Well, I haven’t blogged for a while. It feels refreshing to finally throw open the browser once more and hit the keys, letting the thoughts flow freely onto the screen.
I’m going to touch briefly on an issue that I’ve pondered for some time now but feel that I need the medium of a blog to adequately articulate any potentially valid points. I was going to leave it at that, but the rainbow banner sitting at the top of my blog’s dashboard reminded me of that trendy question: same-sex marriage. So, if not now then hopefully very shortly, I’ll touch on that too.
But first, to the former.
It has to do with terrorism – I’ll just get that out of the way with a forceful shove – but I’d like to approach the subject with a slightly different angle. It is in this man’s humble belief that when it comes to the topic of terrorism, and more generally so-called ‘radicalisation’, there is a tendency for the questions of ‘why’ and ‘how’ to dominate discussion. ‘Why’ do these terrorists seek to cause such destruction for the advancement of their goals? ‘Why’ are they so disenchanted? ‘How’ could they be so heartless/extreme/misinformed/misguided/insertadjectivehere –
Valid questions at worst, vital queries always – but not what I’m exploring today.
My concern has to do with what’s not, in my opinion, discussed enough. Bear with me here – the purpose of this post right now is to try and organise my thoughts a little clearer, into something resembling a cohesive argument.
Should you diligently dare to do your democratic duty and delve into the somewhat murky and gloomy world of international news today, you’ll be confronted with increasing reminders of the omnipresent, existential perils that herald the downfall of civilisation and everyone you’ve ever known or loved. It’s enough to make your head spin, and when it comes to terrorism, our fears betray our better judgement in asking the questions that matter.
It is considered a universal truth that terrorism is an abhorrent evil that should be fought relentlessly by all nations, and indeed the actions of these terrorists are indisputably illegitimate – but at what point are we going to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, beyond the next inevitable terror attack?
Our troops – meaning mostly American but also other Allied forces – are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their numbers are increasing, rather than decreasing, despite the supposed winding down of the conflict there, which has been a process stretching back to 2010 at least. The US, Russia, Iran and others are engaged in a bitter proxy war, desperately trying to advance their own interests without openly stepping on each other’s toes (Syria must be legless at this point).
We talk about defeating Islamic State, about the construction of concrete barriers to protect popular tourist spots in Europe, about contributing to a more stable Middle Eastern region, about offering the right protections for refugees, and so on, but there is the looming spectre of a crushing reality that the next catastrophic loss of innocent lives is just around the next Belgian street corner.
And that’s ignoring the fact that in the Middle East, catastrophic loss of innocent life has effectively become the norm.
How on earth are we at this point?
If the world is so united against terrorism, then how is that same world encountering such brutal, stubborn resistance in all of its four corners?
What are we not considering; which hard truths and harder questions are we turning our backs on while we wait in nervous anticipation for the next attack and inevitable escalation in security measures?
And with that, you may have astutely noticed that I’ve been asking some familiar questions all the same – why and how.
The difference is, I think, that I’m asking why and how we are involved in all this. Why we need to look at what we are doing, and not just what the perpetrators are doing. How we can move forward, and not how the perpetrators can be pushed backwards.
I guess I’m trying to make the point that as each attack is carried out, we’re given a new reason to focus on the details of that specific attack, and we’re distracted from pursuing the wider narrative. It’s the politics of immediacy restraining the politics of necessity.
As media outlets report on the grisly details of each attack, and governments respond with tighter, increasingly draconian security measures, the trends and patterns in blaming Muslims are given less attention, and therefore less counter-arguments, which serves only to fuel any misconceptions and total fallacies that may rise. As we live (or die) in the moment, we fail to look to the future, and unless something is changed, maybe these prophecies of destruction will follow a path of morbid self-fulfilment.
Anyway – I’m not sure that I’m any clearer on this point, but I’ll continue to give it some thought.
TJDempsey 