Tackling Terror On The Streets

It was a brutal act of murder that brought a whole nation together in shock and disgust. Committed in broad daylight and surrounded by onlookers, the crime brought the unsettling realisation that the country had not, after all, rid itself of home-grown, homeland terrorism.

Almost immediately, questions were being asked about why it happened, how it could have been allowed to happen, and whether it might happen again. For the politicians, already fighting battles on several other fronts, it was an unwelcome distraction.

Whether it’s the Boston marathon bombing or the Woolwich street attack that the Sage is alluding to, however, what is striking about the recent events is the way that they seem to signal a new kind of terrorism – one that is much more difficult to explain, understand and (especially) prevent.

In both cases, the two men responsible studied in the country of their attack before converting to radical Islam; in both cases, they were known to the police or security services, but on minor or unrelated grounds, arousing suspicions only possible with the benefit of hindsight; in both cases the offences have been investigated as a criminal act as much as in terms of terrorism.

In both cases, they did little to ‘disappear’ after the attack, instead gifting the authorities every chance to apprehend them and thus afford them the opportunity to publicise their message; in both cases, that message was that the attack was revenge for the killing of Muslims by Western soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the long-term response of the two countries has differed markedly.

In America, there seems to be no prospect of further legislation, or of any action that might further alienate potential domestic enemies; if anything the attack has strengthened President Obama’s determination to reduce his nation’s antagonistic ways – by deploying unmanned drones more sparingly, for example.

He might even fulfil his 2008 election pledge to close Guantanamo… or perhaps not.

In Britain, on the other hand, the government (spurred on, as usual, by much of the media) has leapt into reactionary mode, with the Home Secretary, in particular, desperate to be seen to be doing something – whether or not that ‘something’ is necessary or even helpful.

The Data Communications Bill, effectively abandoned earlier this year due to disagreements within the coalition, appears to be back on the table.

In updating existing surveillance legislation to capture 21st-century forms of communication, the content of the Bill is eminently sensible, but its introduction would look like a knee-jerk reaction that might do more harm than good – to the government’s credibility and the nation’s security.

Yesterday, meanwhile, saw the formation of a new anti-terrorism ‘task force’, intended to find practical ways to reduce the risk of disillusioned young Muslims drifting into extremism (but forgive your correspondent for not holding his breath).

What that is likely to mean is the state finding more ways to shake its fist in an attempt to impose peace on those already set on war. Instead, the authorities should go about tackling renegade mosques the way they deal with ordinary criminal gangs – which first means understanding why they exist and why their members are so drawn to them.

Otherwise, just as the foreign policy of previous governments did for today’s brand of terrorist, those in power will merely be giving the next generation an excuse for the inexcusable.