This step is therefore of paramount importance, but it requires dialogue and cooperation from both countries.

India’s ultimate goal is to dismantle terror outfits and the networks that support them. Hence, they must try to convince the international community to put more pressure on Pakistan to shut down its support for terrorism in J&K. For now, this seems unlikely. With the recent Indian air assault on a JeM camp in Balakot, the ongoing escalation in hostilities is counterintuitive to this goal. However, Pakistan’s release of an Indian pilot is one small step in the right direction. Most likely this is an empty gesture that does not cost Pakistan much at all, just like the “cosmetic measures” they undertook in 2003 to dismantle terror networks in the face of international pressure. This time, if this is to work, the international community must find a way to hold Pakistan to account.

From there, we build on. Over time, if we want real peace, public opinion must change. This is the responsibility of politicians, the media, and ultimately the people. However, the role of the media will be to promote balanced debate and turn away from the current nationalist sentiment so prevalent in Indian and Pakistani media.

Most militants in J&K are in fact homegrown youth, which adds another dimension to this issue. No longer can India solely blame Pakistan for providing weapons, explosives, and training militants in the region. India itself must now do more to support de-radicalisation in the area through engagement with civil society. The government of Jammu and Kashmir broke down last year as the ruling party in India, the BJP, ended its alliance with a Kashmiri regional party which left the territory to be ruled by the central government in New Delhi. In turn, this fosters more adverse sentiment from the people towards India. To establish stability, India must not directly rule but support a Kashmiri government that represents the people to help quell unrest and offer some sort of legitimacy. Pakistan must reciprocate. Both sides should put an effort to hold regional elections in J&K, offer political freedoms to the people, and end the disqualification of candidates based on their views.

A short-term, fragile peace is the most likely outcome for the region – albeit a welcome one considering the current situation. To build long-term stability, trust and confidence must exist between both sides. And this will take time.