On February 16, 2021, Mr. Rami Khouri and Security and Terrorism
expert Mr. Ali Soufan discussed why violent extremism and terrorism continue to
expand in the United States and the Middle East-Asia region. The shocking
attack on the US Capitol in early February highlighted the scope and methods of
violent extremists in the US. The discussion
explored similarities and distinctions among such extremist groups in the West
and in the ME-Asia region, such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The full tape of the
one-hour event, “From Al Qaeda to the US Capitol Insurrection: What Makes
Violent Extremists Tick?” can be found here.
Below is the
full transcript, slightly edited for style and clarity.
Khouri: based on your experience in the field, have you found
similarities and/or differences among groups doing this kind of violent work in
the West and those in the Middle East and Asia?
Soufan: Absolutely! There are significant similarities between what
we call the “global jihadis” movement and what we have seen today with the white
supremacist ideology. We have been monitoring this for a while. Those main
similarities include the transnational nature of these groups and movements.
Similar to the jihadis, white supremacists justify the use of violence and the
tool of extremism as a means to create a world view of “them” vs. “us”. They
create this mentality through propaganda, the narrative they discuss, and
social media. Moreover, they both employ metaphors to reflect their firm belief
that their societies are under siege, and that only violence can hold off the
so-called invaders. Now for the jihadis and the militant Islamist groups, the
invaders represent the US, Israel, and the West more generally. For the white
supremacists, it’s the immigrants and more generally people who are coming into
Europe and the US and are perceived as attempting to change the nature of those
societies. So both sides claim that their way of life is under imminent threat
of extinction. One group believes in racial purity, the other in religious
purity. In both cases, violence is always viewed as utilitarian and a theoretical
propaganda message to inspire, recruit, terrorize and ultimately create the social
and political change they seek. So yes, among far-right extremists we find most
of the ingredients commonly used as criteria to define terrorism. Countless white
radical groups play a similar role preaching violence and hate to their
followers, behind the shield of constitutional protections, behind the shield
of the First Amendment, even behind charismatic personalities and religious
social narratives. However, unlike the jihadis, the US is basically the haven
or mecca of these right-wing extremist groups. It plays basically the role that
countries like Saudi Arabia played for the jihadis. In fact, most of these
groups are connected directly to the US and to groups and personalities that
have taken advantage of the first two amendments to spread hate. Finally, both
groups are alike in the ways they use communication tools, especially social
media platforms to promote their narrative and to recruit vulnerable
populations. Social media and other communication media have been a very useful
tool.
Khouri: From your studies, do you see a single pattern of how an
average non-violent, maybe even non-political, young man or woman ends up
becoming a supporter or even a member of these groups, especially in the Middle
East? When ISIS emerged in the region some polls showed that in certain places
or time periods up to eight or ten percent of the population said that ISIS was
engaged in legitimate activity. So what explains the transformation of ordinary
people to become supporters of these extremist and violent movements?
Soufan: Well this is a great question but there is no single
approach or answer to this. There is, however, what we call the radicalization
cycle. There are five different steps or stages that lead an individual to
terrorism in the Middle East-Asia region. First, personal political and cultural
grievances in the Arab and Muslim world. For example, we have grievances around
the Arab-Israeli conflict; then we have grievances regarding democracy, freedoms,
and dictatorships; we have economic and cultural grievances. Then, we have
individuals saying, “I have a solution and that solution is religion.” The
reason Israelis won, they would tell you, is because they are true to their
religion and you are not, and that is how this political movement comes
together in places like Egypt and Afghanistan. Moreover, the geopolitical struggle between Iran
and Saudi Arabia promoted these groups
and created a context of permanent personal grievances that change from one culture
to another and one country to another. In the United States the big lie about
the election being stolen, the deep state, and a Jewish cabal controlling the
world represent a big part of these issues that affect people differently. And
as they start to believe this, they end up going online and find sympathizers
that also believe in their grievances and their causes, and then you communicate
with people that legitimize your grievances and give you a simple solution to
this complicated problem. These groups enable you to do something with what you
feel by making you part of their group, and thus make you feel like you are
changing from being a passive listener to becoming involved, and broadcasting
your intent of change and hope, of creating a society and environment where
your grievances don’t exist -- and eventually some of these individuals will go
further, and that can be what happened on January 6 at the Capitol or the event
in Charlottesville or in Arab capitals where people get killed and create rage.
And after this cycle you will have individuals who will think that the only way
to move and achieve effective change in our society is through violence and
terrorism. Today we monitor those white supremacist groups and we see them preaching
violence to impact and accelerate change in society. Bottom line: this cycle
needs to be tackled at every level, or otherwise what we have seen in the Middle
East we will likely see down the road in western societies
Khouri: We have seen new adherents to these groups in the Middle
East take on new names, Like Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi or Abu Musaab Al Zarqawi; we
see this idea of an individual being “reborn” and feeling like a changed person
who is powerful and actually doing something about their life grievances. Do we
also see this concept of taking on a new name and of rebirth in the western
world?
Soufan: The reason people take a new name in Muslim-majority
societies is because this idea comes from the black banner hadith (the sayings
of the Prophet Mohammad). In this hadith the prophet says that the armies have
black banners and their names are aliases that reflect the cities or regions they
come from, so they will have a new name,
a kunia, based on a city such as Al Shami, Al Baghdadi, or Al Semaani.
Thus there is a religious justification for that. Since you are told that you
are part of this movement, changing your name per the “request of the prophet”
enables you to feel part of the group and to belong to this movement that is
beyond you; a movement that the prophet created and in which you now represent
a central part. In the US we see something similar but not the exact same. They
operate in a framework that makes them see society differently than the way we
see it, and they want to create conditions that will make society collapse;
that is why they do those training camps and they take advantage of the Second Amendment
and the system in order to destroy the system that exists. Anyone who voted for
Trump is part of that movement or believes that society hasn’t been fair to
them. So ultimately, we see a very similar narrative in the West with the white
supremacist groups and neo-Nazi groups that take advantage of the anger and
grievances of people. Moreover, it is important to note that some countries around
the world have taken advantage of the existing grievances to create further divisions,
especially in western countries. States such as Russia, Iran, and China have
helped make these groups more mainstream. In the Middle East we see these
groups being manipulated by foreign governments.
Khouri: One of the things we notice is that Al Qaeda and ISIS are
born in situations of national catastrophe, like ISIS in Syria and Iraq
partially, because of the US war and post-war involvement; chaos allowed these
groups to take root and emerge, after they started as very small groups. So what
is the role, in your view, of the political management of these countries? If
countries were well managed without foreign interference, would such violent
groups be a main priority, and would we still need to fight them?
Soufan: Of course! the cycle we spoke about and the grievances we
mentioned are the result of weak states and states that are being manipulated
by foreign governments. This is the root cause and we have seen this many times,
for instance in the August 23, 1996 declaration of jihad of Oussama Bin Laden. There
are a lot of individuals who feel that the system is not good to them and is
not treating them correctly, like regions in the US that are devastated
economically. Those same people believe that Mexicans, brown people, and black
people are taking their jobs and thus are the reason they are so miserable
economically. Then we have people from the mainstream casting doubt on the
trust in our institutions, and that is when the social contract weakens. A
notable example of this is Lebanon. In the US we have seen it with the
elections and people not believing in the results because they were not what
they wanted them to be. This all adds to the conspiracy they see. Sectarianism
also adds to that. In the Middle East, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we had
a shift, as sectarianism became the geopolitical currency in the region. States
started scoring geopolitical points against each other by using these jihadi
groups as weapons. Then come these exceptions that say yes to fighting
terrorism in general, but also say that they will allow terror groups in Yemen
and in Syria, and this is where we are right now in the Middle East.
Questions from the audience:
Q: How much do psychopathy and antisocial personalities account for
men joining or leading these movements?
Soufan: This is a very good question and there are some studies in
the US about this, at least with the jihadis. I think identities represent a
big part of it and I would say identity more than psychopathy. But there are so
many people who feel they are alone and that they are rejects of their own
society. Those people are the target of the violent extremists. Someone comes
up to them and tells them: “be part of my group”. It starts with “come play
soccer with me” or “come to the mosque with me,” and ends up being, “come to
Afghanistan with us”. This actually happens, as I heard from many security people.
We see it in the fighters that came from Europe. For instance, 80 percent of
the people who joined from Belgium had been in jail, and they saw in ISIS a way
to start a clean slate. It was also a place where they felt they aren’t second
class citizens, but rather they are the rulers.
Q: How do we best respond to these movements that threaten all of
us in different parts of the world? Do you zoom in on the individuals and try
to address activities and initiate social support, and ask them to talk to their
local religious leader to help these kids not go down this road, which is the
trend in Europe? Or do you look at the macro level and try to get governments
more involved and make sure everyone has a good life and job?
Soufan: We have a lot of experiences from the past in the US. At
one point the Ku Klux Klan had a dominant role in Congress and had the ability
and power to freely do things such as parade in Washington, D.C.. But
eventually, throughout the years, the civil rights movement and other things
moved it and weakened it. But of course, there are many things we can do. What
is currently happening is that the leaders of these groups are taking advantage
of the system, and more specifically they are taking advantage of the hyper-partisan
nature of political life. This hyper-partisan nature has resulted in us no
longer having a mutual understanding of the truth. So, the first thing we need
to do is to calm down the partisan rhetoric in order to move forward and tackle
these issues. We have a lot of different programs around the world, such as
counter-violent extremism prevention programs. In order for a program to be
effective it should include sociologists and religious leaders, and few
countries have the resources to allocate to such institutions. Moreover, some
countries in the West might have legal constraints in creating off-ramps to
deal with these problems. However, there are situations where we have different
programs that actually worked and that are beneficial, and where fewer
individuals are at phase 5 of radicalization and going through that cycle. Ultimately,
if you focus more on the reasons for these groups’ survival and expansion, you
see that the problem can’t be solved with a therapist. For example, if you look
at the situation in Syria and Yemen and see how countries and international
powers are using these radical groups to further their interests in the region,
you will realize that this creates these violent environments where such groups
can operate freely. This environment they create makes it difficult for a
psychologist to just sit down and tell an individual that this is bad, and to
suggest they do this instead of that. Imagine doing counter-violent extremism
programs in Lebanon or Iran? Where would we even start? We need to create a
fertile ground to move forward and then we start separating those groups;
especially isolate the people who are in phase 4 of 5 of that radicalization cycle
and push them to the fringe, and start to have conversations and talk about the
government and its stability, and then we can move forward to deal with them. At
this stage to rehabilitate is a waste of effort.
Khouri: I was in the US when 9/11 happened, and the next day there
were special bookshop displays about Islam and the need to learn about Islam,
and we witnessed an intense shift of American focus to religion to explain Al
Qaeda. Do you feel that the understanding in the western countries of the
violence that happens in the Middle East or here in the US is now at a more
sophisticated stage? Do people in authority understand better how these things
happen and how to deal with them?
Soufan: My blunt answer is, no. Maybe intelligence programs and academics
know and have a good understanding. Media and politicians, on the other hand,
cover and talk about this issue with very skin-deep understandings of the
problem. They simplify it because their goal is not to educate anymore, especially
in journalism. Media only care about ratings and making money, and education
doesn’t bring good ratings; shouting and screaming does that. If anything were
to happen, they would discuss it in a very silly way. This is why they don’t
tackle white supremacy, for example, because they would have to go very deep,
which they don’t want to.
Khouri: One of the question in the United States that is being
written about now in some of the more serious media is about the links of
violent extremists to some Christian evangelical groups. This raises the
question of religious dimensions in the US in some of these groups. Do you feel
that Christian evangelical nationalism plays a role in any of these groups?
Soufan: Absolutely, a lot of evidence exists on the topic. It plays
a very similar role to some, the same way the Islamic establishment played in
radial extremist groups
Khouri: In both the West and Middle Eastern-Asian societies, many
of these groups are still expanding, despite all the efforts being made to
counter them. ISIS is now doing more attacks and growing in parts of western
Africa and in the US these groups grow steadily. What is your sense of the
reasons these groups continue to grow, and are the reasons similar or different
in the West and the Middle East? And what is your sense about what we need to
do as societies besides what we are doing now, which doesn’t seem to be very effective?
The dominance of military actions as a policy response does not seem to work
very effectively.
Soufan: The incubating factors that enable these groups to exist
are still present, so why would things change? For example, in Yemen, Al Qaeda
once comprised a couple of hundred people, and now has eight thousand, and it’s
not because they believe in Bin Laden. It’s
because they want protection and social services and schools and health clinics
that Al Qaeda is providing for them. They are in areas where they are scared.
If you end the war in Yemen, Al Qaeda in Yemen will go back to being a couple
of hundred strong, which I would want to happen. But as long as that war is
raging it means I’m trying to put out a big fire with a small kitchen towel. Same
thing for the Sahel region in north-western Africa. Al Qaeda was able to become
a multinational and culturally unified entity there because it represented the
solution to social and cultural conditions in the area that nobody would
resolve. Ultimately, we shouldn’t focus on the symptoms but rather on the
conditions that developed into those symptoms.
Khouri: In the media, there is much talk about government agencies,
including security ones like the FBI and the CIA, being politicized under Trump.
In addition, we saw the Capitol insurrection showing some links between people
in the capital who belong to these agencies. Is there a mechanism to address
the fear that some agencies in the US are becoming politicized and compromised,
as some federal agencies turned out to be?
Soufan: Trump tried to politicize them, but it didn’t work. Many
resigned. The FBI director went to Congress and said that white supremacy is our
number one domestic terrorism concern. Yes. There are reports that people in Congress
were involved in the insurrection and this is being investigated, but I won’t
be surprised if these allegations are true. There are members of the House that
repeat the rhetoric of these people, so I won’t be surprised. Some spoke very
passionately and they radicalized people just hours before those people went
out to the Capitol. Yes, we have people from law enforcement entities who were
involved with the insurrection and this is something we have warned about. The
Pentagon had to do a security check for the 25,000 people involved in the
presidential inauguration, including the military. This probably propelled the government
to have to act on the problem of white supremacy and neo-Nazi existence in the
military. If we don’t do anything about it, in a bipartisan manner, we won’t
endure the next 8 to 10 years.
Q: Are intelligence agencies to your knowledge working closely
together in an effective way around the world? And does the United Nations have
a role to play in this process?
Soufan: it all depends on the target. For the white supremacy groups,
it is very difficult. In the UN they started looking into these extremist groups,
which they call something on the lines of ethnically violent motivated individuals,
or something like that. So yes, the UN started working on the topic and it
played a good role with the jihadist movements. But we know that sometimes the
bureaucracy in the UN makes it really hard to achieve effective, meaningful,
and swift change. For intelligence agencies, of course if it is jihadis they
work very closely with each other to control them. For the US, on the other
hand, as long as the white supremacist groups are not called terrorist groups,
and the leadership comes from the US and American citizens, the CIA’s and National
Security Agency’s hands are tied because there is no legal ground for monitoring
them in the US. This is why we are focusing on the transnational nature of
these groups, to see what tools are available against this threat. There are a
lot of legal constraints that prevent intelligence cooperation in the West to
target those white supremacist groups.
Khouri: Closing question: If you and scholars know so much about
these people and groups, why do they continue to grow?
Soufan: Simple. Incompetence of governments.
###