Why do we keep giving terrorists what they want?
FIRST question: what do terrorists want? Answer: they want massive publicity for their every outrage, followed by politicians and others generating hysteria, fear and repression.
The UK response to the Tunisian massacre from David Cameron, his government and the media has granted that wish.
The second question is whether granting that wish might still be worth it to secure eventual victory over terror?
There is little that any open society can do against the random killer. Police can be armed to the teeth. VIPs can travel in armoured cars. Concrete walls can be put up round official buildings. Train travellers can be told at every station to “report anything suspicious to the police”.
Britain can be reduced to gibbering paranoia, and still the gunman and the bomber will get through.
Yet we feel obliged as if by some primal urge to “do something” in response to any outrage, rather than just show dignified sympathy for the dead.
Prime minister, home secretary, headline writer and broadcaster alike scour the lexicon of damnation. The terrorist is not bad but “evil”, “vile”, “poisonous”, “monstrous” and “inhuman”.
Cameron, master of hyperbolic cliche, demands a “full-spectrum response” to a “generational struggle” against an “existential threat”. This is pure Blairism. Can he not hear terror’s apologists cheering him on?
So where are the solutions to which this hysteria is meant to lead?
We are told yet again that we must tackle terrorism at its source so as to “drain the swamp of crocodiles”. Schools yet again are ordered to “counter extremism”.
London’s police yet again promise an “SAS-style unit” to meet Tunisia-type situations. On the 10th anniversary of 7/7 they promise yet again to “be ready for an attack”. But we all know that nothing can stop a gunman running amok in London, so why give the idea such currency?
There is a clear danger in hyping events that should be sensibly seen for what they are: random individualised crimes. Doing so glamourises them and makes them ever more appealing to any misfit and incipient psychopath alienated by family or local community.
Couching them in the language of national security only adds to that appeal. It fosters the psychosis it hopes to suppress.
When the politics of fear is used blatantly to add to the armoury of the state – as it has been by governments of both parties – it further weakens the supremacy of democratic values.
It is this statist psychology that drove Tony Blair to war against the Islamist world and a prime cause of the terrorist upsurge we now face. — (c) Guardian News & Media Ltd, 2015