Many critics, including some of my Harvard colleagues, have pointed out the hypocritical and McCarthy-ite nature of Rep. Peter King‘s recent hearings on radicalization within the American Islamic community. Mr. King has decided to jump on the bandwagon by joining in the increasingly common practice of alerting Americans to the newly-discovered threat of “homegrown terrorism.”
But surely subjecting an entire minority group of Americans to a test of their loyalties and publicly reducing a Muslim congressman to tears requires a serious justification. To his credit, Rep. King admits as much, defending the hearings by appealing to his desire to stop further terrorist attacks upon Americans.
But Rep. King must first stop and examine whether his assumptions about homegrown terrorism and radicalization – that it arises spontaneously from a hijacking of religious fervor in the Islamic community – actually stand up to scrutiny. What were he to do if, say, the hearings and the public outcry that followed in their wake only serve to further embolden or encourage homegrown terrorism?
This theory is not outlandish: it coincides rather well with what we know about the causes of most acts of modern fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Terrorists of all stripes, from Faisal Shahzad (the “Times Square Bomber”), to Nidal Malik Hasan (the suspect in the Fort Hood Shooting), to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the current suspect in the “Underwear Bomber” plot), to American-born Anwar al-Awlaki (a man who inspired these and other men), to Osama bin Laden himself, all certainly invoke the language of radicalized Islam in their writings and statements; they justify their crimes and just actions in a holy war against “aggressors” and “crusaders.”
But that is precisely the point. Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and their followers derive their motivations not solely or principally from Islam itself, but rather from resentment towards actions and interventions of the United States in the Middle East and the Islamic world. Their grievances lie not first and foremost with institutions of democracy and Western tolerance, but rather with what they perceive as antagonism and aggression by the United States with the internal affairs of the Islamic world.
Therefore, Mr. King must ask himself what the marginal and immediate effect of these hearings will be. Publicly humiliating a sizeable minority of the population by questioning their loyalty to the United States will only serve to further reinforce in the minds of Muslims the thesis of Osama bin Laden and his allies: that the United States has a problem with Islam. This negative perception will only lead to further radicalization. It is, after all this conviction which has motivated most acts of radical Islamic terror against Americans.
In this sense, the ultimate effect of the hearings simply contributes to motivating the sort of violence that followed the recent Koran burning in Florida. Actions like these give radicals such as Osama bin Laden the pretense to point to aggression against Islam as the casus belli for jihad.
To be sure, claiming that political motivations underlie all modern terrorist attacks would constitute an oversimplification of the issue, but it does not change the fact that, on the net, such aggressive and confrontational measures on the part of Peter King will do little to win the hearts and minds of uneasy American Muslims, and will likely only exacerbate the very problem he intends them to solve. This is not an issue of “political correctness,” as Rep. King claims. He has a point: debate on national security is too important to be impeded by concerns about merely offending the sentiments of some. But this is not the issue. The question at stake consists of the level-headed investigation into what actually causes the radicalization of American and Western citizens.
It is most telling, furthermore, that the reasons Rep. King invoked in defense of his support for the Irish Republican Army – that “the IRA’s violence is only a reaction to violence started by the British government” – are the very same reasons invoked by the radical Islamic terrorists whom he (rightly) condemns. Surely, then, it is not too much of a stretch to suppose that Rep. King possesses the requisite experience and knowledge to come to terms with the real causes behind the rise of domestic radicalization. Currently, his shameless histrionics will accomplish nothing, or worse. Until Peter King understands the full effects of his hearings, he only further endangers the lives and security of the people he promises to protect.
Photo credit: New York Times
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.