Just bought, and been skim reading, Marc Sageman’s book, Leaderless Jihad.
Scanned his speculations on why there have been more Muslim terrorist attacks in Europe than in the US since 9/11 [Chapter Five - The Atlantic Divide]. (He has a real down on ‘Old Europe’!).
In brief: the US is a warm and lovely melting pot of racial and religious tolerance [try telling that to the Sikhs and other non-Muslim minorities attacked after 9/11…]. And: Old Europe is a hotbed of nastiness, and intolerant majority communities who don’t understand how to deal with their immigrants. (I’m paraphrasing of course - but only very slightly).
Hmm. I tend to believe in simple explanations being the most likely (see the wonderful Freakonomics for examples).
Look at the history: why do Algerians go to Paris, Indonesians to Amsterdam, Africans from Mozambique and Angola to Lisbon and Sub-continental Asians – and many, many others - to London ?
Because of the old colonial ties of course. Those cities ruled their countries, often for many generations, so there was – and to large extent still is – a very strong pull, both emotional and practical (e.g. language). And for London in particular, for hundreds of years a centre of global power, it is still seen as the closest thing the planet has to a true, cosmopolitan, world capital.
It would also be unsurprising if the immigrants’ relationship to their destination country has an element of duality about it – after all, those cities ruled their home countries. That shared, complex, history is bound to produce rubbing points over those durations and those type of relationships. A chip on the shoulder is eminently understandable. (and don’t kids always find fault with their parents?)
Therefore, over several generations or more, immigrants have made their way to Europe: for education, for employment, for the whole panoply of human motivations - following family, following the last successful émigré from their village or town, following a dream. In many cases they came – and still do – for temporary periods, to gain qualifications or experience that they could not (or cannot) get back home.
The result of these longer term well-worn immigration paths has been traditional, ethnically or religiously homogenous communities, in these and other cities across some of the European states. In some cases, perhaps too traditional communities. European police officers and diplomats visiting the countries of origin have observed that communities in their countries are sometimes ‘living in the past’, with community elders setting standards from the times of their own arrival in the new country, often way back in the '40s, ‘50s and ‘60s. Those standards are sometimes stricter than their old communities, back in the home country - who have themselves - politically, ethically, socially - moved on since then.
Now let’s look at Muslim immigration to the US. Why do people with no obvious historical emotional or other ties, such as those above, choose to head for a completely new life in a very different, major Western country ?
The answer, I suggest, is very similar to that to the excellent chat show question, “So, what first attracted you to the millionaire [Hugh Hefner/Paul Daniels/as appropriate]?”.
Money. Plain and simple, to get to the much-hyped ‘land of opportunity’, to make cash for you and your family. Not that there’s anything at all wrong with that.
So, on the one hand, we see traditional Muslim communities embedded - and not always happily so - within Western countries that have had a difficult historical relationship with their countries of origin . And, on the other hand, Muslims who - just perhaps - put Mammon first in their lives, and need to integrate, because there isn’t an existing community of their people to be absorbed into, and what there is, is spread more thinly amongst America’s multicultural melting pot.
Now, which of those groups seems most likely to you, to spawn disaffected individuals prepared to attack the capitalist, imperialist Western beast in the land in which they now live?
Exactly. So, not really much of a surprise there at all. It was inevitable there would be more homegrown jihadists in Europe.
And no need for the long-winded (and oddly bitter) explanations propounded by Mr S.
I do hope the rest of his book is better thought through.
(and will doubtless post here if it isn't :-)
