Since March, five terrorists have killed 34 innocents and wounded many more in three attacks on U.K. soil. Five attacks have also been prevented in the same period.
This speaks to something.
While more people, 52, were killed in the July 7, 2005, London metro attacks, the present threat is more alarming, because it is altering the behavior of the British people.
My mother attests to this. A longtime resident of the city, earlier today, she attended a friend’s birthday lunch in central London. She told me that the area is “normally very busy, but only a handful of people are out today.” Speaking to her and to other Britons, it’s clear to me that the succession of recent attacks has frayed the public’s confidence. Even in the worst days of Britain’s so-called “troubles” with the separatist Irish Republican Army group, there was always a sense that the threat had limits. Put simply, that the IRA sought to maximize public attention rather than civilian casualties. And that some targets: children, Americans (for fundraising reasons) and crowded events were off-limits. The Islamic State and al Qaeda Salafi-jihadists who dominate the current attack matrix are a different breed. While their agenda is far broader (global theocratic domination), their strategy is far simpler.
They seek to spill as much blood as possible. Moreover, each successful attack inspires new ones. The threat is self-replicating.
The British government realizes this and it is deeply concerned. It wants to avoid Britain’s decline into a despondency like that of Brussels. In that city, the terrorist threat now qualifies the pursuit of happiness to fear. To prevent that same reality, British Prime Minister Theresa May today promised “four important” changes to British counter-terrorism strategy.
First, she called for British unity. But this wasn’t just rhetoric. It was a clear repudiation to multiculturalism absent binding patriotism. And it was long overdue. As I’ve noted, the reason American Muslims are far less likely to engage in terrorism than European Muslims is quite simple. American Muslims are far better integrated and afforded more opportunities than their European counterparts.
Second, May promised a crackdown on social media companies that allow extremist material to be posted online. Because most of these companies are U.S. operated, May will struggle to get formal changes. That said, I wouldn’t rule out Government Communications Headquarters (Britain’s National Security Agency) employing covert action to shutdown terrorist sympathizer accounts.
Third, May highlighted the expedient need to destroy ISIS and counter its propagandists. This is the most important element towards reducing the terrorist threat. Until the ISIS banner is discredited in the minds of extremists and losers like Orlando gunman Omar Mateen, it will keep drawing recruits. On counter-propaganda efforts, May implied the U.K. will prosecute more extremist imams. Fourth, saying “enough is enough,” May hinted at new counter-terrorism legislation. She suggested this might include increased prison sentences for those who share terrorist propaganda. I also suspect the U.K. will strengthen Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act notices that restrict terrorist suspect movements.
Regardless, it’s clear last night has altered Britain’s strategic calculus. Theresa May will win big in Thursday’s general election (her opponent is a clown, especially on national security). She will then move quickly to empower British security services to confront terrorist plots. But May should be careful. The triumph of democratic patriotism is as important as the law enforcement and military dimensions of effective counter-terrorism. Ultimately, restricting free speech only feeds narratives of resentment and resistance.
Countering terrorism requires arresting and killing terrorists. But it also requires wining hearts and minds.
