In perhaps what has been his most difficult speech in recent times, U.S. President Barack Obama, told his nation on Sunday that he will not flinch from using his government’s military might > to destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or IS as it is more popularly known. This was in the context of the > San Bernardino (California) killing of 14 people on December 2, 2015, by a couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, in what the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified categorically to be a terrorist attack.
R.K. Raghavan The savagery — the two used assault weapons to mow down Farook’s colleagues — once again proved that we cannot rob the terrorist of > the advantage of surprise that he packs in his armoury. He will strike anywhere he wants, especially when he confronts soft targets like the employees of the Inland Regional Center of the County Department of Public Health in San Bernardino, near Los Angeles, who had gathered for a training event and subsequent partying. The centre offers assistance to disabled people. This makes the attack on providers of a noble service to the disadvantaged in the local community all the more poignant.
Unpredictable and selective Those who have watched and listened to Mr. Obama on television after similar gory incidents in the past — some terror-related and others the work of deranged, but dangerously armed, individuals who had run amok — may not have been convinced that the President had still the ability or the energy to handle terrorism imaginatively. On this occasion, Mr. Obama was not exactly the picture of assurance that he used to be. He looked jaded, and his brave rhetoric on television sounded perfunctory and superficial, despite the doubtless sincerity of the man. You can’t, however, fault him, because with the tragic frequency of such gory events even for an eloquent speaker like him, using appropriate adjectives and emotions to describe them will be difficult now.
Terror attacks are, undoubtedly, becoming increasingly unpredictable. More and more soft targets are being used to demoralise not only the community, but also law enforcement. The world strongly believed after Osama bin Laden’s liquidation, in May 2011, that we had seen the end of unremitting terror. Even experts have been proved wrong. As a relatively small outfit that does not boast of a central directing hierarchy, and with less than 20,000 active members, the IS is now holding most of West Asia to ransom. Its lure has become nearly irresistible to a large number of Muslim youths drawn from various parts of the world, including India.
“ More and more soft targets are being used to demoralise not only the community, but also law enforcement. ”
This phenomenon has baffled governments as well as intelligence agencies. It explains the ease with which Paris was attacked recently. Interestingly, while the Paris massacre was the outcome of coordinated action by a group of more than 10 people across Europe, the San Bernardino incident was the act of two lone wolves bound by matrimony. This contrast alone highlights how counterterrorism had become a nearly impossible mission.
I am not here to hold a brief for those in government who are accountable to protecting us, and who fail far too often for our comfort. I am merely pointing out the enormity and complexity of the task of defanging and destroying the IS and similar outfits across the world.
Challenge for intelligence Farook and Malik were a nondescript couple who had aroused little attention prior to the incident. Farook, an inspector in the Department of Public Health, was an American citizen of Pakistani descent, and his wife Malik, a Pakistan-born legal resident of the U.S. This Pakistani connection, however slender it may be, should cause dismay to many detractors of the Modi government who assail it for its mindless hostility to Pakistan. Police investigation has revealed that Farook had gone to Saudi Arabia for Haj in October 2013. A Facebook entry now unearthed reveals how Malik had sometime ago pledged her allegiance to the IS. The couple, killed in the police chase after the incident, leave behind a daughter, less than a year old. How on earth could you expect such a young couple to indulge in this kind of violence? If this was not radicalisation of youth, what else was it? Also, one basic question. How did the couple get their firearms? Their case shows that firearms control in the U.S. is a cruel joke.
It is easy to fault the FBI, which covers domestic intelligence in the U.S., for having failed to identify the couple before the incident. When there is no information that the two had received any external directions to act the way they did, surveillance — physical or electronic — may not have helped. This is the complexity of the task that daunts intelligence agencies the world over.
One cannot brand intelligence and police agencies as total failures. Do we know how many terrorist attempts have been foiled? We don’t, because governments cannot go to town with their successes in having nipped some diabolic plans in the bud. Once in a while they do, however, let us know of some of their achievements. A very recent example is the arrest of a few Lashkar-e-Taiba cadres in New Delhi who are said to have been prowling around for quite some time to strike. It is said that one of their targets was Prime Minister Narendra Modi. We need to laud the Delhi Police and the Intelligence Bureau for this remarkable piece of work.
“ One cannot brand intelligence and police agencies as total failures. ”
Outdone It would be equally unfair to believe that anyone in Mr. Obama’s place could have done better. He may look drained out having led the nation for seven difficult years. That does not detract from the fact that he is trying to leave a deep impression on the nation in this vital area. Such is the highly insidious nature of modern terrorism that we can hardly expect from any government the kind of dramatic results we desperately want. I won’t go to the extent of what one CNN commentator said after the Sunday broadcast: the President’s fulmination could be greeted with laughter by the ISIL. That was a cynical and possibly harsh reaction flowing from frustration that no leader has been able to tame terror of the kind we saw in Paris, and now San Bernardino. A charitable response would be that those who are leading the fight need a strong helping hand rather than condemnation. If the IS continues to strike terror in all of us, it is not because governments the world over have not tried every means to outwit what has proved to be an outfit deadlier than al-Qaeda. Those in the administration in many countries have simply been outclassed and outmanoeuvred. Here, we need to recall the classic statement of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which was out to get British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: “We’ve to be lucky just once. You’ve to be lucky all the time!” This is the harsh truth of a problem that is getting increasingly out of hand due to radicalisation of young minds.
Domestic impact Mr. Obama was skating on thin ice while referring to Islam in his address. He laboured to convince his audience that great care should be shown while condemning those guilty of terrorist attacks so as not to defame a whole religion. He pointed out how a large number of Muslims themselves were victims of terror. While this benign outlook to Islam is unexceptionable, I thought we had gone far beyond these trite statements in outlining a future strategy.
“ Citizens the world over are no longer willing to accept governments’ excuses for non-performance in any sphere. ”
We must remember that as the head of state, Mr. Obama had precious little options, and especially in an election year. This is why all eyes are centred on Hillary Clinton. Will she toe Mr. Obama’s line, or will she up the ante by plumping for tougher measures, including enhanced surveillance, both physically and electronically? She cannot afford to seem/seen to be soft against some Republican rabble-rousers like Donald Trump. Before long, her dilemma is likely to become glaringly pronounced. Interesting times lie ahead for the U.S. voter.
The President’s statement that terrorism was still evolving in the form of IS and that counterterrorism had to adapt itself was striking for its home truth. In this context, increased gun control and greater use of technology seem to be of limited value in neutralising groups that are openly promoting and abetting the IS’s cause. But what about the lone wolves acting recklessly? There is no answer as yet.
In the final analysis, citizens the world over are no longer willing to accept governments’ excuses for non-performance in any sphere. This is particularly true of terrorism. They want hard results by way of prevention. They may be artless and naive to believe that terrorists can be extirpated, and that governments could do a lot more. But then they simply don’t want to be victims of religious fundamentalism. It is as simple as that.
(R.K. Raghavan is a former CBI Director.)
