How Far Does Britain Go?

In the aftermath of the butchery of Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich, there is now a growing realisation that Islamic jihad is not going to go away, it is no mere crime wave, it is one step away from civil war. This, from The Telegraph on Saturday (hat-tip to Bharat-Vs-India @Vidursniti):

Woolwich attack: How far is Britain willing to go to prevent modern jihadis? The choice is not only how hard we fight to protect ourselves, but what we are prepared to sanction in order to pre-empt attack In Martin Amis's unfinished novella, The Unknown Known, the terrorist Ayed, plotting in a camp in Waziristan, describes the different sectors engaged in "Strategic Planning". In "Hut A", the jihadis dwell at the outer limits of potential horror and atrocity, borrowing Donald Rumsfeld's famous categorisation of knowledge to describe their grotesque inquiry: "The thinking, here, is pointed-end, cutting-edge. Synergy, maximalisation – these are the kind of concepts that are tossed from cushion to floor mat in Unknown Unknowns." They imagine spreading rabies in Central Park, or dynamiting the San Andreas Fault. In a flush of despicable ambition, it is decided that "we're going to scour all the prisons and madhouses for every compulsive rapist in the country, and then unleash them on Greeley, Colorado." For aficionados of jihadism, the fictional choice of target is instantly significant: it was in Greeley that Saayid Qutb, the Egyptian author of Milestones (1964), the Islamist equivalent of Mein Kampf, turned against America and the West. Concerned that the novella was a "hostage to fortune", Amis abandoned the enterprise. But it remains an intriguing cultural artefact, reflecting the (justified) fear after 9/11 that the 21st-century terrorist mind would devise ever more complex and ambitious plans to inflict harm on an ever-greater scale. What 9/11 did not prepare us for is a terrorism tactically capable of moving backwards as well as forwards. The global franchise known as al-Qaeda has suffered many setbacks since the Twin Towers collapsed into rubble amid Hadean clouds of dust and smoke. The theocratic sponsors of terror who rule in Tehran have not quite developed the nuclear weapons that could wipe out Israel. No matter. Those who fight under the jihadi banner – a digital community that stretches around the planet – are more than willing to pick up knives and meat cleavers and butcher a soldier near his barracks. David Cameron was informed of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby on Wednesday while he was on his way to dinner with François Hollande. Theresa May briefed him on the first Cobra meeting held in response to the attack, while regular updates were provided by Craig Oliver, his director of communications, and Chris Martin, the PM's principal private secretary. All were struck by the sheer barbarous simplicity of the killing, its brazen brutality. When it became clear that both of the suspects, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, had previously crossed MI5's radar, Cameron took the immediate decision to release that information, fending off the prospective charge of a cover-up by Downing Street or the security service itself. The necessary corollary was the PM's pep talk to MI5 to let its staff – and the rest of the world – know that they retained his complete confidence. As for the statement he delivered in Downing Street: we have grown used to Cameron stepping up to the plate on such occasions, and expressing national solidarity at moments of high emotion. Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday, the Algerian siege, the death of Margaret Thatcher… time and again, the PM has displayed a sureness of touch, neither hamming it up nor ignoring the passions and pains of the moment. "The people who did this were trying to divide us," he declared. "They should know something like this will only bring us closer together and make us stronger." It is easy to take Cameron's abilities in this respect for granted. But it is hard work getting the tone, content and delivery right. The speech, I am told, went through many drafts until the PM was satisfied. Naturally, and properly, the case will be fully investigated by the Security and Intelligence Committee. As the legal process churns into life, there are strict parameters to what can be said about the alleged killers. But some general observations can be made. The first is that the high-value target strategy – the capture or assassination of senior al‑Qaeda figures – has robbed the movement of hierarchy but not of purpose. Jihadism is now, literally, an app, a downloadable mindset that encourages self-starting, DIY terrorism of the most basic sort. Roshonara Choudhry, who stabbed the Labour MP, Stephen Timms, in his surgery in May 2010, had been radicalised by jihadi sermons on the web. To say that Islamist terrorism in 2013 is disaggregated is no more meaningful than saying that Nike or Apple is disaggregated. Globalisation has fostered the emergence of a supranational network, connected by hatred of American and Western "foreign policy", anti-Semitism and a longing to enforce Sharia and restore the Caliphate. As I have written before, the network plots globally and kills locally. It is active in Mali, Algeria, Yemen, Egypt and anywhere else that has Wi-Fi. And last Wednesday it was active in Woolwich. For agencies such as MI5, complex plots are often easier to intercept than simpler acts of murderous hatred. The longer there is between the decision to act and the act itself, the better for those charged with maintaining national security. What period of time separates the decision to butcher a soldier in the street with meat cleavers, and the murder itself? In recent months, three separate plots detected and thwarted by the security services have gone to trial – a fact worth remembering amid all the finger-pointing this weekend. A consistent feature of modern jihadism has also been the versatility of its adherents. The Madrid bombers were book-keepers who wanted to extend their range. Mohammed Sidique Khan, the mastermind of the 7/7 bombers, had been known to MI5, but in a much less prominent role. Paramilitary organisations are based upon rank, roles in the hierarchy fought for and respected; religious fanaticism is a grotesque quest for spiritual elevation, in which the true believer is always seeking to stretch himself and leap to martyrdom or targeted murder. Today's demonstrator and trouble-causer is tomorrow's street‑butcher. National security, like politics, is the art of the possible. The number of people who might, conceivably, move from agitation to acts of violence is very high – far beyond the surveillance capabilities of a normal police service and domestic intelligence agency. Those who are psychiatrically deranged can be sequestered on precisely those grounds. The law allows detention without charge for a strictly limited number of days. There are other constraints that can be imposed upon terror suspects. But all attempts to strengthen these measures are ferociously opposed on the grounds that they infringe civil liberties – witness Nick Clegg's hostility to government plans to extend monitoring of emails and internet use. Witness, too, the by-election forced by David Davis when he resigned his seat over Labour's proposal to extend the maximum period of detention without charge. "When you think about human society in a certain way – i.e., with the sole objective of hurting it – the entire planet resembles a pulsing bullseye." So says Amis's narrator, and it is true. The choice is not only how hard we fight to protect ourselves, but how far we are willing to go to pre-empt attack. Each society makes such a choice, but must keep it under constant review. It is to defend that unending debate against the psychosis of certainty that brave men like Drummer Rigby put their lives on the line every day.

This is a very encouraging article, firstly, in describing 'Milestones' as the Mein Kampf of the Islamist movement, there is the implicit equating of Islamism with Nazism (it is only a short step to then realising that Islamism is merely practical Islam.)

Secondly, however much it praises Cameron's handling of the media situation, it gainsays his rather transparent proclamations that the Woolwich savagery had nothing to do with Islam. In fact, Mr d'Ancona explicitly says that the purpose of the violence is to impose shari'ah law & revive the Caliphate.

Thirdly, there is the implicit acknowledgement of a phenomenon that has already been given a name across the Atlantic: Sudden Jihad Syndrome. The analysis that previously innocuous (ish) individuals can flare up & wreak havoc upon the civilised people around them has been bourn out by horrendous events, both here, & around the world.

Fourthly, & finally, the is the acknowledgement that our security services are going to run out of personnel long before the Muslim community run out of jihadis, prompting the question: 'What next?' Psychosis & its method of containment are mentioned, but rejected as a model for containment.

What I can see coming next is a continuation of the practice of withdrawing British citizenship from people who attend jihadist training camps. Michael Adebolajo could have been prevented from re-entering the UK via this measure after ha was deported from Kenya.

Then, as a result of the recognition that jihadist violence is an unavoidable product of having a sizeable Muslim community in the country, a critical mass so to speak, a total moratorium on Islamic immigration, including the so-called 'fetching marriage' that was illegal in this country until 1997 & has become illegal in Denmark recently.

After that, the withdrawal of state benefits from people who are fit to work but spend their time on 'political activity'.

As the crisis eventually exacerbates, the suspension of habeus corpus, by which the authorities can detain individuals found to be viewing such jihadists content over the web. We do not need a new law to allow internet interceptions, I would hope that any secret security service worth its salt would be doing this right now, regardless of what the law said.

As it becomes clear that the police cannot protect the public, then a relaxation of the firearms legislation so hastily & unnecessarily introduced after Hungerford & Dunblane would be in order, so at least the public can defend themselves. This may sound extreme in a British context but the Americans have been having this debate for decades.

Finally, the imposition of martial law in Muslim dominated areas. Implicit in this would be the official acknowledgement of Islam as a totalitarian doctrine, like fascism & communism. Also implicit in this would be the removal, by means yet devised, of the fanatics who keep the secularist, apathetic Muslims in line, thus allowing them to apostatise.

That is my optimistic foretelling of events in the next decade. My pessimistic foretelling has been played out in Bosnia.