Share

Terrorism on American soil is not new. Nor are crimes of hate. Since at least the 19th century, politically motivated citizens have used violence to kill for a purpose. What makes the horrible massacre in Orlando stand out is its connection to a more recent phenomenon: the murder of large numbers by a single attacker.

Even though gun ownership has always been widespread in American society, premeditated murder of innocent mass crowds has only become common during the past 20 or so years.

Shooters such as Omar Mateen are not connected to movements that hope to improve society, but instead desire to bring the whole edifice of civil society crumbling down around their anger. That is why they target schools, churches, clubs and other public spaces. That is why they pledge allegiance to foreign groups like ISIS. The problem is much deeper than anything we might simply label “Islamic radicalism.”

So why now? Our racial, ethnic and religious diversity are not new; we have always been a country of immigrants. Attitudes of hate and prejudice are not new; our country’s horrible history of lynching and vigilantism shows that powerful groups have frequently attacked the vulnerable in the past. What is new is an explosive mix of cultural, political and technological changes.

Our public culture today valorizes individual combat and gratuitous violence. This is not just a problem with the entertainment industry, but our leadership as well. Presidential candidates, governors, chief executgives and even some university presidents strut and brag about “shock and awe,” “annihilating evil,” and “carpet bombing,” among other phrases. And this is not just rhetoric. Winner-take-all combat is acted out in our sports, our businesses, and our policymaking every day. Our 21st century public culture glorifies individualist destruction, and Omar Mateen’s bombastic selfies manifest this phenomenon.

Since 2000, our national and foreign politics have replaced conversation with violence. We have legitimately deployed force against terrorists abroad, including ISIS, but we have refused to engage in a thoughtful public discussion about the social and economic reasons people are drawn to these groups. We have divided the world and ourselves – “you are with us or against us” – and we have justified extremism of our own because the adversaries are so “evil.”

The policy effects have come home when presidential candidates brag about shutting down the government, insult our leaders and defend physical attacks on domestic opponents. Our politics are tribal, and in a war of tribes, ISIS has leverage to recruit and inspire those who have no other group to call their own.

Technology is not the cause of our cultural and political violence, but it multiplies our hatreds. The paradox of the internet and social media is that they are global and provincial at the same time. We can communicate simultaneously with counterparts far away. They can see so much more. Instead of cosmopolitanism, however, these connections encourage balkanization. Individuals stop talking to their neighbors, classmates and co-workers, and instead communicate with people who think like them on other continents.

This creates tribal echo chambers where distortion and extremism become unfiltered “facts” and personal motivators. The worst and simplest ideas get reinforced. Sophisticated and complex understandings of society, which require multiple points of view, are lost. Terrorists such as Mateen are brain-washed not just by ISIS, but by our tribal world of communications.

So what should we do? Blaming ISIS does not get at the root of the problem. Targeting Muslims diverts attention and creates more terrorists.

The time has come for leaders at all levels of our society to begin working toward rebuilding a civic culture that values conversation, compromise and diverse communications. That must be a priority that every one of our leaders affirms. Our leaders must begin by looking closely at themselves and asking how they can model what is not being modeled almost anywhere today. We need a culture of peacemaking, not violence. We need politics of inclusion, not attack. And a civic dialogue with multiple points of view in direct conversation. At the very least, the painful events in Orlando should motivate us to reject any advocates of violence, hate and tribalism in our country today.

This article originally appeared in the Dallas Morning News, the Austin Statesman, and the Waco Tribune on 13 June 2016; The Monitor on 14 June 2016; the Philadelphia Inquirer on 15 June 2016; the Houston Chronicle on 21 June 2016; and other newspapers around the United States.

Share

The Islamic State group has unleashed a new set of coordinated terrorist attacks in the heart of Europe and seeks to provoke deeper fear, hatred and militarization.

Unfortunately, it is succeeding.

As we tend to the victims and their families and reassure the shaken, the trumpets of war and exclusion are already elevating their sound in both Europe and the U.S. And maybe rightfully so, as it is indeed cathartic to lash back at those who have hurt us in despicable, devilish ways.

We in the West have a long history now of combating modern terrorism, dating back to at least the 1970s, continuing through the years after the 9/11 attacks, to the recent attacks in Paris and now Brussels. And we have learned some hard lessons. We should remember a few of them as we approach the precipice of a new phase in our reactions to the current threat.

First, violent reactions to terrorism must be focused, discriminate and carefully planned.

A general resort to war has been almost completely ineffective in Iraq and other regions, and overreaction fuels the resentments and recruitment of more terrorists. Excessive violence undermines more of our friends than our enemies. The best counterterrorism operations have been clearly targeted as law enforcement, not war, and when necessary, killing those who have committed and abetted the worst of the crimes.

We must also articulate our values and live up to them. Terrorism shines a spotlight on our societies and the frequent mistreatment of people, including immigrants. We are not responsible for the terrorists, but we aid their hatred when we act in hateful ways.

During the past decade, the rhetoric of intolerance in the United States, especially in Texas, has given false evidence to terrorist claims about our alleged tyranny of Muslims and other minorities. As we fight individual terrorists, we must flagrantly display how much we value, love and cherish the millions of good people who happen to share the same religion, ethnicity and background. We are not fighting a religion or a race. We are fighting criminals, and some of them are white Christians, too.

Finally, and most important, we must show patience. Quick reactions have almost always failed to produce their promised results. Time is on our side, and we should use it to investigate, understand and plan before we react. We are better off absorbing another terrorist attack and preparing more effectively to interdict the terrorists, rather than overreacting and creating a multiplying effect of new terrorist threats down the road.

Despite the fear and suffering, the basic security of our society is not imperiled as it was by Soviet missiles during the Cold War. We are best served by addressing the core sources of criminality rather than locking down to anticipate the next fire. We must play the long game because that is our greatest interest and our greatest advantage.

The fear of terrorism is real and legitimate. Strategic leadership, however, must do more than react to fear. Strategic leadership involves deep analysis, historical perspective and policymaking for the long term.

We must use all of our capabilities, but we must use them wisely and effectively. Feel-good reactions are self-defeating and play into the terrorists’ hands. Courage comes in careful planning, close attention to our values, and considered timing. In the end, we will be judged by how we react more than how we have suffered.

This article originally appeared in the Dallas Morning News, 22 March 2016

Featured Book
Foreign Policy Breakthroughs

Foreign Policy Breakthroughs: Cases in Successful Diplomacy (Oxford University Press, Fall 2015)

Drawing on deep historical research, this book aims to 'reinvent' diplomacy for our current era. The original and comparative research provides a foundation for thinking about what successful outreach, negotiation, and relationship-building with foreign actors should look like.

More at the book website >

About Jeremi Suri
twitter facebook rss feed

Jeremi Suri holds the Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a professor in the University's Department of History and the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Professor Suri is the author and editor of seven books on contemporary politics and foreign policy. Professor Suri's research and teaching have received numerous prizes. In 2007 Smithsonian Magazine named him one of America's "Top Young Innovators" in the Arts and Sciences. His writings appear widely in blogs and print media. Professor Suri is also a frequent public lecturer and guest on radio and television programs.

Categories