This morning the Times of London published an editorial entitled “The Enemy Within†in reaction to the plot which was foiled last week. In the editorial The Times identifies three factors behind the radicalization of young Muslims in Britain and one things that’s not a factor:
The first factor they identify is multiculturalism:
Why is Britain such a breeding ground for these young men, for that is what most of them are? Much can be ascribed to timidity on behalf of the authorities, wedded as they are to a multiculturalism that isolates many young men in ghettos and a reluctance to espouse British values through our schools and institutions. That appeasement was epitomised by the sanctuary offered to extremist Islamic groups in Britain — “Londonistan†— in the pathetic hope that it might offer some form of immunity from violence.
The other two factors they identify are the Internet and a forgiving legal system:
Add to this the internet, the finishing school of global terror, and a legal system that appears to be inflexible about deporting foreign jihadists, and you have the ingredients for an explosive clash of cultures.
The non-factor? Poverty:
Nor is it good enough to claim that extremism is fostered by poverty. Although Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are struggling to do as well as some other second or third-generation immigrant groups, many of the recruits are from relatively privileged backgrounds. It is more a matter of a battle for minds rather than pockets.
I would have thought that by this time poverty would no longer be in the top list of root causes of terrorism but, alas, that’s not the case. If you’re still not convinced, you might consider that scholarship has not supported the thesis that poverty causes suicide terrorism. See Scott Atran’s 2003 paper, for example.
Here are their prescriptions for remedying the situation:
Muslims have to be persuaded that we are on the same side, that there is no witch-hunt against Islam and that the wars involving British troops are about stopping Islamists and the corruption of their religion. This means Muslims being alert to extremists in their ranks and being prepared to identify them to the police. It means Muslims becoming intolerant of radical mullahs and hounding them out of their mosques. Equally the authorities have a responsibility to crack down on extremists in universities and in prisons, to close internet sites and bookshops that spread hatred and violence, and to take all reasonable measures to protect their citizens.
I’m not qualified to comment on British society or the conditions that obtain there but I must admit I’m not particularly comfortable (or hopeful) about these ideas. Either Muslims have a special responsibility in stopping Islamists or their don’t. If they do, they’re being singled out and isolated in the population. If they don’t, why are they being singled out? I don’t know what the situation in Britain is but in this country it would be quite difficult for the government to shut down an Internet site or a bookstore for spreading hate.
I’m going to make an assertion for which I don’t have any proof in hand: I don’t believe that the radicalism of the British citizens who have been arrested in connection with this plot is quite as homegrown as might meet the eye. I suspect you’ll find that most if not all of them have contact with foreign-born, trained, and financed imams or have travelled overseas for training themselves.
I strongly suspect that stopping violent radicalism of this sort both here and in the UK begins at the border: it should be a lot harder to gain residence and a lot easier to get thrown out. And, however painful this might be, there needs to be more scrutiny of foreign financing of religious and charitable institutions.
For more on this subject I want to recommend very strongly you read this post at Eteraz.
Others commenting on this editorial include Marc Schulman at American Future and Greg Tinti at Outside the Beltway.
UPDATE: John Burgess links to a couple of relevant articles.
ANOTHER UPDATE: John has kindly placed an excellent analysis of the distinctions between the immigration experience of Muslims and, perhaps, Arabs whether Christian or Muslim to the United States and the United Kingdom in the comments. I was at least peripherally aware of what John has to say (I attended a Maronite church for years) and the differences between U. S. and U. K. law. Both are somewhat outside of my comfortable commenting area so I’m very grateful to John for expanding on them here.
You might want to check out the Richard Perle article in the Telegraph linked at Real Clear Poltics. He describes how Daniel Pearl’s murderer was recruited. Please note the Bosnia connection. I think the infiltration of the west started a long time ago and the recruiters have learned exactly which buttons to push to get the guys they want. I’ve also read about incidents where moderate locals ask the authorities for help and got none (one case was in the US).
Good extract and summary post. I’ve linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/08/re-what-to-do-about-enemy-within.html
The situation of Muslims in the UK is quite different from that of Muslims in the US. Even more, though, UK attitudes toward freedom of speech are markedly different, with wide-ranging effects.
There are, proportionately, many more Muslims in the UK than in the US. Most come from South Asia but many are from the Middle East. The US has seen, bascially, two waves of Arab immigration. The first was in the late-1800s/early 1900s and was predominantly Christians from what was to become Syria/Lebanon. They were primarily economic immigrants. The second started probably in the 1970s and included political refugees as well as economic refugees. This latter group has not assimilated into American society as well as the first, but they’ve also not been here as long.
The second group is still generally living in Muslim “ghettos”, where native language predominates over English and where jobs are not as good or even as available as they were for the first group. But assimilation is happening even if there is the occasional “honor killing” or other culturally-based atrocity brought over from the “old country”.
In the UK, there’s been a longer period of immigration, starting with some coming in from the “Raj” and assimilating over time. Latterly immigrants have come primarily from what’s now India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, starting with the 1947 independence movements and the Pakistani civil war that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Oversimplified, many wanted to keep the British citizenship they felt they were due from living in the Raj. Others came for the economic opportunity, to flee the socialist governments that predominated through the 20th C., or to flee religious persecution.
Assimilation is, more or less, continuing. But it’s starting from a somewhat different place. Parts of major British cities are known to be the centers of particular nationalities: Bangladeshis in East London; Indian and Pakistani Muslims in West London; Pakistanis in Manchester and Birmingham. These really are more like ghettos, where little English is spoken.
For a variety of reasons–some real, some not–S. Asians believe they have a harder time getting jobs than white British. They feel they are discriminated against in getting social benefits, in education, in health care. They also tend to be–as the Times article suggests, very disaffected from mainstream British society.
Speech is not nearly as free in the UK as in the US. That’s one of the reasons why those who believe themselves to have been libeled eagerly take up legal recourse in British courts. Defendants must prove what they spoke was not only true, but also undamaging; that’s a hard nut to crack. Further, there are no “shield laws” like the Sullivan defense (which pretty much prevents public figures from suing for defamation in the US).
The US also has no “Official Secrets Act” (though some on the left like to suggest that that’s what any hint of prosecution about leaks of classified info is about). The British law permits prior censorship; no US law with which I’m familiar permits this (there may be a few exception dealing with nuclear weapons, though).
The very first thing that ought to be done, and will not, is to start enforcing existing laws against incitement to murder, incitement to riot, inciting racial hatred, treason and sedition, and arrange some high-profile arrests.
The second thing to do is summarily expel those of the rabble-rousing clerics that aren’t British citizens and therefore have no right to be here. Whether there is proof that would stand up in court or not.
The third thing is to repeal the Human Rights Act, and start concentrating anti-terrorist efforts on those most likely to be terrorists.
But none of this will be done, until the first catastrophe. Why? Because it would cost the current government votes, and the motorcades and the luxury taxpayer-funded limousines are far more important to our lords and masters than the safety of the people who elected them.
After all, they are safe behind the layers of security; it’s Joe Public who is going to get blown up, incinerated or gassed, not the First Lord of the Admiralty.