Unlikely Lessons from a Counterterrorism Conference

I spent last week in Tel Aviv attending a counterterrorism conference. I don't know much about counterterrorism, but when a fellow military scholar living in Israel told me about the conference, I decided it would be a good opportunity to broaden my education and gain some Israeli perspective. The conference was indeed educational, but not in the ways I expected. I learned more by seeing who participated in the conference and how they thought than from the actual lectures (which I mostly found disappointing).

First, I was shocked how many participants spoke a language I thought was extinct. I repeatedly heard the phrase "War on Terror", which I thought eight years of experience had discredited. The only place I see "GWOT" anymore is in Officer Performance Reports and awards packages, where the military's fondness for cliches and propaganda shines at its brightest. These are not mere words; they represent an entire model for understanding terrorism's nature, its causes, and how to combat it. Many speakers painted the War on Terror in broad black-and-white strokes, pitting the West against a faceless, undifferentiated Muslim enemy that encompasses such varied actors as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and Muslim immigrants to Europe. If eight years of trying to fight terrorism have taught us anything, it's that there is no monolithic enemy. Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a tool--a tool which a diverse collection of actors utilize to pursue their interests. We certainly must fight those who employ terror against our people, but if we get the basic model wrong--if we ignore vital differentiations and try to fight a monolithic enemy--we will fail. I take this understanding for granted in the US military now. We got past the sloppy language of fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Iraq years ago; now we understand these countries are home to a variety of factions willing to employ violence to achieve their interests. I expected to encounter differences in the counterterrorism field, but I was genuinely surprised to hear so much language that I thought was gone forever.

Second, I was surprised by the almost universal assumption that terrorism is motivated primarily by religion and culture (particularly Islam and Arabic/Islamic culture). Politics rarely entered the lectures. I jotted down one quote as an example: "I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about terror." Terrorism is absolutely connected to Islamic extremism, and political correctness often prevents us from having necessary discussions about the relationship between Islam and terror. But it is highly debatable whether modern terror is motivated primarily by religion or by politics. One of the better speakers suggested differentiating between root causes (Islamic extremism) and instrumental causes (various political grievances), but even that model is debatable. If I understand The Accidental Guerrilla right, Kilcullen seems to be arguing almost the opposite: that local conflicts are the root cause, but global jihadist groups are very adept at exploiting them to serve their ends. I heard a lot at the conference about "global jihad" and how the terrorists hate us because of our way of life, but once again, this is language I thought we'd left behind. I'm no expert, but I think it would be hard to make the case that Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian government are more interested in global jihad than they are in practical political concerns. However, I could be wrong. I took this as a good opportunity to have my own biases exposed, and have fresh motivation to do more research in the coming months.

Third, and related, I was surprised how little attention the conference gave to addressing root causes. It seems intuitive to me that combating terrorism requires a multidimensional strategy. At the most superficial level, you need counterterrorism and intelligence experts to monitor, infiltrate, and break up terrorist organizations. You need to foil terror plots, shut off financial flows, arrest some terrorists, and kill others. But at the same time you need to address political, economic, and social factors that breed new terrorists. Admittedly, that's easier said than done, but if we can't figure out this piece, the world will create terrorists faster than we can kill them. I heard a lot about Palestinian suicide bombers, Hamas rockets, and the effectiveness of the security fence, but I didn't hear the word "settlement" a single time. I'm not saying all of Israel's problems are self-imposed (they aren't) but you can't have a comprehensive discussion about fighting terrorism in Israel unless you're willing to ask some hard questions about Israel's political and strategic vision for its future. The US needs to ask the same types of questions about its role and capabilities in the world (thank you Andrew Bacevich, among others). We have to remember that war serves political goals; it is not an end in itself. That's why this quote from a panelist on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes the prize for saying the scariest thing I heard all week: "We have tactics, intelligence, etc. We need just one more thing... what's the goal?"

Fourth, it was interesting to see who participated. I have no idea if this particular conference reflects the counterterrorism field in general, but I suspect the trends are similar. Almost everybody was white. I don't believe a single Arab or Muslim was included among the lecturers or panelists. In fact, I didn't see a single Arab attendee either. Some panels (such as a panel to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) were entirely Israeli. Several politicians showed up to give speeches showing their commitment to fighting terror, supporting Israel, and standing against Iran. During social functions I met a number of what I call "concerned private citizens" who attended. One man runs a private website about global jihad. One firebrand of a woman was lobbying all the US military officers present, trying to convince us that Israel's and the US's strategic interests are one and the same, that Israel is the best ally the US has ever had, and that Israel needs to be accepted into NATO. She also explained to me that I need to be extremely careful in Jordan because its full of terrorists (no, she hasn't been there). When I used the words "West Bank", she stopped me and demanded I say "Judea and Samaria" instead (I didn't). During one panel someone in the audience asked about the potential dangers in having such a narrow, self-selecting group at the conference. The moderator brushed off the question and moved on.

The conference had its good aspects. I am happy that I attended with three other US military officers, because every lecture and panel sparked fascinating conversations and debates. Lunch hours were fantastic. A few of the lectures were excellent and forced me to see issues in new and different ways. Even if I didn't always agree with the presenters, their disregard for political correctness opened up some debates. I also learned a great deal about how Israelis understand terrorism and regional issues. That is exactly the kind of education I want while living in this region... not just to understand the issues, but to learn how Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians understand the issues.