In an article that came under the
title: “Getting smart about crowdsourced terror” and the subtitle: “What the U.S. should
learn from Nice,” Michael Chertoff wrote a few things that make sense, but they
are by no means exhaustive. His article appeared on July 17, 2016 in the New
York Daily News.
The article is made of three
parts. First, there is a description of the current situation. Second, there is
an analysis of it. Third, there are recommendations as to what society should
do to counter terrorism. Well, it must be said that the description of the
situation is thorough and adequate. What is lacking is a good analysis of
what's happening, which leads to an incomplete set of recommendations.
Chertoff began the analysis
correctly in saying that no two terrorist attacks – of the current variety –
are alike, but instead of explaining this part adequately, he went on to say:
“which is why they pose such a challenge.” He made a distinction between the
way that al Qaeda used to operate 15 years ago, and what terrorist activity has
morphed into now.
He says in this regard that the
new form of terrorist expression “includes widely distributed, small-scale and
often homegrown attacks against soft targets and public spaces.” This is
different from the way that hierarchical and centrally managed Al Qaeda used to
operate, which is why it was possible to frustrate its activities then, and
nearly impossible to confront those of ISIS
now, he says.
And this is the point at which
Chertoff misses the opportunity to make the most important point of all. It is
that the new form of terrorist expression was not invented by ISIS .
Rather it is a tendency that is as much an American phenomenon as the fusion of
jingoism and the Second Amendment. In fact, such activities are not new to America ; being
around since the days of the Wild West. The truth is that people have been
killing each other on this piece of real estate in that manner since the
European invasion of the continent.
What is a serious addition to the
mix is not that ISIS “has moved toward encouraging individuals to carry out
acts of violence on their own;” it is that the cable channels give more massive
coverage to the most massive of murders, and to the most mysterious of motives.
This is what gives big ideas to those who gave up on life, and seek to depart
it with a splash.
Many of these people have learned
that when they shout “Allahu akbar,” they get the Cadillac coverage that even a
dead president does not get. They learned that Allahu akbar is the quack of the
wild goose that gets the analysts to probe for weeks on end the possible
motives that made them act the way they did.
This is just fine with characters
that love to go with a smile on their face, thus communicate to the next set of
geese how to get chased a wild chase by idiots, and be granted not just fifteen
minutes of ordinary fame, but fifteen days of sensationalized fame in the world
of cable television. And there will be a spot for them in the annals of history
… even if it will only be a footnote.
Thus, beside the three steps that
were suggested by Chertoff to combat homegrown terrorism, we must add the need
to curtail the coverage of such occurrences by the cable companies. We must
also clarify and expand on some of the points that he made.
For example, we must be mindful of
the possibility that to say something when you see something is to embark on a
slippery slope that can easily lead to the kind of snitching which used to
plague the Communist world. It was one of the reasons why the governments of
these places lost the confidence of their people.
Otherwise, Chertoff is correct in
suggesting that family and community members will speak up “only if we can
demonstrate that we will respond constructively, and not punitively.” He is
also correct in suggesting that it is self-defeating for “leaders to demonize
whole communities”.