In the wake of the terrorist attempts in London and Glasgow, Ed Husain argues that relying exclusively on the police and security services in fighting Islamist terrorism is a weakness. Where should the emphasis rather be put? On confronting the ideology:
Islamist calls for the annihilation of Israel, overthrow of all Arab leaders, and changes in western culture cannot, and should not, be met.He concludes:The tone of British Muslim communal discourse in relation to national security and terrorism is worrying. Among young Muslims, there is a widespread Islamism-influenced belief in a bipolar world: a lethal them-and-us mentality. The police and intelligence services belong firmly to the "them" side of the divide. As do clubbers, Jews, gay people, Christians, atheists and even moderate Muslims who reject the extremists' war call.
Tackling extremist ideas, the motivation for violence, is more important than relying on the police.Note the difference between his version of tackling extremist ideas and that other familiar one: 'understanding' the grievances that are the supposed source of such ideas, having no interest in them except as effects of these grievances, seeing a concern to oppose such ideas as 'Islamophobia', seeing an emphasis on other democratic and Enlightenment ideas as... 'Islamophobia', and so forth.
See also Marcus's post at Harry's Place, linking to a piece by Hassan Butt. Butt says:
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.See also this from Tony Blair:
The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd..."