Terrorists are Social

Although terrorists often operate in a murky underworld of secret communications, they are by nature networkers. Terrorists inspire and teach other terrorists.

Terrorists plan with, and work with, other terrorists – even if they carry out their attacks alone.

The majority of terrorists meet other terrorists face-to-face. They train together and meet as groups.

Those who don't meet face-to-face do their networking online.

When the media report about an allegedly ‘self-radicalized’ terrorist, such an individual was in fact radicalized by other terrorists. Someone posted the website which instructed him; someone operated the Twitter account which motivated him.

Someone wrote jihadi texts which nudged him toward destructive behavior. The phrase ‘self-radicalized’ is therefore not accurate.

Psychologist Steven Hassan, who studies ‘unethical influence’ and other forms of ‘mind control’ writes:

People are being incorrectly described as “self-radicalized” into becoming terrorists. These folks can be better understood as being on the fringes of a destructive cult – but in the “sphere of influence” of mind control. They are absolutely being recruited – by people in person and online. Cult recruiters are expert at targeting vulnerabilities and activating motivation. Political and religious cults that use terrorist tactics are aggressively recruiting and some people are being sucked into their vortex.

Likewise, the phrase ‘lone wolf’ does not well describe an Islamic terrorist. Far from operating ‘alone,’ these terrorists are under the direction and influence of other terrorists. There are in communication – even if oneway communication – with other terrorists.

Finally, the phrase ‘homegrown’ is not truly applicable to Muslim extremists, even those found in the areas of Mecca and Medina. The ideas which inhabit the mind of such terrorists have a source in time and space.

The words of the Qur’an – the Koran – and the concepts of the Hadith and Sunnah were compiled in various parts of the Near East over several centuries. They are imported into other parts of the world, and into the modern era.

From some source, terrorists learn destructive ideology. From some source, they learn to yell Allah-hu Akbar.

The existence of some such external source shows that this terror is not ‘homegrown.’

These three phrases, then – ‘homegrown,’ ‘lone wolf,’ and ‘self-radicalized’ – are inaccurate, and should not be used when reporting about terrorism.

Terrorism is, to the contrary, imported from the Middle East, imported from other times, necessarily part of a network, and implanted in the mind of a potential terrorist by another terrorist.

Merkel and Her Germany: Providing Stability in a World Filled with Change

During the second half of the twentieth century, the United States provided a sense of global leadership. It emerged as an unrivaled economic power after WW2, and the only other military superpower asserted itself but did not provide leadership.

At the close of the century, the EU had emerged as another leader. A powerful trading bloc, it had achieved unprecedented economic cooperation.

But early in the twenty-first century, both of these entities faced problems which sapped the energy which they had available to devote to leadership.

The U.S. dealt with a lethargic economy, starting with the 2008 burst of the “real estate bubble.” Attempts by the federal government over the following years to fix the economy only made it worse.

Diplomatically, Obama’s troop surge sent over 100,000 soldiers into Afghanistan – in the previous decade, troop levels there had averaged under 20,000 and peaked at 30,000. The “Obama surge” required getting consent from various allies, which consumed American political capital and left the U.S. with little remaining leverage in other global questions.

U.S.-Russian relations deteriorated after January 2009. American ability to manage Putin departed with outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and the incoming Hillary Clinton’s use of the word “reset” created an ambiguity which Vladimir Putin saw as a chance to press his expansionist imperialist agenda.

The EU faced its own problems: dealing with debt crises in the economies of its weaker member states, dealing with Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe, and dealing with flood of immigrants, some of who claimed to be refugees and others of whom were terrorists in disguise.

German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier describes the situations which hamstrung both the U.S and the EU:

Now, the international order that the United States and Europe helped create and sustain after World War II — an order that generated freedom, peace, and prosperity in much of the world — is under pressure. The increasing fragility of various states — and, in some cases, their complete collapse — has destabilized entire regions, especially Africa and the Middle East, sparked violent conflicts, and provoked ever-greater waves of mass migration. At the same time, state and nonstate actors are increasingly defying the multilateral rules-based system that has preserved peace and stability for so long. The rise of China and India has created new centers of power that are changing the shape of international relations. Russia’s annexation of Crimea has produced a serious rift with Europe and the United States. The rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia increasingly dominates the Middle East, as the state order in the region erodes and the Islamic State, or ISIS, attempts to obliterate borders entirely.

With the U.S. and the EU both unable to provide their customary leadership, the nations of the world began to look to Germany as role model. Why Germany? This country had not sought a leadership position, and had arguably worked to avoid one.

Germany’s reliable consistency made its situation enviable. Germany had avoided accumulating large amounts of debt, and had worked its way out of a tough situation – in 2003, its unemployment rate was over 12% – and into a decade of prosperity and economic growth.

Various countries began to see Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, as a world leader. She did not take office expecting to confront a major debt crisis in the EU, but, as Stefan Kornelius writes,

Angela Merkel has been forced to confront this event and try to avert its potentially destructive effects. Unlike Helmut Kohl, she does not have the advantage of governing during a relatively easy period in German history. Kohl made the most of the favorable circumstances and the positive dynamics of European movements of political emancipation, and with a sure instinct led Germany to unification and Europe to a new era of prosperity. Merkel, on the other hand, is fighting a defensive war: she is battling against potential ruin. She cannot promise flourishing landscapes – she can only strive to prevent Europe from becoming a place of desolation.

Merkel has now become a regular figure on the world stage. Her habit of calmly and rationally analyzing situations before acting, and her avoidance of inflammatory rhetoric – especially noticeable in contrast with harsh bombastic blasts issued alternately by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – have made her a pole of stability.

The first two decades of the twenty-first century, then, have seen Germany pulled, against its will, into a position of global leadership.

Merkel and Germany Pressed into Leadership Roles as EU and USA Falter

Although we’d like to think that the nations of the world come together as equals, it is also true that they look to certain individual nations to provide global leadership.

Over time, various nations have been seen as providing guidance.

For much of the twentieth century, the United States was a world leader. In the late twentieth century, the collected nations of Europe also emerged as a source of counsel.

Although the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China were powerful in that same era, they were not necessarily leaders.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we see a shift in the global community. Those who were leaders are not automatically still leaders, as German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier notes:

Today both the United States and Europe are struggling to provide global leadership.

The United States has spent some of its political capital in the Middle East. Calling in favors from other nations to support U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan leaves the U.S. with less leverage in other situations.

Obama initiated a “surge” in Afghanistan, taking troop levels to over 100,000 soldiers. Prior to the Obama administration, troop levels had averaged under 20,000 and peaked around 30,000.

Some other nations were skeptical about Obama’s surge. He failed to stabilize Iraq or Afghanistan. Steinmeier writes:

When U.S. President Barack Obama assumed office in 2009, he began to rethink the United States’ commitment to the Middle East and to global engagements more broadly. His critics say that the president has created power vacuums that other actors, including Iran and Russia, are only too willing to fill.

On a different front, Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, mismanaged America’s relationship with Vladimir Putin. The ruthless and clever Putin had been kept in check until Clinton announced a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations. What the word ‘reset’ was supposed to mean was not clear, but Putin used it as an opportunity for press his expansionist agenda.

As the U.S. faced these challenges in foreign relations, Europe also faced problems. The European Union (EU) struggled with disagreements between its member nations: about immigration policy, about economic policy, about the admission of new member nations, about relations with Russia, and other topics.

As the EU worked on solving its own internal problems, it had less energy to look outward and take a leadership role in global questions. Steinmeier explains:

Meanwhile, the EU has run into struggles of its own. In 2004, the union accepted ten new member states, finally welcoming the former communist countries of eastern Europe. But even as the EU expanded, it lost momentum in its efforts to deepen the foundations of its political union. That same year, the union presented its members with an ambitious draft constitution, created by a team led by former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. But when voters in France and the Netherlands, two of the EU’s founding nations, rejected the document, the ensuing crisis emboldened those Europeans who questioned the need for an “ever-closer union.” This group has grown steadily stronger in the years since, while the integrationists have retreated.

As the U.S. and EU, for their respective reasons, stepped back from influential roles, the nations of the world turned their attention to Germany, and to Angela Merkel.

They looked to Germany because it had maintained an impressive pattern of economic and political stability in the midst of rapid global change. Historian Stefan Kornelius writes:

It was at this moment that Angela Merkel became the focus of attention. Who was this woman who for so long had kept quiet, and who in only a few years had taken control of Germany’s conservative party? Who was this politician who rose almost unnoticed to lead the leaders of Europe? The Germans have been pondering over the mystery of Merkel for many years, trying to interpret her character and the inner workings of her mind. But now the whole world wants to know: how did she get into politics? What is her worldview? What are her values, her yardsticks? Merkel enjoys an interest in her as a person that rarely wanes – yet another reason why she has once more conquered the summit. This time she has come under scrutiny in her capacity as a stateswoman, a foreign-policy expert. What will she do if Germany’s objective increase of power is perceived as a threat? She has managed to make Germany’s dominance seem tolerable so far – but will it stay that way?

Under Merkel’s leadership, Germany has avoided debt and maintained a strong manufacturing and exporting sector.

Merkel’s political thinking is perhaps influenced by her years in chemistry and physics – before she became Germany’s chancellor, she was a researcher. Calm, rational investigation precede her decisions.

Inclined to reticence, her public pronouncements are rarely inflammatory.

Germany, then, has taken a leadership role in dealing both with global economic questions – the loan crisis of 2008 – and with European economic questions – the Greek debt crisis and the “Brexit” vote of 2016.

Islamic Lands Face the Problem of Succession

Disputes over succession have long troubled Islam. The very first such friction arose at the death of the prophet Mohammad: who should succeed him as leader, Ali or Abu-Bakr? The argument continues to this day.

The problem of succession has troubled many societies, from Rome and Greece to China and Cuba. When one leader dies, is there a clearly understood procedure for determining who should be the next leader?

Each civilization must confront this question. Some have answered it successfully. Other have failed.

For several generations, these succession disputes were solved by a policy imposed by Mehmed II in the mid-1400s. Michael Farquhar describes the Muslim’s solution to the riddle of “who should be the next ruler?”

Sultan Mehmed II, “the Conqueror,” devised a simple solution in the mid-15th century for the fierce sibling quarrels that had long plagued the succession to the Ottoman throne: fratricide. “And to whomsoever of my sons the Sultanate shall pass, it is fitting that for the order of the world he shall kill his brothers,” Mehmed II decreed (after having his own infant brother strangled). Nearly a century and a half later, the murderous policy had a particularly devastating effect on Mehmed III’s brothers — all 19 of them! — when he came to the throne on January 27, 1595. The young men, some of them still babies, were ritually strangled with a bowstring and then buried with all due solemnity in the same tomb as their recently deceased father.

This solution to the succession problem was, after more than a century, so thoroughly ingrained in Islamic lands that the British poet Alexander Pope, in giving advice to would-be ruler, wrote, “Bear, like the Turk, no brother near the throne.”