Fortress Europe Getting Militarized

When I revisited Rome in 2006, I was disappointed to find that once wide open St. Peter's Square could only be accessed through metal detectors, at least during the pope's general weekly audience. I could not imagine it would become worse. But it has. The video news packages I have worked on this week about security measures in Rome, Paris, Brussels and other European cities all show the same scenes of heavily armed police and soldiers, patrolling major streets and landmarks. 

Apart from the quality of the picture and different uniforms, one could be watching footage from World War Two Europe. Officials in Brussels are shutting down schools, public transport and some businesses due to "serious and imminent" threat of terrorist attacks in more than one place.

Soldiers and police squads are combing Belgium's capital for suspects, lurking behind every corner. Officials are warning citizens to avoid crowds while promising to defeat terror. France has intensified its bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria as did Russia. Hillary Clinton said the United States must lead the fight against ISIS - "not to contain it, but defeat it." In this country as elsewhere politicians want to close the doors to Syrian migrants as a way of protecting the country from terrorist attacks.

About a year or so ago, I took an online course on terrorism offered by the University of Leiden. One of the things I remember best from that course is a plethora of facts and findings showing the disconnect between politicians and scientists regarding terrorism. For example, according to the scientifically collected data, more people have been killed in Africa, Asia and the Middle East by terrorist groups such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Shabab and Boko Haram than in the combined attacks in Europe and the United States since September 11, 2001. One could add that more people in the United States are murdered each year in mass killings or "ordinary" homicides than have ever been killed by terrorists.  

Yet, as the Dutch academics pointed out, more money has been invested in the ramped up security, including new agencies in the developed countries than in those most hurt by terrorism. The Leiden scholars also pointed out that these efforts have not made the world a safer place. They suggested that the money would be better spent on financing centers to research terrorism, especially in parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Africa,  the Middle East and other regions most endangered by violent groups. But most helpful of all, the online course suggested, would be for politicians to consult with scientists on the matter. ( I am not so sure when I see how some of our politicians reject scientific findings on climate change).

From what I can tell, this is not just the view of a bunch of liberal European scholars. Rosa Brooks, law professor at Georgetown University here in Washington, wrote in an article for Foreign Policy: "If we want to reduce the long-term risk of terrorism — and reduce its ability to twist Western societies into unrecognizable caricatures of themselves — we need to stop viewing terrorism as shocking and aberrational, and instead recognize it as ongoing problem to be managed, rather than “defeated.” "

Years ago, I interviewed Mark Juergensmeyer, the author of what is now a standard textbook on the subject, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. He noted an increase of violent terrorist attacks since the 1990s and said they are committed by people who see the world as being in some sort of "cosmic war." During the Cold War, he said, the world was divided into the communist East and non-communist West, with the Third World balancing in between. But after its end, "the rise of geopolitics and of a global economic system, although in some way unites everybody, it also disrupts traditional societies and gives a sense of uncertainty to people who feel that they are not a part of the new world."

According to Juergensmeyer, those who feel disenfranchised, especially  younger people, commit acts of violence or join terrorist groups whose leaders employ religious images of the divine struggle against evil in the service of their worldly political battles. The barbaric acts that seem senseless to most of the world, are what he calls "performance violence," designed to engage the world in the war, quite unlike the kind of terrorism associated with left-wing Marxist movements that was more strategic and had a more practical goal.

According to that analogy, a world leader who declares war against terror, would appear to be falling into the terrorists' trap. Many Europeans seem to think so. A German friend e-mailed me, "It's crazy. Total overreaction - like after 9/11. I thought the Europeans wouldn't do such a thing but apparently yes. And Hollande - like Bush - is of course internally weak and unpopular and now tries to exploit it to boost his image and electoral chances. It's terrible."

Pope Francis has refused to succumb to the terrorist strategy. In his address to the faithful on Sunday he stressed that the doors to the church will not be closed under any circumstances.

Ordinary citizens also have displayed more sang-froid after the Paris attacks than their leaders. Many said they were concerned, but won't allow fear to control their lives, and a video of a Parisian father telling his son "they might have guns, but we have flowers" went viral online. 

Of course, no political leader can ignore the terror threat, and short-term security measures are in order.  In the long term, I am inclined to believe in my grandmother's maxim "better to prevent than to cure " (a disease). 

What have we done all these years to predict, let alone prevent, the march of al-Baghdadi's forces from Syria into Iraq early last year? The sweeping victories by well armed and well trained fighters were a huge surprise to the general public who had never heard of ISIS. But sociologists, scholars, authors, even film makers have been giving us hints for years - decades - of what the future may bring. I mentioned Kureishi's movie "My Son, the Fanatic" in one of my previous blogs. 

Why is it that political leaders cannot read the writing on the wall when a lot of ordinary citizens can? Politicians react and over-react to compensate for the lack of timely action at a great cost to their nations, and it's just what the terrorists want. ISIS is now a household name in every corner of the world, partly due to their own propaganda, and partly due to the attention they are getting from the media and the political leaderships.

As Brooks and others point out, the best way to reduce the benefits terrorists reap from the world's attention is to stop overreacting. History shows that terrorism cannot be defeated by arms, and that safety measures work only until attackers figure out a way to circumvent them.  Even if you destroy one terrorist group, another one will crop up. But a lot can be done to prevent any new wave of violence by foreseeing it.  Closer cooperation between scholars and politicians might help produce a more successful final outcome in the so-called war on terror.

*********************************************************************************
Furter reading:
An academic study from 2004
http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/WyattBrownNY04meeting.pdf  

Recent article from The New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/nov/16/paris-attacks-isis-strategy-chaos/?printpage=true

The Quest for Honor

The concept of honor varies from one culture to another.  It has also changed over time.  Social scientists say understanding what honor means in other cultures is an essential part of effective global communication.

A social science experiment conducted by the University of Michigan a few years ago included directing a verbal insult at male students from the south and the north of the United States.  "We find huge differences in the way our southern and northern students respond to that," said Richard Nisbett, professor of social psychology at the University of Michigan.

What's An Insult?
"First, the attitude towards this on the part of the northern students is: 'What's your problem?' They don't get upset about it.  The southerners immediately look angry if you code their expressions.  It's not: 'What's your problem?' It's: 'You and I have got a relationship now.'"

And that relationship often includes retaliation on the part of the student who feels insulted.  The social consequences of this type of response are far-reaching. Statistics show that small-town murder rates among friends, lovers and acquaintances are three times higher in the South than in the New England and Midwestern states.  Nisbett attributed the violence to the South's unique concept of "honor" - most likely imported by swashbuckling English cavaliers in the 17th century.

Nisbett the concept was reinforced some 100 years later by immigrants from the Irish and Scottish borderlands, traditional livestock-herding communities. "Any culture where the care of animals is the basis of your livelihood has a tradition of macho men.  And the reason for that, we think, is because if I don't make it clear that I am a tough guy and you better stay away from anything that is mine -- my home, my honor, my animals -- you are a dead man," he said.

Honor In Mediterranean and Middle East Countries
Nisbett said similar notions of honor prevail in many Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries.   Bertram Wyatt-Brown, author of the book "Southern Honor," agreed.  He said that the ancient codes of honor that prize martial valor, family loyalty and male dominance remain powerful in rural societies all over the world.

"Almost every society that has very few cities and has a rural background and economy and very few institutions that you can depend upon -- institutions of law in particular, of ordinary justice -- resorts to this family-based code in which the head of household is the giver of truth. All must obey his commands and he must obey the commands of the whole community."

Wyatt-Brown said people in these societies are expected to observe traditional conventions very strictly.  Family lineage is very important: "If you were in an honor society, the first question you'd be asked as a stranger is: to whom do you belong? And if you don't have a family connection, they are going to be very suspicious because (they would think): how can we judge who the stranger is?"

Wyatt-Brown said that in modern western cultures, especially in large cities, personal achievements are more important than family ties: "So you are a physician, or a clergyman, or a businessman even, and they don't ask you, 'To whom do you belong,' but 'What do you do for a living?'"

Still, Hyatt-Brown said westerners typically value personal integrity, honesty and other moral virtues more than a person's social status.  Insults, encroachments on personal property and other perceived injuries are, for the most part, dealt with in a court of law.

Honor Societies
In honor societies, by contrast, people are more likely to resort to personal vengeance, often, said Wyatt-Brown, in the form of bloody retribution.  Seeking legal help and or pursuing negotiations with one's adversary may be perceived as a sign of weakness and therefore a cause for shame, and a loss of social status.  The whole family, sometimes an entire society, is obliged to respond to reclaim the honor of the insulted member.

"There's always revenge and then revenge on top of the retribution and it goes on and on, as it does in Palestine and Israel," said Wyatt-Brown, adding that many Arabs are angry at the West because they believe it has exposed their political and military weaknesses.

Loss of territories to Israel and perceived attacks on Islamic culture also insult Arabs' honor.  So their hunger for vengeance is strong.  Social scientists say this feeling is likely to persist until Arabs can regain their dignity and a sense of control over their lives.  The West can help by learning to understand and, more importantly, to show respect for these powerful and enduring notions of honor.