The Tribune

Britain is taking a lead in the fight against terrorism while America’s president refuses to denounce the radical Islamic threat, says Peter Young.

To many, both in the United States and around the world, President Obama’s refusal to denounce the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s (ISIS) murderous campaign as radical Islamic terrorism is inexplicable.

In the face of what the United Nations Security Council terms a global and unprecedented threat, they also find it hard to understand his remarks shortly before the Paris attacks that ISIS (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL) had been largely contained within Syria when the facts indicated otherwise.

The US leader’s stance was supported by the Democratic presidential candidates in their latest debate, when they were at pains to avoid admitting any link between ISIS’ atrocities and Islam.

The president’s and their aim is surely to avoid alienating potential Muslim allies, and apologists point to former president George W Bush’s similar position at the time of the invasion of Iraq, when he went out of his way to remind the world that the West was not waging war on Islam.

Then, however, the circumstances were substantially different in so far as the specific and single aim of the US and its allies was to remove Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq.

Now, the West is faced with a ruthless and violent organisation which calls itself an Islamic state and which wants, through a global jihad, to impose by force a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.

In its pursuit of this patently unrealistic objective, ISIS has embarked on a path of murder and destruction directed against unbelievers or infidels and anyone else who does not share its warped ideology. Its actions are designed to create maximum widespread chaos and mayhem both in Syria and Iraq and also in Europe – particularly with its latest atrocity in Paris and the Charlie Hebdo attacks there last January. What is more, as well as the deadly assault on a hotel in Mali, ISIS has reacted separately to Russia’s intervention in Syria by bringing down one of its airliners over Egypt – and now, it has begun taunting the US directly with threats of terror on the streets of its major cities.

It is clear that the jihadists responsible for this violence have acted in the name of their perverted interpretation of Islam, invariably shouting out Islamic slogans like Allahu Akbar – God is (the) Greatest, the opening declaration of Muslim prayers.

It now seems that most of those involved in gunning down innocents on the streets of Paris were European nationals amongst ISIS so-called sleeper cells in Belgium, which has become a breeding ground for radicalisation of young Muslim men. Similarly, those responsible for the London bombings in 2005 were found to be home-grown British citizens apparently living peacefully in their communities.

While Belgium has been in lockdown in the face of reportedly credible evidence of imminent further violence, counter terrorism measures have been beefed up there and in other European countries, whose citizens face restrictions on free movement and on their lives more generally.

To that extent, ISIS has already succeeded, though it has become clear that the people of Paris, Brussels and London, when faced with a choice between civil liberties and personal safety, will opt for the latter – even if that means increased surveillance in the name of security. No serious observer contends that the West is at war with Islam itself. But, in order to devise a strategy to defeat and destroy ISIS, it is necessary to tell it how it is; namely, to recognise that the extremists under the banner of ISIS, who are intent on spreading fear and disruption through violent jihadism, are self-identifying Muslims spouting a tarnished narrative that claims to be based on their faith.

But they do not reflect the real Islam, which is a religion of peace.

To public acclaim, British Prime Minister David Cameron has spoken out strongly against terrorism with impressive determination and cool judgment, notably at the annual Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London earlier this month.

Stressing that the terrorists’ twisted ideology was not true Islam, he stated that it was not good enough simply to talk about the peaceful religion of Islam and deny any link between it and the extremists who proclaim they are Muslims.

Such denial, he said, was not only ill-informed and in contradiction of the facts, but it also served to disempower the critical reforming voices within the Muslim community in Britain that want to challenge the scriptural basis on which extremists claim to be acting.

He has also said separately that, while ISIS had to be destroyed on the ground in Syria and Iraq through bombing, a “full spectrum response” was necessary.

Thus, Britain could not stand neutral in the battle of ideas and the root causes of the long-term terrorist threat had to be addressed. So, he looked to reforming and moderate Muslim voices to speak up and challenge the poisonous ideology of extremism which glorifies violence and subjugates non-believers, not least other Muslims.

Mr Cameron pledged that his government would back Muslims who supported the UK’s liberal values “with practical help, with funding campaigns, protection and political negotiation” together with measures to improve integration – for example, no segregation of schools. In addition, there should be a review of the application of Sharia Law in the country and a ban on extremist organisations together with a study of ways of reducing those political, economic and social grievances exploited by ISIS recruiters (as well as the pressures and enticements they brought to bear) in order to radicalise young Muslims and set them on a path towards extremism.

Following the attacks in Paris, more than 400 British Muslim organisations published joint advertisements in national newspapers denouncing ISIS, its identity, intentions and actions. So, already, that is a step in the right direction.

In Europe, concern has been expressed about the perceived lack of US leadership; mainly a refusal to admit the connection with Islam, but also, in the view of critics, the absence of a proper strategy to combat the scourge of terrorism despite the president’s strong words in describing ISIS as a barbaric terror group which must be degraded and destroyed.

By comparison, Mr Cameron has grasped the nettle vigorously. He has gone out of his way to reaffirm that his government’s first duty is to keep the British people safe.

As well as setting in train a programme of measures at home, he has now put forward in Parliament a strong case for extending to Syria Britain’s existing bombing campaign in Iraq. He has claimed that such military action is essential in order to defeat ISIS on its own territory. But the planned action at the domestic level – the battle for hearts and minds – is equally important, since the figures show that about half of the 700 British nationals who have gone to Syria to fight have returned home and may still be committed to ISIS.

Surely, the most effective way of preventing radicalisation of young men is for mainstream moderate Muslims to try to convince them that Islam need not lead to totalitarianism and fundamentalism and that they should air their grievances with those who might be able to help resolve them. Furthermore, those living in Britain should be encouraged to recognise the benefits to themselves of the nation’s values of individual liberty, tolerance, multi-party democracy and the rule of law.

The same should apply in other Western countries. But first you have to identify and admit the nature and root cause of the problem.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in Nassau. From 1996 to 2000 he was British High Commissioner to The Bahamas.