Skip to main content
Support
Article

Charlie Hebdo and the Long War Against Extremism

Aaron David Miller image

"The attack on Charlie Hebdo is another confirmation of a long war. And, like the Cold War was to the 20th century, that struggle is likely to be a defining feature of the 21st," writes Aaron David Miller.

Mark Twain observed that history doesn’t repeat so much as it rhymes. And there are some rhythmic patterns worth noting in light of the attack in Paris.

This wasn’t really a game-changer. Is it really a surprise that al-Qaeda in Yemen reportedly trained and directed one of the gunmen who stormed the offices of Charlie Hebdo? We’ve been predicting such an occurrence and living on borrowed time for quite a while. It’s stunning that there hasn’t been a successful major foreign-planned or -directed attack in the U.S. since 2001 or in Europe since the 2005 bombings in Britain. It would be nice to imagine that the Paris attacks will somehow spur the West to collective action and ingenious strategy to address the challenge of Islamic extremism. But that’s not realistic. In this modern era, national moments of tragedy and trauma seem to bind temporarily, then dissipate without leaving much in the way of remedy. Consider: Newtown, Ferguson. Sometimes, as with 9/11, our responses worsen the problem they were meant to address.

This is a generational struggle. By now we should have realized that the “war on terror” (that’s what it is practiced principally, but not exclusively, by Muslim extremists) will be with us for years to come. The source of the problem is a broken, angry, dysfunctional Middle East that shows little sign of healing itself, let alone being healed by others. The triumphalism and exclusivity of a violent Islamic extremism, the absence of functional Arab states where good governance prevails, rage against the West, and the West’s own policies swirl in a perfect storm that will inspire attacks for years to come. Maybe, if the Middle East can be transformed into societies where freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, tolerance, economic prosperity, and respect for human rights prevail, and the West’s profile there is reduced, maybe then the terrorism will stop. But whatever we do to assist in achieving these goals, we can have no illusions. There is no “ultimately defeating” or winning wars against ISIS or al-Qaeda; we can hope only to prevent attacks and win individual battles.

For Europeans, the biggest consequence of the Paris attacks will be internal. Unlike 9/11, these murders won’t launch a thousand ships. But they will help another gathering storm gain momentum: There is a real danger that latent anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe, combined with growing nativist, anti-immigration sentiment; the economic downturn; and jihadis’ efforts to play on Muslims’ alienation whirl in a self-reinforcing cycle. Any backlash against Muslim minorities is likely to make these populations more vulnerable to jihadi persuasions. And the more frequent the attacks, the more likely it is that events can spin out of control. It’s a witches brew likely to empower the European right and radicalize Muslims–not only in France, where there are 6 million Muslims, but also in Sweden, Britain and Germany. Anger, fear, and apprehension affect everyone, creating more polarization and division. States, Muslim, and non-Muslim communities will have to make a real effort not to overreact to anger in the moment.

Attacks by extremist Muslims, whether inspired or directed, are part of a decades-old pattern that shows no signs of abating. The Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, and attacks on Danish embassies in 2007 are all part of the story. If anything, the rise of ISIS and its recruitment successes suggest that intolerance and hatred of Western values and culture are growing. Modernity almost demands a willingness to be offended. Yet among a disturbingly large minority of  Muslims, there is no tolerance, let alone respect, for this idea. And among far too many mainstream Muslims and Middle Eastern governments there is far too great a willingness not to speak out, let alone act, against extremists. Pew Research Center rates countries on the level of restrictions governments impose on the free exercise of religion. Of the 24 most restrictive countries, 19 are majority Muslim. Of the 21 countries that have laws against apostasy, all have Muslim majorities.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo is another confirmation of a long war. And, like the Cold War was to the 20th century, that struggle is likely to be a defining feature of the 21st.

The opinions expressed here are soley those of the author.

This article was originally published in The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire.

About the Author

Aaron David Miller image

Aaron David Miller

Global Fellow
Read More

Global Europe Program

The Global Europe Program addresses vital issues affecting the European continent, US-European relations, and Europe’s ties with the rest of the world. We investigate European approaches to critical global issues: digital transformation, climate, migration, global governance. We also examine Europe’s relations with Russia and Eurasia, China and the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East and Africa. Our program activities cover a wide range of topics, from the role of NATO, the European Union and the OSCE to European energy security, trade disputes, challenges to democracy, and counter-terrorism. The Global Europe Program’s staff, scholars-in-residence, and Global Fellows participate in seminars, policy study groups, and international conferences to provide analytical recommendations to policy makers and the media.  Read more

Middle East Program

The Wilson Center’s Middle East Program serves as a crucial resource for the policymaking community and beyond, providing analyses and research that helps inform U.S. foreign policymaking, stimulates public debate, and expands knowledge about issues in the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.  Read more