Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Former jihadis hold key to defeating Islamic State

Over the past three days, politicians of all kinds, soldiers, counterterrorism experts, eyewitnesses and members of the public have all pitched in to discuss what happened in Paris, and why.

A screenshot showing Islamic State militants at an undisclosed location. Whatever French policies towards the Islamic State may be, they are not enough to explain why many of its citizens or residents have gone to Syria to join the group. Photo: Reuters

A screenshot showing Islamic State militants at an undisclosed location. Whatever French policies towards the Islamic State may be, they are not enough to explain why many of its citizens or residents have gone to Syria to join the group. Photo: Reuters

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

Over the past three days, politicians of all kinds, soldiers, counterterrorism experts, eyewitnesses and members of the public have all pitched in to discuss what happened in Paris, and why.

French President Francois Hollande has called it an “act of war”, and Parisians have talked of leaving town. The tricolore appears everywhere as a token of global solidarity with the victims, and there has been an outpouring of grief, outrage and sympathy. But even if we are beginning to come to terms with what happened, understanding why it did will prove far harder.

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility, and its involvement seems clear. People have asked if this represents a change of focus for the terrorist group, from state-building in Iraq and Syria to a brutal campaign of global terrorism.

Inevitably, they have speculated that France’s aggressive counterterrorism policies — not just in Syria but also in Mali and at home — its unflinching commitment to free speech and its determined secularism have made it a particular target. Islamic State propaganda has denounced France more vigorously than any other European country.

But whatever French policies towards the Islamic State may be, they are not enough to explain why between 1,500 and 2,000 of its citizens or residents have gone to Syria to join the terrorist group — more than from any other non-Arab country.

According to official estimates, around 600 are still fighting there, many have died, and most of the rest have returned home. The challenge for the French authorities is to decide which of these returnees present the most immediate threat, and whether they present a greater threat than the other 2,000 to 3,000 individuals who have come to official attention in relation to terrorism. If the Islamic State tries to mobilise these returnees, resources in France will be stretched even thinner.

The same situation faces many countries in Europe and other parts of the world. In Britain, almost half of the estimated 760 people who are believed to have gone to Syria are thought to have returned, and the authorities speak of a total of 2,000 people who could present a threat.

In Belgium, about a third of the 300-plus people who joined extremist groups in the Middle East have headed homewards. In Denmark, half of the 125 who went have now come home; in Austria about 70 of the 250 to 300 are back, and in Germany it is more than 200.

These figures are unmanageable from a security point of view, and although many attacks have been thwarted, some plots will succeed. So policymakers need to get as far upstream of the radicalisation process as possible, in order to spot risks at the earliest stages. But the policy can get confused when instructions to schools and community leaders make every angst-ridden teenager a subject of terrorist concern.

I have attended two global summits and many conferences and workshops on countering violent extremism this year, at which experts and world leaders opined. But I have never heard anything that suggests we are close to solving this. But how can we begin to understand, let alone dissuade, a tiny minority of society that seeks to die for a cause so unworthy of their sacrifice? We are becoming familiar with the arguments of alienation, powerlessness and lack of purpose that drive people towards them. But thankfully the brutal reality of Islamic State membership — its squalor, inadequacy and ultimate failure — is also increasingly becoming apparent.

In the wake of Paris, it has become all the more important to determine which returnees present a risk and which do not. This is not only so that authorities can focus scarce resources where they are most needed. It also allows us to identify and seek the help of those that do not present a risk.

Many argue that anyone who went to Syria deserves no understanding or mercy on their return; but some of them know that they have made a mistake. They will help us cut the flow of fighters to Syria by helping us understand why they go, why they stay and why they come back.

It is these same people who can be more powerful influences than any other on those who may be inclined to join or act on behalf of the Islamic State. Often, they have tried it and seen that it does not work. They have the credibility and understanding that the rest of us lack. They hold the key to victory. THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Richard Barrett was director of global counter-terrorism operations for MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service. He is now based with the Soufan Group consultancy in New York

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.